You think it's a good idea because you agree with it in this instance. But what happens when whoever is in power does the same thing with something you don't want it to happen with?
hahah this is exactly how I feel about any major news outlet. Deplatforming Jones is sort of par for the course. If he exists on these sites or doesn't, people still feel the need to debate his validity. It's bizarre, but as kedawa mentioned, people on /r/atheism spend all day debating why televangelists are morons. But since we currently exist in a capitalist system, and since major players in this market determined that Jones was unsuitable for it, I am choosing to believe that it was a decision that has a purpose and we're all probably better off for it. There's a lot of criticisms of capitalism but honestly this isn't one - I think this will phase him out to a certain degree. There will always be the McVeighs and the like, but tbh those people are going to latch onto fringe movements regardless. BUT I don't think that means we have to take a hands off approach and say "well, it can't be helped, there will always be nuts so just let everyone broadcast whatever."
Idk. I'm kind of torn. I think it was a good move by the companies but I also think some of these enormous websites need to be nationalized.
You think it's a good idea because you agree with it in this instance. But what happens when whoever is in power does the same thing with something you don't want it to happen with?
I'm mostly indifferent. This is the whole point of boycotting and other civil protests. You can't support boycotting Chick-fil-A for hating gays, or boycotting Target for supporting trans access to bathrooms and be against companies responding to customer concerns. This is literally how civil people in a civil society should act.
BUT, what does concern me is that the old people running these companies and institutions are not calibrated to gauge outcry in the internet age. They see 1000 tweets in the same way someone might see 100,000 customers in the 50s. This causes them to over react. Like the outcry over the scientist with the titty girl shirt. Or the lady that was fired from her prof job because she made an aids joke on twitter, etc.
It will obviously correct itself eventually, but it is mind blowing just how poorly equipped boomers are to deal with the internet and all that goes with it. They post horrible shit on it. And they react horribly to the result.
The problem is with the saturation of opinions coming from the Information Age. Topics or opinions are always up to debate, but at the same time a public platform (wiki) needs to be established with solid rules and documentation to weed out the poor arguments and then be able to reference back to it, so time isn’t wasted rehashing the same bullshit, wether it be national socialism or democratic socialism.
Last edited by Doc Holliday; 10 Aug 2018 at 02:46 PM.
"Question the world man... I know the meaning of everything right now... it's like I can touch god." - bbobb the ggreatt
solid rules and documentation to weed out poor arguments seems apposed to the idea of a wiki were normally anyone can edit them.
Also, "solid rules and documentation to weed out poor arguments" smells a lot like the sanctioned history books of communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, etc. I really can't think of an unbiased state sanctioned history that didn't eventually become self interested. Even now with states having options, states like Texas try to swing what is in history books in their cultural favor.
It seems like the options are to either have an open society where things like https://rationalwiki.org exist, alongside crap and people can choose to listen to what they want with some people being lost, or have a state controlled narrative that will ultimately work in the favor of the state.
So, you’re saying bbobb can deal with it?
"Question the world man... I know the meaning of everything right now... it's like I can touch god." - bbobb the ggreatt
They did with Glenn Beck bye bye fair sailor
But seriously, they did. YouTube pulled all of Nasim Aghdam’s videos, (yet most of Eliot Rodger’s rants are still up.) Despite the fact that not a single video of Nasim’s alludes to any sort of direct violence or TOS violation, she killed herself at a YouTube office so it makes sense. Her work was brilliant and it’s very difficult to find all of it now, due to the fact that YouTube deleted it off the planet. I think it’s kind of dumb to do that, but I also understand the rationale behind it.
And not to be totally anecdotal but Etsy pulled all my serial killer buttons off the site for “promoting violent imagery.” Do I like it? Fuck no, it’s dumb as bricks and killed my sales. I’d been selling the zodiac killer one for close to 10 years, and they just recently pulled it. Like, it’s a great example of what our society deems acceptable and unacceptable in a span of a decade. For some reason, from 2009 to May of 2018, it was acceptable. June 2018? Nope, too far.
But, again, it’s a private company and I clicked their dumb TOS from the beginning. I could go somewhere else with them but I’m lazy to set up a whole new site. I suppose now little Johnny won’t set his 8th grade class ablaze because he can’t buy my Richard Ramirez pin, or something.
Bottom line: it’s dumb, but these enormous corporations are dumb and they will continue to exercise power in the way that best benefits their profits of the moment. I have very little faith in them but society seems to really consider them authority because we keep clamoring for free markets. If we remove the profit motive we may actually have substance, but then we have other issues to contend with.
If the argument for removal is cogent I'll be fine with it. If it turns out that NPR has secretly been embezzling money or something, that's good enough for me. But here's the thing: There aren't solid arguments against the things I like. And if there are, I stop liking them. Somewhat unrelated example: Kevin Spacey. Also, keep in mind that I hate shit like Maddow and whatnot. The stuff they put forward, though, while manipulative af, is at least grounded in a well-formed debate.
Nothing presented by Infowars even remotely resembles a good argument, and nothing presented in defense of Alex Jones does either.
I understand the idea behind giving equal value to all thoughts and ideas in the name of free speech, I really do. But jfc there has to be a line where we're okay with protecting us from ourselves in the same way that texting and driving laws exist. Right? Am I going crazy, too?
Bear in mind that there is a large segment of the left that has completely bailed on "liberal" as a label and as an ideology. It's not a good blanket term for the American left anymore. People labeling themselves as "progressive" or "socialist" are increasingly hostile to liberals as being too "tolerant" or toothless.
It's strange now that "liberal" is kind of the old-school/conservative/moderate ideology, while the right has more or less become the Edgelord Party whose core ethos is "Get off my nuts."
Last edited by Frogacuda; 10 Aug 2018 at 04:37 PM.
Bookmarks