A Democratic Solution to Censorship on Social Media

[F1fan]

The current method, of having Social Media censor content, leads to the problem is being dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

I guess you don't remember that parler social media began in the way you are suggesting, and even they had to start setting rules because the language was so vile that even many of their own right wing members were turned off. Not everyone wants unlimited trash in their social media stream.

There are already sites that cater to this unlimited free speech garbage that you seem to want, and you are free to use it. You are suggesting a sort of anarchy, and as humans have discovered over the last 10,000 years we humans can't function without social rules guiding acceptable behavior.

Some years ago on the old Beliefnet boards (with @blü 2 and @Riders) I did an experiment and started an account with the name White Bicycle (white bicycles are community bikes in the Netherlands that anyone can grab and use temporarily). I then shared the password so anyone could sign on and use the membership without there being any rules. A few folks abused it by being rude, but the vast majority chimed in with good hearted posts. It was a test of the community's level of social responsibility. How many would be a total jerk if they were anonymous. Very few.

I got turned off of Facebook because even with high visibility as a members many conservatives were abusing the platform in open debates. I would chime in with my views on gun laws, and I had my life threatened by right wing gun nuts. The personal threats exploited the trust of Facebook. These people made it clear they could find me, and gun me down at any time. Facebook has since set better community standards, but not soon enough to turn off people like me: those who don't want their lives to be threatened by right wing crazies.

But this is what you are wanting. It will only appeal to a wild west town with drunk killers that won't survive very long. There won't be any farmers and merchants, no teachers with school kids, no decent townsfolk minding their own business, who want a stable a safe environment. Right wingers have their dark spaces on the internet, and you can have them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are you seriously suggesting that defamation, slander, libel, harassment, calls to violence are acceptable in civil society? Because those who object to it are "weak kneed" and the people spewing such garbage are just doing it for "attention?"

Really?

Think of it tactfully. Would you rather have people calling for that thing behind closed doors and in secret , or openly calling for it making it easier to watch such individuals to make sure they don't carry out any actions?

It's really the weak kneed alarmist that is scared of everything under the sun whom needs to remove everything bad out of their ear holes while pretending no such thing goes on just because they don't hear it.

I think you know what cloistering and insulating does to people.

It makes them even more paranoid then they already are .

 

[Soandso]

If you want to experience internet that is truly free, you already can right now. Just go on the dark web. You might be disturbed by the things you happen across, and you might get hacked, but hey - freedom

 

[Harel13]

*Mod Post: Thread moved to Political Debates*​

 

[Secret Chief]

Think of it tactfully. Would you rather have people calling for that thing behind closed doors and in secret , or openly calling for it making it easier to watch such individuals to make sure they don't carry out any actions?

Even having read plenty of RF over the years, I am still almost unable to believe you seriously think this is a good idea - that in a civilised society one should be able to legally and openly make threats of murder. A sick idea for a sick society. A new low.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even having read plenty of RF over the years, I am still almost unable to believe you seriously think this is a good idea - that in a civilised society one should be able to legally and openly make threats of murder. A sick idea for a sick society. A new low.

You should get off that high and mighty moral horse you're riding on.

I'm just advocating free speech and the allowing of people to express their views whether they're popular or unpopular. I don't support horse muzzling people like a lot of despot and totalitarian countries do.

 

[Secret Chief]

You should get off that high and mighty moral horse you're riding on.

I'm just advocating free speech and the allowing of people to express their views whether they're popular or unpopular. I don't support horse muzzling people like a lot of despot and totalitarian countries do.

High horse to snake's belly - can you hear me down there? I stand by every word in my reaction to such a despicable suggestion. I prefer mindful speech over mindless speech; online or off. If you think objecting to the allowance of public threats of murder is overly moralistic then so be it, I'll stay on that horse.

 

[Quintessence]

Think of it tactfully. Would you rather have people calling for that thing behind closed doors and in secret , or openly calling for it making it easier to watch such individuals to make sure they don't carry out any actions?

False dichotomy. But ignoring that this is a false dichotomy, yes, I would absolutely prefer a civil society over an uncivil society. Any society that has normalized talk that is abjectly harmful and destructive to itself (e.g., defamation, violence, harassment) is no society I wish to be part of.

It's really the weak kneed alarmist that is scared of everything under the sun whom needs to remove everything bad out of their ear holes while pretending no such thing goes on just because they don't hear it.

You are mistaken if you think wanting reasonable limits on speech is about being "weak kneed" and "scared of everything." Some of us actually understand how human societies work and that normalization of violent rhetoric precipitates real world violence especially in humans who already have aggressive leanings.

 

[wellwisher]

The current method is that businesses are guided by their own decision-making processes, helped by laws that largely shield social media companies from liability for what their users post.

There's nothing stopping these companies from doing what you suggest now. Why do you thinknthey haven't done it?

And are you talking about forcing them against their wishes? It seems like that's what you're hinting at.



Yeah... I'm not sure whether to call this a sincere misrepresentation or a flat-out lie, but I'm not interested in going down whatever COVID denialist rabbit hole you want to lead me down.


If your plan is as advantageous to advertisers as you think it is, why haven't they demanded it?

As I said, there's nothing stopping a system like you describe from happening now, except that the players involved haven't decided that it's a good idea.

They haven't done it because they have not thought about it. Everyone is so used to top-down control and censorship in an attempt to be in control of the business. You can get more advertisers, if you can control viewership and make them an easier sales target. Bottom to top control is more democratic, but with less top down and Big Brother leverage.

In the 2020 election, the purchase of Twitter, opened the books, and showed how the Swamp and Democrats were able to muscle social media to adopt their partisan censorship and shadow banding. The Courts have since told them to stop. It is strange how the only things that bothered these people and needed censorship were what could have benefitted the Conservatives in 2020. The Swamp still does not want people to have a way to over ride their censorship; levels 4- 5 is open throttle. Big Brother is not pro Democracy but pro-control since control is power.

I only presented the idea today, so give it time. Although, I am not the best cold call salesman. I leave it to fate. I plant seeds.

The next logical step for the current internet, is to make companies liable for content, thereby resulting in extreme content regulation decided by ambulance chaser lawyers. Who decides what to regulate after that? It will be decided by fear. If Trump got in 2024, would you be happy if he made those choices for you with no way to turn back the dial? I am looking to the future, and the only way to maintain an open free speech net is for people to censor on their own or have a way to censor what they want to see. The latter is easier to do and minimize complainers ripe for lawyers.

When freedom of speech was first included in the Constitution, it was designed to keep power in check with all the available information. The free press was there for the same reason able to dig for truth. Now with fake news hacks gone partisan, and the press now a tool of the State, instead the Press independently there for checks and balances, freedom of information is more important than ever. We cannot trust fake news to tell us the truth. To keep speech free and also cater to sensitivities, each of us can dial in our own level of acceptable. This is not carved in stone, and as you desensitized you can turn up the dial and get back in the rodeo.

I brought up COVID to show how the lie can be called the truth, and the truth a lie. I suppose this is free speech. However, it was not due to free speech, but was force on everyone by Big Brother through selective censorship. If it has stayed free speech the debate would have continued, until the data decided. But intimidation and censorship made people accept and believe the scam; down side of censorship. The only way to regulate all the liars in Government, is for all speech to be allowed, and the hardened still allows a way to be there at the borders sensibility.

 

[Father Heathen]

I was thinking about the election of 2020 and how the Democrats and Swamp censored Republican Candidates on social media, using beneficial Left criteria for censorship. To help make access to information more Democratic and less Fascist, we would need each individual to self censor, instead of depend on Big Brother to decide that for all of us.

Social media is owned my private companies, so how did the Dems have a hand in censoring anything? Private companies aren't obligated to provide a platform for spreading bigotry or disinformation. Also, if democrats are the "swamp", then Trump and the GOP are raw sewage given how corrupt, dishonest, and unethical they behave.

Consider this solution. We allow social media to be totally free, like it used to be, in terms of free speech. The difference is each individual will decide what level of censorship they wish to use when surfing the web. Their prefered level of censorship setting will determines how much freedom they can handle in both their own content and reading the content of others. This way it is not done by George Orwell, but by each person.

They're already allowed to be totally free, but again, as private companies they're within their own rights to control quality and moderate content. Could you imagine if RF was unmoderated? "Totally free" would result in it being over ran with trolls and spam, resulting in an insufferable experience.
Free speech refers to government restriction and legal repercussions. Should a Satanist be allowed to give a sermon in a church church just because they want to?

For example we can levels 1-5, with level 1, G rated that is good for anyone including children. If this is too tame for you or if you go to a site that is more open and may have swears, a warning will come up before proceed that tells you, you will need to increase the setting to view this material. If you still wish to read it, you go to settings and bump it up to level 2 or 3, then the content plays. If a person wishes to have no filters they use setting level 5. Level 5 assumes you are an adult and you cannot complain or call a lawyer; a disclaimer can appear. Go back to level 2, if you start to short circuit. You control you so we can live and let live.

What is good about this is, even if those who categorize the levels of speech, do so in biased ways for political reasons, any viewer can up their level and neutralize this by having full access to all speech; level 5 for political speech. Democracy works best when the individual can decentralize biased decisions.

...what?

Maybe Elon Musk and X can see this and lead the change to democratic free speech decided at the level of each individual. I like the Wild West of the internet before the line was moved by self serving George Orwell types. Others who prefer restrictions also have choices. To reach his own. We have AI that can help with this.

After Elon loosened moderation on Twitter, it became flooded with bigotry and disinformation, driving away advertisers who don't want to have their reputations damaged by being associated with such content. it also drove away a lot of users who had no desire to wade through toxic drivel. Also, Elon has been hypocritical regarding his claim to be a free speech absolutist, as he has developed a habit of banning anyone who is critical of him for any of his ventures. He has interfered in Ukrainian intelligence communications. His licks Putin's boots, so he obviously can't be trusted to be objective or ethical.

 

[Father Heathen]

How could a platform survive if it allowed vile speech?
It would get no advertising revenue.

Imagine if RF had no moderation. It would be a cesspit rather than a marketplace of ideas.

 

[Twilight Hue]

High horse to snake's belly - can you hear me down there? I stand by every word in my reaction to such a despicable suggestion. I prefer mindful speech over mindless speech; online or off. If you think objecting to the allowance of public threats of murder is overly moralistic then so be it, I'll stay on that horse.

Yeah you go keep ahead riding that high horse of censorship and anti free speech.

I know how much you like despots and totalitarian by the way you're acting.

You can continue on supporting them. I on the other hand will stay on the side of freedom.

 

[Father Heathen]

The current method, of having Social Media censor content, leads to the problem is being dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

We now finding out that Fauci is saying social distancing and masks never really worked during COVID.

Source?

These decision sort of just happened with social distancing coming from a High School Science Project.

What?

The Leftist control over media, in 20/20 hindsight led to millions of children harmed by imaginary bogeyman and lost education.

This is an example of disinformation; dishonest and misleading, and dopes swallow it up without verifying, which is why its dangerous.

How about a class action suit against the DNC for all the harm for censoring, using lopsided unscientific information to allow the rise of damaging Big Brother?

I think scientists know science far better than lobbyists and political pundits pushing an agenda.

If people had been allowed to self censor, new legal issues would be moot, and this evil may not have reached the same scope. It would have been about choice and not forced conformity to a con, at the expense of children becoming slave labor props for the DNC and the teachers Unions.

What on earth are you even babbling about?

If you were an advertiser, it would be to your advantage to know your audience in terms of their sensibilities, so you can infer product viability by the level of self censorship, which we can open to advertisers, so they can market accordingly. You may not market ED medicine and birth control pills to level 1 and 2, but focus your limited resources to levels 3-5. Now you need to find sites or blast the entire web including those who get offended. We can choose to live and let live if Big Brother is not choosing for you.

If you're posts are going to be long, at least make sure they're coherent.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yeah you go keep ahead riding that high horse of censorship and anti free speech.

I know how much you like despots and totalitarian by the way you're acting.

You can continue on supporting them. I on the other hand will stay on the side of freedom.

Would you allow someone to enter your home to harass and insult you and your family if they desired to do so? If you say "no", then by your logic you're pro censorship and anti free speech.

Knowing what you've supported, nobody here actually believes that you're on the side of freedom.

 

[Father Heathen]

You should get off that high and mighty moral horse you're riding on.

I'm just advocating free speech and the allowing of people to express their views whether they're popular or unpopular. I don't support horse muzzling people like a lot of despot and totalitarian countries do.

They are allowed to express their views. Nobody is stopping them, but nobody is obligated to provide them a soapbox, either. Besides, there are plenty of options and alternatives.

 

[Secret Chief]

I know how much you like despots and totalitarian by the way you're acting.

Rubbish. You're the fan of orange despots.

 

[Revoltingest]

Imagine if RF had no moderation. It would be a cesspit rather than a marketplace of ideas.

Gawd, you're such the diplomat!

 

[Father Heathen]

Gawd, you're such the diplomat!

What I mean is that trolls and spambots would overtake everything without a system in place to remove them. Nobody wants to wade through that. It would be "free" but also an unpleasant experience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Rubbish. You're the fan of orange despots.

No not really. But I'd rather have an orange despot (as you call it) then your Marxist unelected Communist puppet masters in charge for the time being.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Would you allow someone to enter your home to harass and insult you and your family if they desired to do so? If you say "no", then by your logic you're pro censorship and anti free speech.

Knowing what you've supported, nobody here actually believes that you're on the side of freedom.

I doubt that. Lol

There's a lot of people already who see what I see here on RF and there's plenty of support in spite of what you might think , along you're idiotic example of people entering your house, well that's not speech isn't it? That's action.

But for you I would wager that would be hard for you to tell the difference.