More attacks on Free Speech in the UK

[stvdv]

An official in the UK says:



Anybody here support this police policy?

x.com

I just read about it here in Holland in the News

It would be fine IF police would be Dharmic

Alas, that's not the case, too much corruption, hence I see the world drifting towards the rich trying very hard to greedily enrich themselves at the cost of the poor

Hence, I don't support this

Hitler as my neighbor still fresh in memory. People have not changed much. Plenty of wannebee Hitlers I think, time will tell

 

[icehorse]

Well, I don't have to listen to incitement to violence in countries, where that is consider illegal.

The actual answer I can't give because you only accept objective, true, logical, with evidence answers. Apparently because you subjectively don't like subjective answers, when there are no objective ones possible.

You misquote me sir

As to your first response - of course no one is REQUIRED to listen, that was not the question. The question was: if there is something you think you might want to listen to, who would you appoint to decide for you that you cannot hear it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You misquote me sir

As to your first response - of course no one is REQUIRED to listen, that was not the question. The question was: if there is something you think you might want to listen to, who would you appoint to decide for you that you cannot hear it?

Well, I wouldn't appoint anyone, because I don't have the authority to do so. I have a single vote in a democracy and that is how it works.

So you asked a trick question and I refused to accept your assumptions behind the question.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Tell me, who is smart enough, moral enough, to decide for you, what you cannot listen to?

The same legal institutions which tell you you cannot abuse, rob, rape or exploit your fellow citizens, nor actively encourage others to do so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For the sake of discussion I can grant you all of that, and you still haven't made your point.

Might there be economic considerations? Could it be that people's basic needs aren't being met? Could it be that watching mother earth being destroyed plays a part? What if knowing that your children will never be able to afford a home has some impact?

How do you eliminate all of these (and countless other concerns), to arrive at the conclusion that social media is THE culprit?

And again, I despise social media. I think it's extremely dangerous, and that humans probably aren't evolved enough to handle it safely. And with all that said, I still think censorship is worse.

You aren't understanding my point. It's not social media directly causing them, such as a starving mom stealing food to feed her kids, but it's enabling and flaming them by promoting misinformation that is saturated in emotional wording that flairs senses of moral outrage, giving super charged voices to violent minorities who otherwise would have went unnoticed and heavily scrutinized. But the way social media is set up it's actually been noted in research time and time again to making the average attention span shorter and shorter. It's designed to discouraging thinking and instead encourage people to like and share and move on to the next item. Amd what's next? More of what you liked and shared, but increasingly insulated, one sided, many algorithm rabit holes lead to extremist content. It's this extremists content that is built on misinformation that we have seen as a catalyst in violence time and time again because these social media companies are no different than RJ Reynolds or the NFL in knowing there are dangers to their stuff but doing nothing about it.

 

[icehorse]

Well, I wouldn't appoint anyone, because I don't have the authority to do so. I have a single vote in a democracy and that is how it works.

So you asked a trick question and I refused to accept your assumptions behind the question.

Not a trick question at all

Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that your opinion doesn't matter, that you're more or less a sheep under the total control of the state?

 

[icehorse]

You aren't understanding my point. It's not social media directly causing them, such as a starving mom stealing food to feed her kids, but it's enabling and flaming them by promoting misinformation that is saturated in emotional wording that flairs senses of moral outrage, giving super charged voices to violent minorities who otherwise would have went unnoticed and heavily scrutinized. But the way social media is set up it's actually been noted in research time and time again to making the average attention span shorter and shorter. It's designed to discouraging thinking and instead encourage people to like and share and move on to the next item. Amd what's next? More of what you liked and shared, but increasingly insulated, one sided, many algorithm rabit holes lead to extremist content. It's this extremists content that is built on misinformation that we have seen as a catalyst in violence time and time again because these social media companies are no different than RJ Reynolds or the NFL in knowing there are dangers to their stuff but doing nothing about it.

So what do you suggest we do about it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not a trick question at all

Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that your opinion doesn't matter, that you're more or less a sheep under the total control of the state?

No, I have my vote and the ability to understand. And it is not so that I can't learn about racism and what not. It is just so, that there is a limit to the actual racism I can be exposed to. But that doesn't mean I can't figure out how it works and what is about.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not a trick question at all

Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that your opinion doesn't matter, that you're more or less a sheep under the total control of the state?

Of course it was a trick question. You shifted the emphasis away from what cannot be said by those with malicious intent, onto what cannot be heard or read by those whose intent may be wholly innocent. That particular sleight of hand was quite dishonest imo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what do you suggest we do about it?

It appears Facebook, etc., are going to have to be forced to moderate content to remove prejudiced and extremist content. Far too many people have died because they won't and the violence shows no signs of stopping.

 

[Secret Chief]

It appears Facebook, etc., are going to have to be forced to moderate content

Hopefully. Attack the reach of the scum.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hopefully. Attack the reach of the scum.

Probably won't happen until a Senators killed over it.

 

[icehorse]

Of course it was a trick question. You shifted the emphasis away from what cannot be said by those with malicious intent, onto what cannot be heard or read by those whose intent may be wholly innocent. That particular sleight of hand was quite dishonest imo.

I don't think you understand free speech. Free speech is a right for the speaker AND the listener. Always has been. No slight of hand, no dishonesty

And again, who's to judge malicious intent? I have been quite critical of Islam for many years now. I think Islam has many intolerant, barbaric teachings. Is it malicious for me to say so?

 

[icehorse]

It appears Facebook, etc., are going to have to be forced to moderate content to remove prejudiced and extremist content. Far too many people have died because they won't and the violence shows no signs of stopping.

And who will be the judge of prejudiced / extremist content? Will I no longer be able to criticize religion or the woke or oligarchs?

And again, you're back to making a correlation / causation argument. How on earth can you prove that people have died because of social media?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And who will be the judge of prejudiced / extremist content? Will I no longer be able to criticize religion or the woke or oligarchs?

Criticism is a worlds difference between twisting a "forced confession" from a scared man who didn't understand what he was being asked before a mob gathered to destroy the town (that happened in Sri Lanka).

And again, you're back to making a correlation / causation argument. How on earth can you prove that people have died because of social media?

I am not saying they died because of social media. Its not like saying cigarette smoking kills people. It's not social media on it's own. It's algorithms that have ended up promoting hateful and extremist content that is based in misinformation. And incident after incident after incident it has been observed how this content being spread on social media is what led to the violence.

 

[icehorse]

Criticism is a worlds difference between twisting a "forced confession" from a scared man who didn't understand what he was being asked before a mob gathered to destroy the town (that happened in Sri Lanka).

I am not saying they died because of social media. Its not like saying cigarette smoking kills people. It's not social media on it's own. It's algorithms that have ended up promoting hateful and extremist content that is based in misinformation. And incident after incident after incident it has been observed how this content being spread on social media is what led to the violence.

Well your Sri Lanka story is a different topic.

As for algorithms, sure, I suspect we largely agree. But again, what's your solution?

I do not think you can cook up a good way to do censorship, nor do I think we should. People who hold violent ideas should be exposed to public scrutiny, not driven underground.

 

[Secret Chief]

Probably won't happen until a Senators killed over it.

Might be some action in the UK. One of the first things the Prime Minister said at the time of the riots was regarding social media.

- MSN

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well your Sri Lanka story is a different topic.

As for algorithms, sure, I suspect we largely agree. But again, what's your solution?

I do not think you can cook up a good way to do censorship, nor do I think we should. People who hold violent ideas should be exposed to public scrutiny, not driven underground.

Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Germany, America , England, it's all the same exact topic. Because these violent extremists pump out misinformation that gets promoted and repeates on social media, and it has lead to violence.
And what else is there to do? Kill the extremists who are mostly responsible for it? No! You censor it and remove it before it can get people hurt.

 

[icehorse]

Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Germany, America , England, it's all the same exact topic. Because these violent extremists pump out misinformation that gets promoted and repeates on social media, and it has lead to violence.
And what else is there to do? Kill the extremists who are mostly responsible for it? No! You censor it and remove it before it can get people hurt.

I'm not agreeing with any of this, but can you give a few examples, perhaps you can change my mind?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not agreeing with any of this, but can you give a few examples, perhaps you can change my mind?

I have been giving examples.