• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

dirty harry said:
I just need to ask, by 'innocence'your not claiming legal responsibility for speech thatbisnt criminal?

These two statements do contradict each other, any can platform anyone, but the performer must be hel legally responsible for bad ideas... that's called persecution isn't it?

You make a very good comparison with Louis Theroux, he investigates, and never pushes back in a way that would compromise the show, he merely asks questions and allows the bad ideas to openly discredit themselves. Why would there not be an argument that someone like Rogan does the same, are we expecting him to be an expert in every subject?

Interestingly and I know we are talking US context, a lot of Republicans used to want to repeal 230, then Dems jumped on, and I whole heartedly believe this will lead to mass litigation, paid for services, and ultimately human rights abuses against American citizens.

Social media was built on legal free speech, and advertised as the 'digital town square' until it became politically convenient to weaponise it, which it was during COVID, and that will only get worse.

I fully expect if 230 proves difficult to repeal, it'll be eroded by first using your podcast argument, calling everyone who doesn't agree with the US government conspiracy theorists, and then will slowly work into acceptable opinions on the Internet only. Now this might sound acceptable to you now, as I'm sure Obama increasing Presidential power did (and did to me also) but with a resurgence in right wing politics, and Gen Z being super conservative what happens if/when an ultra right government decides things should change in the west and the codified opinion allowed isn't yours?

I just don't see this short term thinking of 'if I don't agree with you, there should be limits on what you can say and who you can speak to' ending anything other than very badly.
Click to expand...
They don't contradict each other, I'm not saying a host is criminally culpable for what their guests say, just that if they knowingly invite someone on who will say certain things and don't push back against it in any way, they cannot then claim they are little more than an innocent bystander with respect to the views that are expressed. Something like Facebook, Twitter etc can be deemed akin to a digital town square, an invitational show like Joe Rogan cannot. Joe Rogan (or at least his producers) would do some vetting of their guests and they would be there by choice. The host may not be held legally liable but they can certainly be deemed to be associated with the views they invite on their show, especially if they don't push back on them.

The thing about Louis Theroux is that, whilst he doesn't push back at the moment, he does push back in commentary etc and it's well known the whole point of the programs is to show extremist views and they are identified as such. That's not the same as inviting on extremists views but never identifying them as such.

It's funny how Republicans want to repeal the protections things like Facebook enjoy when they were the ones pushing for it originally.

Free speech will always be weaponised, that has always been the case. It's similar to the tolerance of intolerance paradox. A society which is infinitely tolerant would also require them to tolerate those who are intolerant. Eventually the intolerant ones will abuse that, take control and society ceases to be tolerant. It's therefore recognised that a tolerant society cannot be infinitely tolerant as it will lead to its own destruction. A society that allows free speech also allows the possibility of people lying, deceiving etc etc to manipulate people. That speech will be weaponised.

"My" podcast argument is not an argument for repealing free speech laws or going after people who give a platform. My argument is not about the legality of platforming but of recognising that speech can and does cause harm and that providing a platform for harmful speech is an argument revolving around responsibilities, not rights. Let's put it down to the saying "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." There is also a difference between letting someone be hoisted by their own petard and giving a sense of legitimacy to claims.

"what happens if/when an ultra right government decides things should change in the west and the codified opinion allowed isn't yours?" - Don't need to imagine it, it's happening in the USA already. They are literally outlawing certain words and banning books etc. But to flip the question to you, what happens when it goes the other way as has happened with Twitter? There has been a massive spike in pro-Nazi content on Twitter. Do we ignore the content of speech right up until the point people start getting killed?

It's not just a case of simply not agreeing with someone, it's a case where the speech is one step away from the sort of speech that directly leads to violence or other criminal acts. You mentioned about letting people put their views in the open as it makes it easier to control, do you therefore advocate people being tracked and having their speech monitored if not controlled?
 
But to flip the question to you, what happens when it goes the other way as has happened with Twitter? There has been a massive spike in pro-Nazi content on Twitter. Do we ignore the content of speech right up until the point people start getting killed?

Are you referring to the purchase of Musk and the relaxing of TOS to align themselves with the law?

Well Twitter was a **** show before, as acknowledged by Dorsey that the left wing biases took control. Infact didn't Dorsey make the claim the biggest failing of Twitter is that twitter controlled the discussion, and users didn't? And Twitter is a **** show now, however at least Twitter has reinstalled the idea that the law dictates who can say what, so, despite me not using social media at all, I'd prefer the **** show that allows bad ideas, than one who controls who's allowed to have an ideas.

I keep hearing the argument that Naziism has increased massively under Musk, and I'll accept it must have, as that bad idea was banned previously, it could only have increased. But my question would be, so what? Is the claim that there are more Nazis now, because Musk is allowing free speech on a platform, or has the Nazi idealogy grown, overnight?

The crux is, do bad ideas breed dangers to society, or does the exposure to bad ideas quell those bad ideas. It was once explained to me, that this theory is the same as men with bad intentions toward 12 year old girls...

Would you prefer that this man make his move in the shadows of an alley way, or in the middle of a busy shopping centre?
 
dirty harry said:
But to flip the question to you, what happens when it goes the other way as has happened with Twitter? There has been a massive spike in pro-Nazi content on Twitter. Do we ignore the content of speech right up until the point people start getting killed?

Are you referring to the purchase of Musk and the relaxing of TOS to align themselves with the law?

Well Twitter was a **** show before, as acknowledged by Dorsey that the left wing biases took control. Infact didn't Dorsey make the claim the biggest failing of Twitter is that twitter controlled the discussion, and users didn't? And Twitter is a **** show now, however at least Twitter has reinstalled the idea that the law dictates who can say what, so, despite me not using social media at all, I'd prefer the **** show that allows bad ideas, than one who controls who's allowed to have an ideas.

I keep hearing the argument that Naziism has increased massively under Musk, and I'll accept it must have, as that bad idea was banned previously, it could only have increased. But my question would be, so what? Is the claim that there are more Nazis now, because Musk is allowing free speech on a platform, or has the Nazi idealogy grown, overnight?

The crux is, do bad ideas breed dangers to society, or does the exposure to bad ideas quell those bad ideas. It was once explained to me, that this theory is the same as men with bad intentions toward 12 year old girls...

Would you prefer that this man make his move in the shadows of an alley way, or in the middle of a busy shopping centre?
Click to expand...
Except that isn't what has happened, the level of censorship on Twitter has risen. What's stopped being censored are things like nazi content, racism etc. Twitter was a dump before but it's dropped to a new level.

No what has grown is the acceptance of Nazi ideology as something that one can openly state and feel it's perfectly fine to do so.

I've not seen any evidence to suggest increased exposure to bad ideas results in a decrease in following for those ideas anywhere. When exposure to the idea that vaccines cause autism was extremely limited, the number of people opposing MMR was relatively low. A higher exposure to that idea didn't convince people it was a bad idea, it convinced some it was a good idea and led to a drop in MMR vaccines, with that claim still being regurgitated to this day by none other than RFK Jnr for example.

By all means if you can present examples of bad ideas that ended up with reduced support once gaining public attention rather than more then feel free to do so, because I see that argument as a pure hypothetical not supported by what we see in the world.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Except that isn't what has happened, the level of censorship on Twitter has risen. What's stopped being censored are things like nazi content, racism etc. Twitter was a dump before but it's dropped to a new level.

No what has grown is the acceptance of Nazi ideology as something that one can openly state and feel it's perfectly fine to do so.

I've not seen any evidence to suggest increased exposure to bad ideas results in a decrease in following for those ideas anywhere. When exposure to the idea that vaccines cause autism was extremely limited, the number of people opposing MMR was relatively low. A higher exposure to that idea didn't convince people it was a bad idea, it convinced some it was a good idea and led to a drop in MMR vaccines, with that claim still being regurgitated to this day by none other than RFK Jnr for example.

By all means if you can present examples of bad ideas that ended up with reduced support once gaining public attention rather than more then feel free to do so, because I see that argument as a pure hypothetical not supported by what we see in the world.
Click to expand...
So would you agree Democrats taking they wouldn't take a Vaccine from Trump as part of this dangerous idea?

Your going to have to forgive me, but you claim censorship on Twitter has increased, where is evidencing this claim? I've heard Musk make the claim thatnif it's legal it's allowed, and sack what 80% of staff. If your considering global restrictions that's different, I'm sure leadersnlike Oban, and Erdoğan have filed demands to remove illegal content, but the US are the integral point as it actually has a free speech law.

With regards to the bad ideas, religion is probably the perfect example. Look at the countries in which Islam is growing, Sudan for example.strict social media controls, strict on speech etc, religion excels where governments can censor. Compare that to the west, say USA where 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants tend to either redefine, or drift away from oppressive religions.

It's obvious that the more free citizens of countries are the more socially cohesive ideas excel.
 
dirty harry said:
So would you agree Democrats taking they wouldn't take a Vaccine from Trump as part of this dangerous idea?

Your going to have to forgive me, but you claim censorship on Twitter has increased, where is evidencing this claim? I've heard Musk make the claim thatnif it's legal it's allowed, and sack what 80% of staff. If your considering global restrictions that's different, I'm sure leadersnlike Oban, and Erdoğan have filed demands to remove illegal content, but the US are the integral point as it actually has a free speech law.

With regards to the bad ideas, religion is probably the perfect example. Look at the countries in which Islam is growing, Sudan for example.strict social media controls, strict on speech etc, religion excels where governments can censor. Compare that to the west, say USA where 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants tend to either redefine, or drift away from oppressive religions.

It's obvious that the more free citizens of countries are the more socially cohesive ideas excel.
Click to expand...
Yes it was a dangerous idea

www.avclub.com

Twitter/X is suspending way more people under Elon Musk

Twitter/X is suspending way more people under Elon Musk
www.avclub.com www.avclub.com

Twitter hasn't stopped censoring, it's simply changed what it censors and increased it. It's not a bastion of free speech, what it is is a safe haven for far right speech (nazi ideology, racism etc).

Your religion argument doesn't support your claim though. You have a case where an overbearing religion controls other sources of information (ie exposure to a bad idea is huge and exposure to better ideas is minimal) and as the exposure of the bad idea is reduced and the exposure of the good ideas increases, people's views shift away from it. That supports my claim that the greater the exposure to bad ideas, the greater the following of those bad ideas, not lesser. It also supports my claim about the extreme damage exposure to bad ideas causes.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Yes it was a dangerous idea

www.avclub.com

Twitter/X is suspending way more people under Elon Musk

Twitter/X is suspending way more people under Elon Musk
www.avclub.com www.avclub.com

Twitter hasn't stopped censoring, it's simply changed what it censors and increased it. It's not a bastion of free speech, what it is is a safe haven for far right speech (nazi ideology, racism etc).

Your religion argument doesn't support your claim though. You have a case where an overbearing religion controls other sources of information (ie exposure to a bad idea is huge and exposure to better ideas is minimal) and as the exposure of the bad idea is reduced and the exposure of the good ideas increases, people's views shift away from it. That supports my claim that the greater the exposure to bad ideas, the greater the following of those bad ideas, not lesser. It also supports my claim about the extreme damage exposure to bad ideas causes.
Click to expand...
This report doesn't say what you think it does though, your claiming censorship, but use account deletions as evidence. In reality the account deletions more than likely account for suspicious activity (if you remember X implemented a 0 tolerance policy for child porn, that twitter ignored).

The real numbers, the suspensions for hateful content is 1 million twitter to 2k X. Proving X now censors far less, and rolled back it's definitions to legal standards.

BTW this article is an embarrassment, it makes the claim Musk is a censoring dictator, while exposing trans kids to free speech, how could he be a monster in both ways hahahaha
 
dirty harry said:
This report doesn't say what you think it does though, your claiming censorship, but use account deletions as evidence. In reality the account deletions more than likely account for suspicious activity (if you remember X implemented a 0 tolerance policy for child porn, that twitter ignored).

The real numbers, the suspensions for hateful content is 1 million twitter to 2k X. Proving X now censors far less, and rolled back it's definitions to legal standards.

BTW this article is an embarrassment, it makes the claim Musk is a censoring dictator, while exposing trans kids to free speech, how could he be a monster in both ways hahahaha
Click to expand...
The report states that they are adhering to government demands for censorship more than ever. In addition, even though account suspensions for hateful content have reduced, post removal for hateful content has increased. Also previously 96k accounts were suspended for abuse/harassment, this has increased to 1.1 million under Musk.

www.socialmediatoday.com

Data Shows X Is Suspending Far Fewer Users for Hate Speech

X has shared insight into how its updated approach to moderation is impacting its enforcement.
www.socialmediatoday.com www.socialmediatoday.com

So account suspensions for hateful content is very much a case of cherry picking a stat. The rest of the stats paint a very different picture.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
11 12 13
Replies
250
Views
13K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
7K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
40K
AlRums
AlRums
Bada-Bing!
The technology thread
45 46 47
Replies
926
Views
52K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Leonormous Boozer
A History Thread
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
21K
McTallshort
McTallshort

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 13 (members: 6, guests: 7)

    Latest posts

    Top