ESOCommunity

Is it well deserved or is it an attack on "Freedom of speech" ?

Gibson already made a thread about this. It is obviously an attack, but who cares? We need a ministry of truth.

oh, I didn't see that :/

Found it!
Not an overly hot topic on ESOC it seems.

Too complex for ESOC's brainlets

And might fear repercussions from the SJW police.

I think its good, it actually gives infowars a bit of press and puts the entire social media construct under the microscope. Hopefully some good will come out of it.

YouTube will now put a disclaimer in the description of videos denying climate change saying the video is not true and climate change is real.

Snuden wrote:YouTube will now put a disclaimer in the description of videos denying climate change saying the video is not true and climate change is real.

but thats a lie isnt it ?

lordraphael wrote:

Snuden wrote:YouTube will now put a disclaimer in the description of videos denying climate change saying the video is not true and climate change is real.

but thats a lie isnt it ?

Al Gore invented the internet so it must be the truth, no one lies on the internet.

lordraphael wrote:

Snuden wrote:YouTube will now put a disclaimer in the description of videos denying climate change saying the video is not true and climate change is real.

but thats a lie isnt it ?

What's a lie?

That climate change is real

This guy must be smurfing.

The way it was so coordinated across multiple companies is the biggest surprise in all of this. Companies have been censoring for years; what makes this case interesting is that so many companies did it at once. (They did this after Charlottesville and the 2016 election too.) It shows that they aren't indifferently imposing quality control on their platform. They're fighting a political fight. Injecting politics into an oligopoly with the power to manipulate the public mind is an awful idea. I really think these big tech companies should be forced to allow freedom of speech.

Another issue is how much pressure it's putting on people. Bullying and censoring people into silent submission to the establishment isn't good for public health. If someone gets fired, unfriended, blacklisted, and harassed all because he made a racist joke then I have to ask: What is holding this man back from violence? Let's say the man is actually politically motivated, an extremist. This man thinks he's doing the right thing, but has no democratic outlet; he also has nothing to lose. In such a situation where someone is 'morally correct' and actually oppressed then doesn't he have almost an obligation to revolt? Attacking the fringes of society is all fun and games until you get a suspicious looking brown box on your door-step.

Of course this anger does not have to manifest itself as violence. It can manifest in everyone; even the people who support censoring anything illiberal. Humans are having a hard time coping with life in postindustrial society. They feel purposeless, directionless, unhappy. Many turn to drugs or video games to try and numb the pointlessness of it all. If we take that and add on "Don't act how you want to. Act how we tell you, or your entire life is going to be ruined." then things are going to get much worse.

For the same reason that the NFL can force players to stand, Youtube can remove Alex Jones. Regardless of your opinion on the issues surrounding both cases, this is the first step to discussing this.

n0el wrote:For the same reason that the NFL can force players to stand, YouTube can remove Alex Jones. Regardless of your opinion on the issues surrounding both cases, this is the first step to discussing this.

First step?

So before we discuss this, the following step must be taken;

"For the same reason that the NFL can force players to stand, YouTube can remove Alex Jones. Regardless of your opinion on the issues surrounding both cases"

?

First step taken! Onward with the second one!

NFL forced players to stand - Check
Alex Jones banned from YouTube - Check
Regardless of my opinion on the matter - This is the step I struggle with :(

His point is that it is legal and not conflicting with the first amendment—the freedom of speech.

In that case...

First step taken! Onward with the second one!

I like this "step by step" approach. It ensures that we all understand what is being talked about.
It especially comes in handy, when large bowls of word salad are being dumped in a thread.

Wait who forced the players to stand?

That was covered in step 1 (NFL)

Yeah but forced how? At the end of a gun?

My point is the players chose to stand they were not forced. The owners said we will fire you if you kneel and the players did not want to lose their million dollar jobs so they stood. No force there.