SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-Disapprove-of-What-You-Say,-But-I-Will-Defend-to-the-Death-Your-Right-to-Say-It dept.
From an editorial in the Otago Daily Times out of New Zealand, Censorship a Trojan Horse:
It's an oft-cited maxim that the news media is the "fourth estate" upon which a healthy democracy stands.
It ensures the three traditional powers of state — the legislature, executive and judiciary — can be critiqued, challenged and curbed from quietly drifting into the arms of corruption and authoritarianism.
A free, fair, open and uncensored media is an antidote to state power and, for all its failings (and there are many), should be treasured as such. There are many countries around the world whose people would give anything for such a freedom.
Yet calls for the banning of certain opinion pieces, cartoons and commentary have risen in recent months, especially from those using social media, a world where such talk is becoming a trend. It is a trend we must confront.
Censorship is to suppress the harmful, the unacceptable, the obscene and the threatening from the media and other forms of public communication. Like a virus attacking democracy from the inside out, it was traditionally the tool of the dictator, though it is one used by many in power.
[...] It pays to query what those demanding censorship — be they celebrities, social-media activists or anybody else — see their ultimate goal as being.
To reduce hurt? To make the world a better place? Possibly, and those motivations are laudable. But the method employed to achieve them is not.
While censorship may be meant as a figurative horse upon which a better future rides, inside the belly of that horse lurks an army of conformity, quite capable of unwitting oppression.
History shows what happens when the fourth estate is no longer free to table all opinions.
It is a bleak picture. Without the disinfectant of exposure, power and ideals tend to corrupt even the most seemingly incorruptible.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:10AM (23 children)
Maybe instead of moral panic over censorship, realize that in a normally functioning society we have other words that describe the *role* of censorship. Things like moderation, hate speech laws, etc. All of these are double edged swords, but so is unbridled speech. And no, you don't want to fight speech with more speech as that is the same as fighting fire with fire. Sure, it initially works, but it gets tiring to repeat the same reality to people that refuse to acknowledge it.
We have laws of the land to allow societies to function properly. We also have a facade of democracy in a society too difficult to be managed as a pure democracy. So unless you want populists to rule the day, then all types of discussion need some moderation.
Remember few years ago when "marriage will end because gays took it over" drama? The constitutional amendments that some US states passed to "fight unchristian-like behavior"?? And remember how populists in Republican party tried to use that as their moral high ground against the corruption of the evil Democrats and judges?? So, where the fuck are they now? Not one peep from any one in congress that was so up-tight about this... and how do you prevent this stupid, unimportant discussion from taking place in the future? How do you prevent idiots from being manipulated??
Censorship remains the tool of a dictators, but they also have things like police to then put those people in jail and worse.
But you forget one thing - censorship is only a very very tiny bit used by dictators. What they use mostly is propaganda and intimidation, how they are "saving the nation" from some threat. How only them stands for the great nation. Other opinions may or may not be censored, but most important is the steady diet of populist propaganda to feed the idiots in the crowd. Censorship?? That's a tool of the weak. The strong censor by killing their opposition or throwing them in jail. If all they did was censorship, it would be not so very effective.
Please, stop your drama against censorship. It's just a tool, like any other. It can be used for good and bad. Arguing that censorship is bad is like arguing knives are bad.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:25AM (1 child)
> How do you prevent idiots from being manipulated??
Not only you cannot, also you should not. Idiots want to be manipulated and that's their right. In 21st century when mostly everybody has unlimited free access to world's knowledge in their pocket, ignorence is a choice.
The question should be how do you prevent people not suffering from other people's (idiots') decisions. Should be to each their own. There is no "we", apart from the herd immunity and the environment in general.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:04PM
That's why borders are more important nowadays and immigration should be regulated even if it wasn't as regulated in the past if at all.
This way most of the different idiots will be forced to live in the mess they voted for. And the different experiments can be run in parallel with less cross contamination.
One big problem is when countries mess up other countries. Like the USA messes up other countries (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria etc). In those cases they should be required to accept the refugees from the messes they create.
The other big problem is the US President could go nuts and nuke the whole world and there really isn't much to prevent that (most/all the systems are just to confirm that the order came from the President): http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2011/02/an_unsung_hero_of_the_nuclear_age.html [slate.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/09/what-if-the-president-ordering-a-nuclear-attack-isnt-sane-a-major-lost-his-job-for-asking/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9566c517eef6 [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday October 02 2018, @12:36PM
No. it's not tiny. It may look tiny in comparison with other methods of oppression, but it's essential if you don't want to end with killing or jailing a good proportion of the population.
In 1956, the soviets entered Hungary to quell a revolution there [wikipedia.org]. There were little news about the events broadcast in the rest of the East Europe block countries, not even the kind of "Hungarian patriots, with Soviet assistance, smashed the counter-revolution" version. It doesn't pay to give people the idea that a revolution is even possible, revolutions only happen to bring the powers-to-be... well... into being; but they must remain history.
The same with the Velvet Revolution [wikipedia.org] - with some notable exceptions which rather confirm the rule.
After a while, those opinions must be censored, in spite of other existing forms of oppression against any opposition.
There is this category of idealists, people that value some ideas higher than their own well-being or life. Let their ideas unchecked and the next thing you'll have is a Gandhi or Nelson Mandela - it may be even too late to kill them lest you transform them in an untouchable symbol of the ideal (they are dead alright, can't kill them a second time).
Yes, you may try to co-opt them, like it lately happened with Aung San Suu Ky - but you'll need to cede a part of your power to the co-opted (and you can't co-opt many, for obvious reasons).
Ever heard of sluggish schizophrenia [wikipedia.org]? That's the best a dictatorship can do to close the mouth of those pesky idealists who "disseminate their pathological reformist ideas among the masses" but, from where a dictatorship stands, t needs doing. Or else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday October 02 2018, @12:41PM (10 children)
And the use of those other words to hide what you are doing is a variety of propaganda.
Or we can just not get worked up that other people have different opinions and thus, not have the problem in the first place. It's stupid to silence people because we don't want to accidentally brush against their opinions and feel this OCD urge to correct them.
Another problem that is completely missed here is what happens when the people that "refuse to acknowledge" reality are the ones in charge of the censorship apparatus? Suddenly those double-edged swords don't look so good when they're used against you by the very people you're trying to silence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday October 02 2018, @01:41PM (4 children)
The present day problem is the left sees itself as a religion and everyone and everything is and must be in its universalist church. It seems normal that a Catholic church would never tolerate a parishioner standing up during the priests sermon claiming this triune god stuff seems a bit ridiculous, thats naturally resulting in the ushers kicking the alternative viewpoint out of the church, possibly permanently. That's how the left sees censorship. Its not a matter of logic or reasoning or tolerance its merely religious purity. You'd have better luck trying to rationally and scientifically talk a muslim into eating bacon than in trying to make a leftist not make every argument based on some variant of "I believe".
The measure of a mental model, such as "leftism as a religion", is in the scientific method if it makes predictions better than other models and has a reasonable explanation. Thus the idea can be hated by at least half the country, while still being obviously correct and highly useful IRL to explain and predict behavior. "This seems scientifically reliable" is a totally different mindset than a similar declaration of "I believe ..." or sophistry and logical fallacy threats like "Anyone who agrees is a nazi".
I'm just saying you can't have a logical debate in a scientific progress sense when one side is a religious fanatic hell bent on re-enacting the inquisition. That means the whole censorship debate at a rational intellectual level is pointless. Might is right and the winner will write the history is the only logic actually involved in the discussion.
The truly dangerous problem with leftism is historical religions encode values and ethics that at least worked well enough to survive for thousands of years, even if those values might be a little creaky today, whereas leftism is not necessarily non-suicidal at a civilization scale. A morality and ethics based mostly on hedonism and logical fallacy MIGHT be successful on a civilizational scale, but almost certainly will not be. "Lets do what doesn't work but makes deviants feel good" is not really a winning strategy historically for civilizations.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday October 02 2018, @10:34PM (3 children)
I don't think the left sees itself as a religion. They certainly act like one on most issues, but they don't see themselves that way.
It's part of the same self-deception that sees itself as democratic and freedom-loving while accepting authoritarian rule and conformity to their own tribal rules.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:32AM
That is mostly because they all know the scam they are running depends upon, at all cost and sacrificing all other goals if required, the masses never getting wise to the reality that Progressivism is a religion. Their great hack of the Constitution is perverting the prohibition against a State Church into a total exclusion of all religion from the public square, while at the same time establishing their own "not a religion" as the official Faith, where all knees must bend toward its idols, all schools must teach its creed and all laws conform to its moral code.
Sorry, lack of a god or gods does not make an otherwise totalizing theory of the universe, Man's place in it and a comprehensive moral code a non-religion. Otherwise there are a lot of other fine candidates for being deemed non-religions and permitted into the public square. But of course they aren't and won't be permitted because we have the One True Faith already established as the State Religion. It just doesn't call itself that. And that is ok because it is a Lie. Every smaller lie in its service is an act of worship offered up unto it.
Thee and me may nor may not believe in the Devil, but it is a virtual certainty that they do, at least in the higher ranks. They would find it both amusing and useful to keep the minions in the dark, so to speak. They wouldn't have the moral code they do any other way because it is a perfect negation of Enlightenment Christianity's code. That can't be random chance, it was a choice. It also provides a good clue as to when this particular Devil cult got spun up.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:19AM
Of course that can descend in to "if a tree falls in the forest..." arguments, in the sense that if the model very accurately predicts future behavior, the exact internal state may not matter as long as its a realistic situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @03:13PM
Authoritarianism of either color is always a sign of panic, of feelings of being endangered or overwhelmed. "The end is neigh!", "The history is going in wrong direction!", "Our principles be damned, we need desperate measures NOW!".
I wouldn't be so triumphant and smug if I was on the right. This happened before and will happen again, to all worldviews which achieve establishment status. The present time may be the 1960's of the 1960's, but next 1960's will probably come on time.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday October 02 2018, @01:55PM (4 children)
One problem that ignores is that the vast bulk of humanity is extremely bad at critical analysis of data - a trend worsened by the fact that there are no longer any reliable sources of information - not since the war over lead pollution showed the way to thoroughly corrupting the scientific process.
What actually happens, for pretty much everybody, is that you end up believing whatever a critical mass of people you interact with express. Which means if you've got trolls frequently expressing hateful B.S., and normal people just ignore them, then the belief in that hateful B.S. spreads into the previously normal population.
Of course censorship, like gun control, is a deeply dangerous solution requiring complete trust in the integrity of the government. It never fails to astound me that so many people call out for both, even as we watch the democratic underpinnings of our government crumble into authoritarianism.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:33PM (2 children)
Even if we grant that as true, you're stuck with the problem that there are no reliable sources of information and hence, no basis for which to do viable censorship.
Well, obviously we'll just all believe whatever I want us to believe. Thoughtcrime will be punished, of course, for our own good.
You can completely trust me. I have an honest face.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday October 04 2018, @07:16PM (1 child)
I did not intend to promote censorship - I figured that last line would give that away. Just point out that ignoring the trolls is not a viable path to dealing with the problem. To ignore them is to surrender the social awareness to their diseased perspective.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 05 2018, @10:56AM
So yet another problem that we supposedly have because there are dumb people in the world.
Except when you're not surrendering the social awareness by doing so. It remains a valid strategy. I don't buy that ignored trolls somehow manage to make more trolls than non-ignored trolls. That certainly hasn't been a problem today.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Wednesday October 03 2018, @08:42PM
Not to worry. Blockchain will solve this. :-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:12PM
Uh...no. Unlimited speech is always a good thing. Get the fuck out.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:21PM (7 children)
I repudiate censorship. Downplaying opposition to censorship as "moral panic" opens a very dangerous door. It's an especially dangerous door for those who are not in power to open; it's profoundly stupid, in fact.
Right now Trump is in power. He's not the one calling for censorship, he's the one decrying it. It's the Democrats calling for censorship. They somehow think it gives them a weapon, through social media, to remove Trump from power and to defeat those who elected him. In fact, it puts a very dangerous weapon in Trump's hand, if he gives in to the temptation to pick it up. Do Democrats really want Trump to bring down the heavy weight of the federal government on their heads, when they have practically made the case for him that doing so would be "in defense of democracy and the American way?" Really, everything they're doing is underscoring the case he has been trying to make, that an evil, out-of-touch, and unaccountable cabal, aka "The Swamp," are destroying the country.
That's the temporal context for this discussion on censorship, but more generally censorship is anathema.
The proper response, the only response in a free society, to censorship must be antipathy. The only proper response to ideas you don't like in the agora is to contest them. Silence allows them to spread. Repression causes them to explode.
Fight them with every word and argument you can muster as if democracy and your life depend on them, because they do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:56PM (4 children)
Trump Wants to Censor the Media [theatlantic.com]:
I also link this one because its pro-complacency slant would seem to defuse normal MSM hyperventilation and show that yes, Trump is calling for censorship: Sorry, Journalists: Trump Isn’t The First President To Threaten The Press [thefederalist.com]
Trump can take up six completely different positions on any one issue before breakfast. However, the white queen may count all of that as only one impossible thing, so he is losing badly. Sad!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:36PM (3 children)
That is what you get for reading The Atlantic. Trump DOES want there to be consequences for libel, slander and outright falsehood but the biggest weapon he has been wielding against the media is his bully pulpit, calling them out, de-legitimizing them and that is not only entirely proper it is long overdue. The media practice Journalism as a political tactic, it is time to stop pretending they are an unbiased news source. ALL OF THEM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:54PM
So now you DO want censorship? Cause I'm pretty sure Trump would demand punishment for anyone repeating allegations. Until proof comes out allegations are libel or slander, and in Trump's bizarro world that means he could prevent the media from saying a single unproven bad thing. Yeaaaaah, good job you jackass.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:58PM (1 child)
Trump DOES want there to be consequences for libel, slander and outright falsehood
Which you would be calling censorship in any other situation.
(Score: 3, Touché) by jmorris on Tuesday October 02 2018, @06:17PM
You seem to labor under a false premise, that "the media" are a formal branch of our government and their exclusive domain is to pronounce The Truth. The media is free to slander HIM, he is a big boi and fully capable of defending himself, and does do to great effect. He is destroying the press in fact. And goodbye to rubbish I say.
What they should not have the power to do is wander the land destroying those powerless to oppose them and to demand that anyone speaking a truth they have not approved a heretic and subjecting them to unpersoning. And yes, when they knowingly speak lies they should be made to pay the same legal price as you or me would if we did it. No special aristocracy, no royal privilege. Posting rights on Warner Brother's or Jeff Bezo's blogs should grant no rights you don't get if you post on your own blogspot blog. We are ALL equal or none of us are and I damned sure won't bend the knee to the incompetent fools at the New York Times.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 02 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)
I repudiate censorship. Downplaying opposition to censorship as "moral panic" opens a very dangerous door.
I repudiate censorship as well it's just that most of the "moral panic" isn't actually about censorship.
Let's say I own a printing press. I choose what gets printed and what doesn't get printed on my own press.
Is it censorship if I choose not to publish some rando's conspiracy theory? Or, is that being a good editor. Should said rando be able to force me to publish his article? Is interfering with my own editorial decisions censorship?
That's why we tend to draw the line at government censorship as the "real" censorship. But nobody is advocating for that so the panic is based on straw men.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:37PM
To continue that analogy:
You practically have a monopoly on copy shops across the country.
It's like owning Verizon, T-Mobile, AT+T, and Sprint. It's like owning OfficeDepot, OfficeMax, Staples, Walmart, and Target. It's like owning UPS, FedEx, and the US Postal Service. It's like owning HomeDepot, Lowe's, Menards, Lumber Liquidators, 84 Lumber Company, Ace, and True Value.
How about this: phone companies decide that people with views like DeathMonkey shouldn't get phone service. (fortunately for you, we made this illegal) It's not as if the government is censoring you. You can start your own phone company, write letters, or travel to speak in person.