I'm pretty sure that most Trumpers would censor people on the left given the chance. They'd justify it in terms of public safety too. — five G

I think the Trump crowd accept fringe views because they think that comes with freedom of speach. But yes, they wouldn't allow anyone they consider a public safety issue around (starting from ISIS).

I must confess that I'm personally a little paranoid about this kind of thing. — five G

You are totally correct to be paranoid. For starters, ECHELON is (was) of similar age than I am. And I'm not a youngster anymore.

Actually, it's not inconceivable the FBI will start asking sites like ours for IP addresses. — Baden

That is totally true. So stick to your Guidelines, Baden. Really.

Here's the thing with the FBI and others: they actually are not partisan in this and will go and observe ALL possible kind forums, from pro-life to pro-choice, from antifa to the right wing militias and to animal-rights sites or libertarian sites. Pro-Trump sites now? You bet. And a philosophy forum would be a typical place to check, because heck, you have computers and algorithms to do that. It's not that a physical person employed would have to follow the stuff, so the cost isn't so high.

I think you're right in regards to Weimar. There is an eerie similarity between the treatment of those involved in the protest and those involved in the Reichstag fire. It makes me wonder if Democrats and their GOP enablers are using the "insurrection" conspiracy theory as a pretext to remove civil liberties, particularly against their political opponents. — NOS4A2

NOS, now you are only showing that Weimar-mentality. You just assume that they will use events as a pretext to remove civil liberties and and attack their opponents. This is the attitude discourse of a conspiracy theorist and a populist.

Just try to think from another point of view:

How about the more obvious case: that they (the US political elite) are deeply humiliated just how the US politics now looks to the whole World and demand a stop this. It was their offices that were ransacked. They had to flee from an angry mob. This didn't happen on the West Coast in Portland. And as they don't understand how grave the underlying current of distrust is, they don't see that people will see their response as, well, like you do. But mark my words, the politicians will react. And the distrust will be just reinforced.

You just assume that they will use events as a pretext to remove civil liberties and and attack their opponents — ssu

So I agree that legally it looks like there's no free speech violations, since the platform has power to remove whatever content they like. There is a rational kernel to the free speech argument though. Large social media sites effectively function as the social commons; they're how we chat, make friends, inform ourselves and so on. It is quite creepy that someone can be exiled from that commons with little to no oversight.

I think the free speech complaint "goes through" so to speak, but not in the terms it's originally articulated in. — fdrake

For sure, the bases of moderation and suspension/banning should be explicit in those T&C's. It is frustrating when platforms augment this with unofficial, ad hoc moderation (the Guardian being a prime example). But even if they don't, yes it's unfair, so what? That's a judgement on those platforms. As Pfhorrest said, simple solution is don't use them if you don't like them.

Anti-terrorism is... bad?

From the person who wrote the Patriot act, yes.

From the person who wrote the Patriot act, yes. — StreetlightX

What does Jim Sensenbrenner have to do with it?

Either way, seems a bit hysterical to bemoan the loss of civil liberties of some future bill being looked into regarding domestic terrorism. If and when someone tries to introduce security legislation that actually impacts civil liberties, the question of whether the majority prefer the liberty or the security ought to be had then.

What does Jim Sensenbrenner have to do with it? — Kenosha Kid

Joe Biden, friend.

Either way, seems a bit hysterical to bemoan the loss of civil liberties of some future bill being looked into regarding domestic terrorism. If and when someone tries to introduce security legislation that actually impacts civil liberties, the question of whether the majority prefer the liberty or the security ought to be had then. — Kenosha Kid

Have you met the US Government? Or its intelligence apparatus, for that matter?

Hell, with Snowden we found out that it doesn't even need laws to breach your civil liberties.

Edit: one more point - let's not forget that with the billions spent on security since 9/11, a bunch of larping nitwits with no plan and minimal organization were able to literally sit on the speakers' chair; these laws, when not functioning as security theatre designed to inconvenience working people, will inevitably be selectively used to destroy any and all activism that the state disagrees with. People need more room for sedition, not less. What needs changing is the cause.

Joe Biden, friend. — StreetlightX

Had not heard that. He also said "The devil is in the details" when discussing the difference, although that is the difference between at best one degree of loss of civil liberties and another.

Have you met the US Government? — StreetlightX

Sure. If Congress are going to pass any kind of sinister bill, not much anyone can do about it. May just as well fear everything then. As I said, I'll wait until I see the bill.

Sure. If Congress are going to pass any kind of sinister bill — Kenosha Kid

Humph. My working assumption is that any bill passed under a Biden administration will be a sinister bill unless proven otherwise. I think it will have a higher hit ratio than the other way around.

If Congress are going to pass any kind of sinister bill, not much anyone can do about it. — Kenosha Kid

They have those laws in the book already.

Anti-terrorism is... bad? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, for those who see violence and extra-parliamentary action as the key to get things done in a democracy.

Yet of course anti-terrorism usually doesn't solve the underlying problems, but it can do away with fringe movements that basically have no larger support than a cult would have.

The real question is if still the legal system prevails. I think one example is the UK and it's "Time of Troubles": when known terrorists can live their life freely, either after their jail sentences or when the authorities cannot represent enough evidence for a conviction. That happened in the UK with the Provisional IRA.

I'm sure the lists are incomplete. :D When serial liars become the go-to authority for a lot of people with zeal and guns, then it could well make sense for privately owned platforms to kick them off. — jorndoe

Well said. This appears exactly right. And I hold no illusions about the benevolence of social media platforms.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/journals/opis/3/1/article-p115.pdf

Information Apocalypse is here and it's here to stay.

Private companies, thanks to their monopolies, are effectively censoring people. I find the legal argument, that it's a private business and those censored can start their own site or social network or move somewhere else disingenuous. There's no "somewhere else" when we precisely join networks because of the inherent value of the existing network. (That said, I'm in the process of switching to Signal and dropping WhatsApp).

To combat this, we can at least do the following:

1. make it mandatory for any messaging app to be interoperable with other messaging apps.
2. prohibit targeted ads, news and videos. (It's economically shit anyways: creepy ads suck monkey balls
3. use antitrust laws.

Although to be honest the US is probably a lost cause due to how money is married to politics there to an extent not possible in some of my favourite countries (Nordics, Germany and the Netherlands).

In any event, the power of mass media has always rested in the hands of the few. Historically, you first must have had a printing press, then the ability to print large scale newspapers and fliers, then access to the radio waves, then to the television waves and then to cable and such. Because market entry was difficult, the owners generally held to an ethic to be truthful, at least in the West.

This modern problem of giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to mass media via Twitter, Facebook and the like is something that must now be grappled with. The solution, as is now evident, is not to allow a free for all. I have no problem with the owners of mass media doing as they always had in the past: publishing only that which meets proper editorial standards. Such worked for probably 1000 years prior to tweets and insta posts. — Hanover

You think we should go back to how it was hundreds of years ago? Not long before the arrival of the printing press, speech, education, and even gatherings, in the western world, were strictly controlled by The Church. Any suspicious activity and you'd be subject to The Holy Inquisition.

Do you think we need to return to that type of scenario? It doesn't sound like fun to me. What about the scenario described by Plato in "The Republic"? He thought that art ought to be censored, and particular types, which he thought bad, ought to be disallowed . The worst for Plato is what has been commonly translated as "narrative". Wouldn't that include all media reporting of "The News"? The reason why narrative appears to take on such an evil character seems to be that it is often stated as, and received as, 'the truth', when the producers of it do not have the capacity, or will, to create a true narrative.

You think we should go back to how it was hundreds of years ago? — Metaphysician Undercover

That conclusion cannot be inferred from anything I've said. What I indicated was that there have been editorial standards for over 1000 years, and there's no reason to abandon standards entirely simply because mass media is now generally available to the public.

I'm not suggesting there be some subjective, whimsical approach to determining what is worthy of publication. Journalistic ethics can be arrived at and they ought be enforced if we wish for our journalism to be ethical. If, on the other hand, we want to provide a platform for those who scream the loudest or who have the most provocative things to say, we can continue forward with what we're doing.

If we can demand that the medicine we take will cure us, that the cars we purchase start when we turn the key, that our computers properly link us to the internet, then we should similarly be able to expect the news reports we read to reflect what actually occurred. It's not clear to me why mass media should be an exception and should get a pass and be permitted to defraud those who consume those products with impunity.

So, we should sue Fox News for pretending to offer fair and balanced news? Aren't they going to say "free speech" and tell you to fuck off?

It is quite creepy that someone can be exiled from that commons with little to no oversight. — fdrake

I must admit I'm having trouble figuring out why I should be concerned about being banned from Twitter, Facebook and the vast majority of social media sites. If I had to make a yes/no decision right on the spot I'd probably thank them for kicking me out. Being banned from Twitter is like being banned from a landfill.

For sure, the bases of moderation and suspension/banning should be explicit in those T&C's. It is frustrating when platforms augment this with unofficial, ad hoc moderation (the Guardian being a prime example). But even if they don't, yes it's unfair, so what? That's a judgement on those platforms. As Pfhorrest said, simple solution is don't use them if you don't like them. — Kenosha Kid

@Hippyhead

Oh, I don't use them, and I regret it at least once a week. Here are some social things that happened since I stopped using social media:

(1) Many lifelong friends no longer contact me.
(2) I no longer get invited to any social gatherings I don't organise myself.

I've tried keeping in contact with friends and social groups; emails, phonecalls, Whatsapp; those are a relatively small window into their lives in terms of engagement-hours. Eventually people just stopped responding. I haven't had a regular group of friends, or been able to get one, since "taking my business elsewhere". Since "elsewhere" from social media is like being deleted from the commons. My presence is largely filtered out from the construction of social reality.

You may think it doesn't limit social interactions once they're already rolling; and for that I cite you the countless times someone has wanted to add me on Facebook, instead I offer them my email or phonenumber or Whatsapp, and the person immediately stops talking to me or never contacts me again using my suggested media. The intuition: what kind of weirdo exempts themselves from society like this?

I think perhaps you're both showing your age.

The intuition: what kind of weirdo exempts themselves from society like this? — fdrake

I hear your points, really I do. But I would answer your question this way.

The kind of weirdo that exempts themselves from social media could be the kind of weirdo who understands that, due to severe limitations of the human condition, social media sites are OVERWHELMINGLY jammed to overflowing with time wasting worthless crap. Never has the phrase "much ado about nothing" been so useful.

I hear your points because I do understand that being a hermit is not going to work for very many of us.

But honest to God, true story, there is a retarded squirrel living in cage at the top of the stairs here who is far more interesting, to me, than most human beings.

Although to be honest the US is probably a lost cause due to how money is married to politics there to an extent not possible in some of my favourite countries (Nordics, Germany and the Netherlands). — Benkei

This is the unfortunate bind in the US. Even if a net corporations would have tried to be impartial and would have upheld freedom of speech values, they likely would face even bigger wrath from the DNC and the incoming administration. Some YouTube or Twitter wouldn't be exactly favorites of the democrats if they would have allowed Alex Jones et al. use their platforms right up to last Wednesday. Americans simply don't consider any corporation to be impartial, but twist the narrative to what they want to portray.

The simple reason is the vitriolic nature of the two-party system. Those favourite countries you mentioned have political systems that, at least for now, have the ability during times of extreme duress (severe terrorist attack, large scale natural disaster etc.) to come together and reach a consensus. Hopefully this won't change.

That's interesting. I suspect you're right. I've been on Facebook since near the beginning, when you needed a college email to get on. I've deleted several times since then, and didn't miss it much at all. But that was years ago.

I agree that keeping in contact with people is still very much a useful thing. Now I simply prefer to use their Messenger application. The rest ("news" feed mainly, and the advertisements they bring, plus groups -- most of which are toxic) has become quite useless. I suggest this as a compromise to you if you're regretting not using it. It's basically text or, if people remember back, AIM (AOL Instant Messenger).

I think perhaps you're both showing your age. — fdrake

This is true enough. One of the things that happens with age is that you've heard all the ego driven melodrama merry-go-round noise so many times that it becomes of ever less interest. It's like a TV show that you liked the first couple of times you watched it, but after about the 14th viewing you started yelling, "Ok, ok, alright, alright, enough already!"

But honest to God, true story, there is a retarded squirrel living in cage at the top of the stairs here who is far more interesting, to me, than most human beings. — Hippyhead

This is not meant to be insulting, because I've felt (and continue to feel) this way as well, but I think it's worth attempting to grow out of this kind of view. I think this attitude is a remnant of adolescent contempt. I have to fight the feeling often enough to realize it's far easier said than done -- although also quite appropriate at times -- but I think it's a worthwhile undertaking, especially in the current circumstances. There should be no quarter given to those participating in, supporting, condoning, or cryptically justifying what took place Wednesday -- and to those who are begging for a fight or a civil war should not be run away from. But we're still stuck with 75 million + people who, for whatever reason, took the time to vote for Donald Trump, and not all of them are unreachable. I don't see a way out of this other than making attempts to educate them, and that can't be done if we hold them in contempt.

I know your point was about social media, by the way, so I digress.

No one should have to square themselves with being a hermit in order to avoid using a website.

I agree that keeping in contact with people is still very much a useful thing. Now I simply prefer to use their Messenger application. The rest ("news" feed mainly, and the advertisements they bring, plus groups -- most of which are toxic) has become quite useless. I suggest this as a compromise to you if you're regretting not using it. It's basically text or, if people remember back, AIM (AOL Instant Messenger). — Xtrix

On the whole I don't regret not using it. I'd join again if I had a good use for it; like marketing or organisation, I'd put aside personal quibbles for that. At this point I think anyone I could actually socialise with... I'm already in regular contact with; the other dinosaurs and hermits I know. The thing about the social commons being monopolised is that it housing the commons disincentivizes forming another space; since it doesn't "house the commons" until it's reached a critical point of development, before that it's just a worse interface to social life. I'd have contact with the people I already have contact with, but not the other features of social life; so long as they're not represented on the less used service!

Argument against impeaching Trump: All of the sycophantic, opportunistic congresspersons who supported him these last few years knowing what he was will have a chance to absolve themselves quickly and cleanly for a purely symbolic gain.

(1) Many lifelong friends no longer contact me. — fdrake

I don't think real friends place strict rules on modes of communication like this. My real friends and I, the kind of people who would be in contact anyway, rarely contact each other on Facebook. "Friends" that will only speak to you on Facebook are "Facebook friends".

(2) I no longer get invited to any social gatherings I don't organise myself. — fdrake

This is true. You do miss out on interesting stuff sometimes. Of course, you don't *have* to boycott Facebook on principle. I've been suspended from Comment Is Free on The Guardian so many times for disagreeing with feminists (not in particular, I am just generally disagreeable) I've lost count. I still go on there to disagree with people. I just don't care enough about whether it's fair or not. Same with all social media, so in a rare wtf moment I am in total agreement with Hippyhead.

I still have a FB account. I stopped using it when Facebook decided to make it utterly useless. The algorithms they use and the density of advertising meant I was actually seeing less of my friends than I was when I had far fewer friends. I did a massive cull, whacked my friends list right down to little over a hundred. Didn't make much difference. Now it's just an address list I feel obliged to go to after my birthday to thank everyone for wishing me a happy birthday. It was good once, total crap now.

That conclusion cannot be inferred from anything I've said. What I indicated was that there have been editorial standards for over 1000 years, and there's no reason to abandon standards entirely simply because mass media is now generally available to the public. — Hanover

Yes, it's easy for you to say that standards have worked in the past, but until you take a good look at what was going on in the past, that statement is rather doubtful because you don't consider how the standards were enforced. For most of those 1000 years the standards were strictly dictated by The Church, and if you would have stepped out of line, or even perceived to have possibly stepped out of line, you'd be subjected to The Inquisition.

Journalistic ethics can be arrived at and they ought be enforced if we wish for our journalism to be ethical. — Hanover

And who would be doing this enforcement, the president, some political party which happens to be in power at the time? The capacity to enforce such standards is what leads to the suppression of political opponents.

If we can demand that the medicine we take will cure us, that the cars we purchase start when we turn the key, that our computers properly link us to the internet, then we should similarly be able to expect the news reports we read to reflect what actually occurred. — Hanover

The difference here, between a government enforcing standards on medications and car sales, and a government enforcing standards on news reporting, is that the political party in power does not stand to benefit from that type of enforcements. But that would not be the case if the government could enforce standards on news reporting, because there would a conflict of interest.

This is not meant to be insulting, because I've felt (and continue to feel) this way as well, but I think it's worth attempting to grow out of this kind of view. I think this attitude is a remnant of adolescent contempt. — Xtrix

My reply is not meant to be insulting either, we're just chatting, no worries. My attitude arises out of about a billion hours spent in the north Florida woods, which I have discovered to be more interesting than human beings, on average, generally speaking.

I can plug in to this site because it at least attempts to be about interesting ideas. But massive piles of little bits of nothing just doesn't do it for me.

I don't see a way out of this other than making attempts to educate them, and that can't be done if we hold them in contempt. — Xtrix

Agreed. And if I could add, not just educate them, but be educated by them where possible. That's surely implied in the concept of not holding them in contempt.