• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

White House launches tool to report censorship on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter

Deleted member 12352

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,203
Jesus that's pathetic.

Seeing minor consequences for being a racist/misogynist/xxx-phobe/general piece of shit on social media isn't "censorship" ffs.

Don't want to be treated like a cock? Stop acting like a cock.
 
joe1138

joe1138

Member
Oct 28, 2017
924
If its a private platform, shouldn't the people running that platform be able to freely decide whom to ban/allow and what type of content they want published on it?

Is anything stopping the US government from setting up its own social networking platform that promises complete freedom of speech in accordance with the Constitution/Bill of Rights?
 
Mirk

Mirk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
890
SigmasonicX said:
Took a quick look, seems like there's nothing stopping users from just sending whatever. You can even put in a nonexistent zip code.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's because they will not be doing anything with this it's just for show. Well they will prolly use w/e info they do get to spam you for his re-election.
 
Avitus

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,898
Atom Heart Mother said:
ok guys i get it the post wasnt good i just dont like censorship of any form
UpH4OQ3.png
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're on a forum that is readable because of moderation. The tech companies do the bare minimum right now. If anything, they need far more moderation.
 
Ogami Itto

Ogami Itto

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,612
I mean the government can't really tell private companies what speech is allowed, right? So what is the point of this tool?
 
MisterHero

MisterHero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,934
Giolon said:
It is censorship. The government is not the only authority capable of censorship - any authority is. In this case, the platform holders (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are the authority of their own platform.

What it's not, however, is a violation of the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. That can only be violated by the government.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is it different from moderating content?

Also, by banning someone they are not saying they can't keep spreading their views. They just have to do it somewhere else. Anyone can have their own platform with their own domain and they can even have their own authority. If it becomes cost prohibitive then so be it.
 
PMS341

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
Atom Heart Mother said:
ok guys i get it the post wasnt good i just dont like censorship of any form
UpH4OQ3.png
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is not censorship in any form. I want to break this down for you: Imagine you own a small business, just a little shop or something. You have a few customers in the store, and one of them starts yelling racial slurs, hateful rhetoric and bigotry, conspiracy theories - even manages to cause another customer of yours to kill themselves. Any sane person would ban them from the store immediately (and obviously in this particular scenario call the fucking cops). Now imagine that store is instead a platform with outreach to tens of millions of people every single day, but that same shithead from before is on the loudspeaker. You'd probably cut the cord on that, right?

That same person more than likely has a defense squad that will do anything to protect their hateful, dumbass views while hiding under the guise of advocates of "free speech" and fighting what they call "censorship", when this has nothing to do with either of those. They know it. So when you call this situation censorship, understand the people you're aligning yourself with.
 
Otherist

Otherist

Member
Oct 27, 2017
871
England
Report platforms that ban you for racism, and delude yourself into thinking it achieved something while adding yourself to a mailing list. All for free!
 
Keldroc

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,968
Giolon said:
It is censorship. The government is not the only authority capable of censorship - any authority is. In this case, the platform holders (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are the authority of their own platform.

What it's not, however, is a violation of the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. That can only be violated by the government.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nope. You don't know what censorship is. Might be time to listen instead of talk.
 
Giolon

Giolon

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,076
MisterHero said:
How is it different from moderating content?

Also, by banning someone they are not saying they can't keep spreading their views. They just have to do it somewhere else. Anyone can have their own platform with their own domain and they can even have their own authority. If it becomes cost prohibitive then so be it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is no difference. Moderation is censorship. Censorship is not illegal. Government censorship is illegal as it infringes upon the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech (generally speaking in the US).

Private entities are fully within their rights to determine what content is or isn't allowed on their platforms. See ERA.

Keldroc said:
Nope. You don't know what censorship is. Might be time to listen instead of talk.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, you yourself could just start with the wikipedia page for censorship. It's literally the first two sentences:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations."

While not the be-all, end-all, it's a good start.
 
GuessMyUserName

GuessMyUserName

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,155
Toronto
MisterHero said:
How is it different from moderating content?

Also, by banning someone they are not saying they can't keep spreading their views. They just have to do it somewhere else. Anyone can have their own platform with their own domain and they can even have their own authority. If it becomes cost prohibitive then so be it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think they're saying it's any different than moderating content, but that "censorship" isn't a blanket bad thing. Frankly it's a much more useful point to make than the usual "it's not censorship" argument.
 
Laevateinn

Laevateinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,137
Chicago
I filled it out saying the White House has been refusing to answer questions to the press and has been trying to shut down journalists.
 
Annubis

Annubis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,653
Now we know why they didn't sign that thing against internet hate.
They knew they had a paper to promote it on their desk.
 
Sunster

Sunster

The Fallen
Oct 5, 2018
10,002
Those Filipino BPO workers who spend day and night scrubbing Facebook of child porn, gore, and other heinous images and text are the real criminals! Don't they know about the US constitution (aka the law of the world) that clearly states, "All views are 1:1 equal and it is illegal for anyone or any company to discourage or interrupt or censor anything under any circumstance."
 
I am a Bird

I am a Bird

Member
Oct 31, 2017
7,194
I hope this backfires and people use the tools to report when facebook blocks accounts for showing bias in not blocking certain accounts.
 

Finalrush

Member
Dec 7, 2017
729
Giolon said:
I mean, you yourself could just start with the wikipedia page for censorship. It's literally the first two sentences:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations."

While not the be-all, end-all, it's a good start.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Weird how there's a citation after "government" but not one after "private institutions and corporations".

If you define any sort of moderation of anything as censorship, then there is no space in our world without it. So why would we define it so broadly that it ceases to have meaning? Wouldn't the government determining what is and is not allowed on social media be even more direct censorship?
 
plagiarize

plagiarize

Eating crackers
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,489
Cape Cod, MA
LiK

LiK

Member
Oct 25, 2017
32,017
WH only cares if the suspended or banned accounts are Trump supporters. It's a useless "tool"
 
Hey Please

Hey Please

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
22,824
Not America
I am SOrrY tHat you SoYboyS do Not LiKe ThE truth About AutiSM and VacCinE or tHat CliMate ChaNge is A Hoax or That NaZis were NoT ALL BAd peOple
SeParATe but =
WhY do TheM BlacK peOpLe gEt to Have A HiStoRY moNTh bUt us WhiTe folKs don'T?
FemINISm is CanCeR
Don'T TreAd oN Me Bro
WhItE NatIONAlsm is NoT WhIte SupReMacY
FucK DiVersITY. I dOn'T WAnt PoliTics In My ViDeo GaeMs
MoLoN LAbe

American degeneracy continues to sink lower. Let's all normalize this shit because majority whites won't suffer because of the rhetoric.
 
thesoapster

thesoapster

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,887
MD, USA
Atom Heart Mother said:
i mean censorship is bad and silencing voices you don't like is bad too

don't know how to feel about this
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

When the marketplace of ideas shuts you out and/or your speech is deemed dangerous, it's not your typical sort of censorship.

Edit: Also when a private company does it to you for violating their terms of service, it still doesn't count. Honestly this part is super in line with conservative values.

Edit 2: Following up on the first edit, when conservatives say private entities are free by the 1st Amendment to deny service to patrons as their service constitutes some form of speech (making a cake, for example), then private entities that lay out clear terms are more than free to enforce them.
 
Last edited:
L Thammy

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
49,940
Also, I feel like anyone arguing "all censorship is bad" should immediately follow with their opinions on the distribution of child porn. Because it logically follows that either you're totally cool with that or that you agree that, okay, sometimes it's okay to not allow people to communicate things.
 
Stiler

Stiler

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
6,659
Does the current admin not understand the first amendment?

It protects you from the government censoring you, but even this has limits to what is protected under it.

However a private company does NOT have to give you a platform to shout bullshit if they don't want to.

That'd be like someone coming to your house, saying some shit you don't want them to say and then they claim free speech and you aren't allowed to kick them out...it's YOUR house, just like facebook is facebook's space.

From a legal standpoint I don't understand what grounds they even have to dictate this.
 
Giolon

Giolon

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,076
Finalrush said:
Weird how there's a citation after "government" but not one after "private institutions and corporations".

If you define any sort of moderation of anything as censorship, then there is no space in our world without it. So why would we define it so broadly that it ceases to have meaning? Wouldn't the government determining what is and is not allowed on social media be even more direct censorship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you like you can check out a straight dictionary definition from a reputable source such as in Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship. While they give examples using government censorship, it is by no means intrinsic to the definition.

I did not make the definition. I can only point out to people what the definition actually is (and also point out that censorship isn't illegal, nor do I believe it to be unwarranted in all cases). I don't find it to be a uselessly broad definition. It is what it is. If you want to talk about something more specific, we also have terms for that.

The most hilarious thing to me here is that any government intervention would be practically guaranteed to be interpreted as a violation of the 1st amendment.

Stiler said:
Does the current admin not understand the first amendment?

It protects you from the government censoring you, but even this has limits to what is protected under it.

However a private company does NOT have to give you a platform to shout bullshit if they don't want to.

That'd be like someone coming to your house, saying some shit you don't want them to say and then they claim free speech and you aren't allowed to kick them out...it's YOUR house, just like facebook is facebook's space.

From a legal standpoint I don't understand what grounds they even have to dictate this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think they have much regard for the Constitution at all. I don't think it's a matter of not understanding but more likely to be a matter of not caring.
 
Mr. President

Mr. President

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,829
Stiler said:
Does the current admin not understand the first amendment?

It protects you from the government censoring you, but even this has limits to what is protected under it.

However a private company does NOT have to give you a platform to shout bullshit if they don't want to.

That'd be like someone coming to your house, saying some shit you don't want them to say and then they claim free speech and you aren't allowed to kick them out...it's YOUR house, just like facebook is facebook's space.

From a legal standpoint I don't understand what grounds they even have to dictate this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You think they care?
This is just red meat for angry grandfathers blame Facebook for "shadowbanning" them when they get no likes on their rants about immigrants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.