Feb 2021
35 / 64
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
fusi
Feb '21
VibrantFox

Agree to disagree. And i know the facts about jk rowling and alex jones, they are toxic. But you see as i said before, the pendulum swings both ways, and ultimately the decision to deplatform someone is in the hands of the group with power, and what those groups or mainstream public deemed harmful. I don’t know if you know the fact that outside of the u.s, like in any country that actively suppresses human rights, often activists are being jailed and even people with normal but different view, people like me, who is an atheist will be jailed if i ever proclaim so in the public. But the problem is that not only they’re being jailed, their content is also being banned in the said country and it’s hard to express opinion other than the ‘rightful ones’. It’s these microaggression that eventually lead to their arrests. See the problem? Maybe look outside of our own bubble for a bit, and realize the situation is case specific, and there are lots of other minorities who are being oppressed and deplatformed too, not only you. I’m not saying this to belittle anyone though, as i’m a minority too. Accusing others who offer different angles to look at problems as ‘doesn’t even try to listen to the problem’ is for me, disheartening.

akitsukino
Feb '21
VibrantFox

That was a well written document! Great points brought up! This is one of the reasons I put “discourse” in quotation marks. There is definitely more important pressing issues like racism where “Oh, this isn’t “drama” this is a systemic issue that we’ve been fighting for over a century and if we don’t find solutions soon, more people suffer and die.”

Issues like FandomTwitter harassing an animation studio over bad cgi definitely shouldn’t be put on the same level as something like that.

I think “drama”, (if it is that and not real issue) is useless but it always makes me wonder “why’re we still talking about this?” We’re still talking about racism now because racism is still an issue that needs to be discussed and fought, but what about less severe topics? One things I think you’ve really touched on in a lot of your posts is the importance of discretion. Having these discussions over and over again may be tedious, but I wonder if the repetition is the only way to make sure we’re on the right track to finding out what really matters.

VibrantFoxRegular
Feb '21
fusi

I never once tied to disregard issues in other countries tho? I may not be fully informed but I am aware of issues of suppression of free speech in other countries which as you said are often times activists or people with views that are in opposition to the masses which is very alarming to see. Literally if anything I'm trying to say that I empathize even if the situations may be a little different (not all that much but still)

But like you said agree to disagree :wave:

IndigoShirtProd
Feb '21
fusi

I don't think this is the same thing. I really don't this is the same thing. If people are being jailed for their public views, that means in that country, they are committing a crime, meaning the government is the entity stripping a person of their rights, not a private company or person. That's a freedom of speech violation, not deplatforming a person based on their violation of a platform's rules or holding and espousing harmful beliefs.

Oh I see the problem, and it's not just deplatforming, it's human right violations. Not to say deplatforming a person isn't a way to violate someone's right, but it's not a one to one comparison.

fusi
Feb '21
1
VibrantFox

Yeah but by your standard and definition, people like me, who the general masses deemed harmful is alright to deplatform or to be cancelled. The moral compass / progress is different in each country, and to put a blanket statement that ‘toxic’ opinions should be censored will not work.

You see, the arrest isn’t made because they violate the country’s penal code, because there’s nothing written about it, but because the general masses are angry and demand the government and companies to do something about it, to ‘punish’ or censor the outliers.
It’s not the exactly same thing, i agree, but it starts from the same starting line.

NickRowler
Feb '21
fusi

You are talking about the guy who encouraged people to harass victims of mass shootings (some being minors) to the point where he was taken to court and had to pay the victims. The line about the frogs being gay comes from a homophobic conspiracy theory that the chemicals they put in water to help keep it clean causes the male's Y chromosome to break down and makes them feminine. Any "censorship" he is getting is people telling him that he is spreading toxic information that's not true and can lead to people getting hurt.

fusi
Feb '21

He was dragged to court, and by any mean exercise your right to protest/critique in any way necessary, delete the exact video that violates the rules or something, but do not censor free speech if it doesn’t incite violence(which is another grey area which every people have different red line). It’s not like i endorse him or anything, in fact i’m one of those people he hates the most. But i already witnessed/experienced personally what happens when you attempt to ‘erase’ problem rather than ‘solve’ problem.

HippieGhost
Feb '21

I feel like there's too much of a focus on the binary of censorship or no censorship. You can stop people from spreading hate speech and violence without putting political dissenters in gulags. What it boils down to is whether or not arguments are being made in bad faith, and what level of truth there is to the conversation. Deliberate spreading of hateful rhetoric and misinformation can and should be punished. Arguing because you disagree based on a different interpretation of the evidence shouldn't be.

IndigoShirtProd
Feb '21
1

I see what your saying, what is deemed 'toxic' by the majority is enough to throw someone in jail over. At least in the Alex Jones example, he was actively spreading harmful beliefs that led to directly negative consequences for the people involved. Then there are other's, whose ideas can't really be considered toxic because they do not directly or even indirectly harm others. But often the people deplatformed are in a similar position as those you've mentioned: small creators or personalities, sometimes from a minority group, that are deplatformed unfairly from a rabid mob or are so implicitly biased against that they might as well not have a platform.

"Dragged"

You can't violate someone's free speech if your not beholden to protecting it. And what's the point of removing one video if he can make more spreading the same vile rhetoric. Just keep removing videos until your satisfied?

Yea but he incited harrassment and detriment to the mental health of the parties involved. He caused active harm even if it was specifically violent.

fusi
Feb '21
HippieGhost

Then again the definition of ‘spreading hate’ varies depending on the person. Who will judge what is a bad faith, hateful rhetoric, what is the truth? The billionaire, the general masses, the ‘right’ ones? It’s the one in the power. Therefore, the pendulum swings both ways. Thank you. I’m out.

NickRowler
Feb '21
fusi

There is a misconception of what free speech is, people often think it is the right to be able to say anything, that is not true. Defamation is not covered under free speech. That is what he is guilty of. He encouraged people to harass minors who were dealing with PTSD. Even if the harassment was not "violent" it still caused harm to people.

IndigoShirtProd
Feb '21
fusi

The studies that show an uptick in hate crimes against people who have lies, misinformation, and hate speech spread about them.

Verifiable evidence and peer reviewed studies.

Yea in a dictatorship or a government structure of a similar caliber, though I do recognize the truth in "the victors write history."

fusi
Feb '21

Again, each side will create something to back their point of view/defense. There’s a lot of studies that were created solely to oppress minorities.

It’ll be great if both sides agrees which one is verifiable though, again each side and maybe one more than the others will use anything, in my case, people on the right, to oppress their opposition.

Defamation is really hard to prove. And it’s also a tool used to oppress minorities too. I’m really tired, though, i’m out.

thedude3445
Feb '21

"Discourse" is almost universally just a bunch of people with a poor grasp on rhetoric or research arguing with a bunch of other people who also have a poor grasp on rhetoric or research.

You get the people who passionately believe in a topic and will post a thousand essay or video recommendations about the Discourse Topic to help change the minds of those who are currently opposed to them, wasting hours of their life on something that will never change because, honestly, nobody clicks those links. Then you have the bad faith actors who know the aim of the people they are engaging with, and try to rile them up or get them off-track (you see this constantly with any Discourse having to do with certain People's Republics). Then, of course, you have the people so far in the weeds, so angrily fighting whatever internet war they've been dragged into, that they have stopped being able to see what is actually discussed and have resorted more to tribalism with the people who agree with them.

I'm not even thinking about anything specific here. Sometimes huge weighty issues like racist institutions and authortarian governments are thrown in, though most of the time it's "///This fandom thing is Problematic and here's why, my thread ///" and it's all just drama. It doesn't matter the topic; I think some people just really want to argue about stuff, regardless of how informed they actually are about it. I've seen too many wonderful internet people, both celebrities and acquaintances, devolve into Discourse Machines; all they can do is talk about "takes" and "lrt" snark and post "yikes" about fifteen times a day. It genuinely makes me really sad.

If I had access to unlimited power for one week, my first act as world dictator would be to delete Twitter and delete all web archive backups of all tweets ever made. This is how much I hate the Discourse and what it's done to friends and acquaintances over the years.

indagold
Feb '21
1
NickRowler

That's a load of bullshit and you know it. I tested the theory and posted a innocuous thread talking about people's experiences as minority creators and how it relates to characters and it got locked immediately when someone had a civil disagreement with someone. No fighting, no nothing. It used to be in the past you could discuss issues like this openly but the moment the mods see a thread that could remotely be seen as political, they lock it no matter how useful it could be and civil it is. I've had posts flagged for literally nothing, posts that the OP of the thread agreed with. This forum is a goddamn cesspool.

@VibrantFox so you're implying i'm promoting hate speech and not that twitter and other platforms censor creators over nearly nothing? People get banned nowadays over the stupidest shit. Wow what a useless hot take and kinda really rude to make that assumption, dude. Most of the times i've been censored was my discussion of being a minority. Can't wait for you to get banned over nothing and see how it feels lol

VibrantFoxRegular
Feb '21

again never once said this and desperately wish people would stop putting words in my mouth :upside_down:

I'm wholly aware of the fact that ppl on online platforms get suspended over pure bs and i've watched it happen to my own online mutuals (very recently in fact) Literally a few days ago saw two mutuals get banned for drawing miku plus sized with dark skin and a tooth gap. Both of them got mass reported even though their actions were innocuous and their accounts were suspended. One of the two litteraly got threats that they should be r*ped.

Do not accuse me of such senseless bs when I never uttered such things and if in some way i did please please show me.