54 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
Reason is more resourceful than that, and people, by nature, have free will, and are generally open to well reasoned positions when they are provided such at their level.
When they are free to choose rationally, yes. But there’s a reciprocal sort of vicious cycle between censorship, coercion and irrationality, just as there is between freedom and rationality.
I’m not saying that a private company’s choice of whom to platform could constitute censorship (it can’t) but perhaps we need another term for what it actually is. It’s not as bad as literal censorship and we are all still free to do business with companies we don’t consider evil (as Parler is an excellent example of) but I do think the actions of some of these companies are evil and certainly not good for a free and open dialogue.
Take all the money Amazon donated to Black Lives Matter during the height of their rioting (I believe it was upwards of one billion dollars). Does anyone think a single penny of it went towards anything useful or good? I certainly don’t. And although it was their right to donate whatever money they have to whomever or whatever they choose, giving it to BLM was such an irresponsible call that I’m choosing it as my example of “corporate evil” (if you will).
Again, this isn’t to say that anyone should try and take those choices away from any corporation of any size; only that we as consumers should probably start paying more attention to such choices when deciding who we’d like to do business with.
That’s basically how Amy Peikoff framed Amazon’s underhanded attempt to destroy Parler and there’s not much else I can add to it.
On 3/13/2021 at 5:29 PM, Eiuol said:
This is pure speculation unless he has something to substantiate this claim.
Are you familiar with Project Veritas? I only watch their stuff occasionally (and a few of the claims they’ve made seem only weakly supported by their reporting of the actual evidence for them) but they did a very illuminating bit about Facebook last year which I think would totally substantiate that claim, if we assume that YouTube is being run in a similar way.
That is an assumption. It seems like a good one to me, but it might be wrong.
But to return to Marilyn Manson’s (s)Ain’t video, if THAT doesn’t trigger their moderating algorithm (or person) then whatever is doing the moderating simply is not interested in the filth, smut, personal abuse, swearing, or any other non-partisan concept of “cleanliness” one could think to invoke.
YouTube is obviously not cleaning up the same sorts of refuse that they claim to be.
I guess all of that is, itself, also pretty speculative. But it seems like a step in the right direction.
Of all the companies I’m gonna have to minimize my own business with I think I’ll miss Coca-Cola by far the most. I’ve been drinking it every day for so long that I’m not sure I remember how to live without it. But they recently forced all their employees to attend some thing about “being less white” and I can only assume they were referring to their customer base. And is there anything more white than a ginger?
I think not.
