Truth In Politics Youtube Channel

Intellectuals and the Media
,
41

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Would you cancel people for advocating faith in god or for claiming to have evidence that the earth is flat?

 

This depends on the platform. I think it greatly depends on the target audience and the size of the platform. YouTube is a very broad platform, so I would use the most broad standards I can think of that are appropriate for standards of functioning society (basic standards of decency and civility). For those things I would tend towards meta-moderation like you find on Reddit, and only use outright post deletion when there are particularly egregious issues. In the context of YouTube, no, I wouldn’t do anything to those people who advocate faith in God.

Then we can have something more narrow like this forum. In this case I would even ban flat earthers just as I would ban qanoners. The reason is because this is a site for more narrow shared values. And we can get even more narrow like a mailing list people at is it in a narrow subfield of something, and are really trying to develop a set of ideas and don’t want to take the time to prove to everyone else why certain ideas are not worth discussing further. 

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

One, an election process is not a government.

I don’t want to get into it now, it’s not even the best example for this discussion. But suffice it to say that I think the election process is so fundamental about the government that denying the validity of the procedure after an election has been validated is subversive. Not that subversion is inherently bad, but it is subversion nevertheless.

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I think you’re wrong, but aren’t you rejecting the government procedure that found no evidence of collusion with Russia?

The conclusion was that further investigation was justified, and Congress should look into it further. The conclusion was not that there was no evidence of collusion. 

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

It sounds like you’re saying that someone at YT is reviewing channels to determine whether the owner might sue over being nuked off the platform. Do you have evidence for that theory?

It’s unsubstantiated. I’m saying it because I know that legal procedures happen about intellectual property, and the threat of legal fees is enough to change the behavior of a company. Beyond that, it’s just speculation. I have no idea why they would allow that Manson video, it’s the best explanation I have.

42

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

The conclusion was that further investigation was justified, and Congress should look into it further. The conclusion was not that there was no evidence of collusion. 

I’ll rephrase. Aren’t you rejecting the government procedure that found “insufficient” evidence of collusion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc7e5LMgwao

 

43

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

To unload the question, isn’t it correct to say that Zuckerberg disrupted the election process by funding ballot ‘drop boxes’?

Not objectively correct. If there is a law that explicitly prohibits the activity, it would be objectively correct.

Now, if there is no such law and should there be such a law is a different matter.

44

Seeing words can’t kill you, I think everything that’s articulated by someone anywhere can have a place. For someone.

If one wants to better understand the premises of ideas and their possible effects (else - ignore). Better ‘out there’ than silenced, censored, gagged, muzzled and never heard. But well known, is that particularly Leftist feature: words can kill you.

Sure, the big tech people must believe they are doing good for society in their image of ‘Society’ and ‘good’, but be wary of reading benevolence in there. They run too close to social engineering. “Its your minds they want”.

45

8 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Better ‘out there’ than silenced, censored, gagged, muzzled and never heard

Good thing this does not happen in the US. The US is not as bad as you think it is.

46

41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Good thing this does not happen in the US. The US is not as bad as you think it is.

Then the cancel culture is only a figment of my imagination, dreamed up by the Alt-Right, hmm? The Democrats aren’t really pulling out every strategem to achieve a one party state? I think it penetrates to many outsiders that the US is not as good as it should be of late and they fear for it.

47

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I’ll rephrase. Aren’t you rejecting the government procedure that found “insufficient” evidence of collusion?

Insufficient in this context means there is not proof. I will say that I should not have said the word collusion, and it never was about collusion because collusion isn’t even a legal charge. But I do know that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. It’s very different than saying that the investigation is illegitimate, which I think is that the people who wanted to specifically “stop the steal” rejected the legitimacy of the government to begin with. Not just disagreeing with government policy, but actively standing against the procedures themselves. 

The point is, even if I’m wrong about all this, those kind of behaviors warrant banning and things like that. And yes, saying things is behavior. My position as nothing to do with the ideas themselves. It has to do with the behavior of people, what they do.

15 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Then the cancel culture is only a figment of my imagination

No one is silenced, censored, gagged or muzzled. Those are terms for when your freedom of speech is denied. 

It might sound like that from where you are, but it really isn’t true. No one here is actually afraid, and the who act like they are afraid I think are grifters, or people who think they are always victimized. Americans generally don’t care about what others tell them to say. They move on to something else or make their own opportunity if no one lets them speak. That’s what has been happening. 

 

48

1 minute ago, Eiuol said:

No one is silenced, censored, gagged or muzzled. Those are terms for when your freedom of speech is denied. 

It might sound like that from where you are, but it really isn’t true. No one here is actually afraid, and the who act like they are afraid I think are grifters, or people who think they are always victimized. Americans generally don’t care about what others tell them to say. They move on to something else or make their own opportunity if no one lets them speak. That’s what has been happening. 

 

Naturally I accept the validity of your personal observations, and recognize that what’s ‘on the ground’ often deviates from what’s in the air. What’s great about people, they have resilience, I think Americans more than most - when pushed. But I ask you to look ahead, to conceive of what the long term (and very short term) consequences of all these moral and political initiatives springing up in the US may be. The nation is looked up to as the standard of individual freedom (even by its detractors). Which doesn’t impose any obligation on you except to carry on living free. So the least bit of censorship, (‘canceling’) there assumes greater proportions, signs of worse to come.

49

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But suffice it to say that I think the election process is so fundamental about the government that denying the validity of the procedure after an election has been validated is subversive.

It’s not fundamental. Our current election process wasn’t even the original one. I think you can have valid criticisms of it and reject it as a proper way to select a president. 

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But I do know that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.

You might be thinking of the obstruction claim against Trump. Mueller said there was “sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice.” 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ7FcCl1QfM

I don’t recall him making the same claim about collusion/conspiracy with Russia. Are you saying that despite insufficient evidence you still believe Trump conspired with the Russians? 

50

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Not objectively correct. If there is a law that explicitly prohibits the activity, it would be objectively correct.

Now, if there is no such law and should there be such a law is a different matter.

The 500 absentee ballot collection sites, “drop boxes” funded by Mark Z, and dispersed through out 72 counties in Wisconsin were illegal. Their use was established by guidance from WEC and not established by the state’s legislature. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the challenge and relief sought based on the reasoning that the case fell under ‘laches’ and reasoning that the relief sought would disenfranchise voters who followed the WEC guidance.

There may have not been a ‘law on the books’ that explicitly prohibited the use of drop boxes, but election law isn’t based on the idea that all things are legal as long as it is not explicitly prohibited, election law and procedures for conducting elections is established by the state legislature. A dissenting opinion in the case references the difference between establishing law and procedures and the role of the Wisconsin Election Comm in following the state’s laws and procedures , as opposed to the idea that the WEC may set procedures.

51

10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

It’s not fundamental. Our current election process wasn’t even the original one. I think you can have valid criticisms of it and reject it as a proper way to select a president. 

I don’t think we need to get into the details of that specific case because I’m not trying to use it as an example to induce what the principles are. I’m assuming you agree that fundamentally questioning the very legitimacy of the functions of government is subversive? If so, do you think that can serve as a morally legitimate basis to moderate/control speech on private property? Or if you want to set the context about the size of the platform, what basis do you use to decide if you are morally crossing the line - would it be morally wrong for me to do it on my own mailing list, or would it be wrong if I owned Facebook? If there’s a difference, what is the difference?

 

52

7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I’m assuming you agree that fundamentally questioning the very legitimacy of the functions of government is subversive?

Yes, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’re questioning the integrity of the functioning of government. They’re saying there was corruption and the election was stolen. That’s different from, say, memeing “not my president” during Trump and holding Not My Presidents Day rallies.

53

5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

There may have not been a ‘law on the books’ that explicitly prohibited the use of drop boxes, but election law isn’t based on the idea that all things are legal as long as it is not explicitly prohibited, election law and procedures for conducting elections is established by the state legislature. A dissenting opinion in the case references the difference between establishing law and procedures and the role of the Wisconsin Election Comm in following the state’s laws and procedures , as opposed to the idea that the WEC may set procedures.

Okay, let’s go with what you got there:

The the problem is that the court was corrupt or did not follow procedure?

You describe a decention, as in the procedure was followed and they voted and there was a decention.

You see at some point, you have to make the case that the system did not follow the rules established. And “the system” is going to have to be “the whole system”. In this case you have to show that the court was corrupt in a sense.

But again, regarding massive fraud, Wisconsin and (let’s include) Pennsylvania could have gone to Trump and he still would have lost. It would have to be more massive than that.

54

30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I’m assuming you agree that fundamentally questioning the very legitimacy of the functions of government is subversive? If so, do you think that can serve as a morally legitimate basis to moderate/control speech on private property?

No, the basis is your personal values. Do you value such subversive talk or not? Is it good or bad for you personally? It’s your property, you decide what you want to allow based on your objective assessment of the facts as they relate to your life and purpose.

36 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Or if you want to set the context about the size of the platform, what basis do you use to decide if you are morally crossing the line

I don’t think the platform’s size matters. You’re crossing the line if what you’re doing harms your own life–or, in the case of a corporation, harms the corporation.

41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

would it be morally wrong for me to do it on my own mailing list, or would it be wrong if I owned Facebook? If there’s a difference, what is the difference?

Again, that depends on whether it harms you or Facebook, in which case the difference is between an individual and a corporation.

55

31 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Yes, but that’s not what they’re doing.

That’s fine, I don’t care to argue about right now who is right. I’d rather disagree about it and move back to the main topic. 

9 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

No, the basis is your personal values.

Isn’t the whole point that these companies are not committing anything that’s a violation of rights, but they are not being moral in the way they do it? So I’m looking for a principle to judge when it is and when it is not appropriate to moderate the speech of others. Of course the basis should be your personal values, so what standard of speech should we have morally speaking? I introduced the idea that it depends on the size of the platform, but we should still look for a principle underneath it all.

13 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I don’t think the platform’s size matters. You’re crossing the line if what you’re doing harms your own life–or, in the case of a corporation, harms the corporation.

What is that line? That’s what I’m asking. If I’m making a platform, what standards should I use for deciding to ban someone or not, or delete a post of theirs?

15 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Again, that depends on whether it harms you or Facebook, in which case the difference is between an individual and a corporation.

I don’t think I need to explain that this is what it means to ask if something is moral under Objectivism. I don’t need to preface every question about morality with “does it harm your life?” The reason I post here is because I don’t have to explain that every time.

56

22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I have no idea why they would allow that Manson video, it’s the best explanation I have.

Maybe because it’s considered art? I don’t think I’ll watch the video. I like some of the early music (not composed by Manson but by his bandmates), but I’m not really into his visual imagery or lyrics.

57

19 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If I’m making a platform, what standards should I use for deciding to ban someone or not, or delete a post of theirs?

What sort of platform is it? What is your purpose in creating it? If you want to build a discussion forum devoted to foodies, you might restrict the chat to food-related topics and ban anyone who keeps ranting about Biden’s verbal gaffes. But if you want to build a video hosting site devoted to other people’s content, maybe you don’t want to censor or ban them for expressing personal opinions that you don’t like, especially if you call your platform “_You_Tube.” It’s disingenuous.

58

2 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If I’m making a platform, what standards should I use for deciding to ban someone or not, or delete a post of theirs?

To my mind, a platform is something different from, say, a magazine.

If you have a set of ideas that you would like to promote, a magazine is more appropriate: you can solicit submissions (either from the general public or only from specific people), evaluate them, and publish only the ones you like. You can also write stuff yourself and publish it in your magazine. I suppose two examples would be Marc Da Cunha running Capitalism Magazine, and Craig Biddle running The Objective Standard.

When you decide to create a platform instead, you are creating something different. It’s the Internet equivalent of opening a bar or a speakeasy, where people can come and talk with other people, and all you do is provide the facility. While you might advertise an affiliation with certain ideas in the hope of attracting people who want to talk about those ideas, you can’t really control the details of what they say. If you want that level of control, then you need to run a magazine instead.

Sometimes when you run a bar or a speakeasy, some people can get rowdy and disruptive, or do inappropriate things, and it’s proper in those cases to ask them to leave. If people are disruptive repeatedly, they can even be asked to leave permanently.

However, I think it would be inappropriate for the owner of a bar to listen in to people’s conversations and kick out well-behaved people merely because, as the owner, he doesn’t like or agree with what they are taking about. The bar owner is within his rights – it’s his bar, after all – but I wouldn’t want to go to a bar like that.

(What would you think of an auditorium owner inviting a bunch of people over for a “debate” with him, and then when they start to win the argument against him, using logic and evidence, he asks them to leave? …)

I also think it would be inappropriate for the phone company to listen in on people’s calls and cancel their service if they say anything the phone company disapproves of. The company may be within their rights, but it’s doesn’t seem to be a good thing to do.

I think the law should (and sometimes does) recognize that, by default, the person who visits a bar or a (legal) speakeasy, or who uses a telephone, has a right to expect that he or other people would not be kicked out or disconnected because of his or their expressed views – and on the other hand, the bar or speakeasy owner, or phone company, wouldn’t be liable for what his customers say. This is why such things as “common carrier status” are supposed to exist.

It is common for laws to recognize that certain situations are commonly assumed by default. You are still free to run things in the non-default way, but you would have to inform people if you are doing so. (To do otherwise could be interpreted as fraud.)

An example of such default assumptions is weights and measures: if two people enter into a contract, and the contract specifies “kilograms,” they have to agree on what a kilogram is. If the contract doesn’t specify otherwise, then it can be assumed that the standard kilogram is being used.

There are other examples, though, including, for example, if someone buys food, it should be safe to assume that the food is safe to eat, or that if it’s unsafe, both parties to the contract know about that characteristic and agree to it.

If you run the sort of bar that kicks people out for enunciating certain views, then you’d probably have to post a sign so that people know that, and what the objectionable views are, before they come in.

Ideally, if you choose to exercise editorial control over what people say, then you also assume liability for it, but if you don’t exercise the control, you shouldn’t have the liability. I think that’s what Section 230 was supposed to do, but apparently it isn’t working right, because there are now too many companies who are exercising editorial control while claiming that they are absolved from any liability for that control.

So what standards should you use to ban someone or delete a post? Do it only if they are making the service unusable (the way rowdy people fighting in a bar would make it unusable for the regular customers).

If you want editorial control, start a magazine.

1 Like
59

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Okay, let’s go with what you got there:

The the problem is that the court was corrupt or did not follow procedure?

You describe a decention, as in the procedure was followed and they voted and there was a decention.

You see at some point, you have to make the case that the system did not follow the rules established. And “the system” is going to have to be “the whole system”. In this case you have to show that the court was corrupt in a sense.

But again, regarding massive fraud, Wisconsin and (let’s include) Pennsylvania could have gone to Trump and he still would have lost. It would have to be more massive than that.

The ‘system’ in this sense would be the election procedures ; extended mail in ballot, signature/id exemptions, improper chain of custody,  ect, all procedures that fail the test for constitutional legitimacy.

In Wisconsin one of the justices, during the hearing, referred to Trump as ‘your boy the racist’( not verbatim but close), as far as corruption , that statement alone is blatantly prejudicial, especially coming from a justice.

And as to massive, some of the contested results were in states that the margin of Biden’s ‘victory’ is only a percentage of the amount of questionable votes/ballots. Were any cases thrown out on merit? I think they were all dismissed on procedural findings .

 

 

60

4 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

And as to massive, some of the contested results were in states that the margin of Biden’s ‘victory’ is only a percentage of the amount of questionable votes/ballots. Were any cases thrown out on merit? I think they were all dismissed on procedural findings .

Then you have to attack the court system, as it is in fact part of the whole “election” system. They are the arbitrators. Did they in fact do something that is illegal?

Otherwise, you’d be arguing against an advantage, a legal (vs. illegal) advantage that one group has over another. Many complain that one side spends more money. It does not make an election invalid or “stolen”, although it may be unfair. The next time around one has to counter the advantage. Simply repeating “it was stolen” simply divides the Republicans and they will lose the sliver of votes they need.