Truth In Politics Youtube Channel

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, necrovore said:

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

 

Agreed about the distinction between platform and something different like a magazine. I also agree with kicking people out for rowdy, disruptive, or inappropriate things. I also agree about it being inappropriate to listen in on conversations with the intention of seeking out any possible violator - it demonstrates a lack of trust that should be present. The same with phone companies. The whole purpose of these platforms is for individuals to communicate between one another, to exchange thoughts, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to monitor for content. At least if by platform we mean something large. 

If people are really exchanging thoughts, then they should be left alone. Any decisions about who is permitted to exchange ideas should have to do with how the person is behaving, not by only looking at the content of their speech. We seem to agree there. Although, I think that is what people usually mean when they say they kick someone out for their views - the expression of views themselves is toxic behavior. If somebody said “black people are ruining this town, they just want to get white women pregnant, and all the pedophiles in Hollywood are Jews” but politely, it is toxic and disruptive. Not because the content per se is the disruption, but because of the egregious violations of rationality they show with their actions, poisoning the well, because of their racism and anti-Semitism. They aren’t following the intent of the platform to provide a place to exchange ideas. 

“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.”

Okay, this is where you lose it. Sure it’s good to mention legal precedent when discussing how rights should work in relation to morality. But why should anyone expect a right to not be kicked out for their expressed views? I’m assuming you’re trying to be accurate here, where you mean individual rights, rather than a common expectation. No violation of rights has occurred if you are kicked off for any reason. Disagreements might arise on a legal level about if you really did violate the rules or if they are fraudulently portraying the way the platform functions. If that’s what you mean, fine. Your example of weights and measures is a good one.

But I think that’s very different from saying “people on these platforms have a right to expect that they not be kicked out because of their expressed views”. Even if it’s assumed as a default. The kind of speech we are discussing is already outside the bounds of the default speech that a platform owner can expect. Racist speech is not a normal expectation. Neither is preaching the word of Q. even if you argue that this is fine for your platform despite your disagreement with the view, it’s not a rational expectation to hear that speech anyway. 

So the default expectation doesn’t really work to help here, because interesting question is what platform owners should rationally do about speech that is outside the default. 
 

4 hours ago, necrovore said:

(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? …)

That made me think of this in this context for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2vb8DeEYeI

Anyway, sometimes when people say they are being asked to leave because they expressed logic and evidence, they were doing the opposite, engaging in spurious arguments and throwing around loaded questions with mental gymnastics. In fact, I think that’s usually the case when people say they are being silenced for expressing logic and evidence. Race realists will often be like that. “You just can’t handle that black people on average have a lower IQ! The truth isn’t racist.” 

In other words, it could be completely appropriate. The owner should have standards of how communication should work, and for what counts as evidence at a debate. There’s not enough context to say more than that.

[MisterSwig]

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

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.

I like this analogy. But how do you factor in the permanence of speech on social media versus the impermanence of speech at a bar? Like a physical magazine, your social media posts have some permanence over time because they exist as an electronic document. They aren’t ephemeral like the conversation you have with someone at a bar. Thus, platforms like Facebook aren’t merely providing a place where people can come and talk to each other. They’re providing tools for creating, publishing and distributing documents.

[whYNOT]

Terrific metaphor, and over the door of the speakeasy there’s a sign

>Leave your delicate feelings at the door<

When a. the proprietor listens in and intervenes in conversation, liberally banning customers, many others will not return.

When b. customers get turned off by the speech of a preponderance of nasty idiots, they will not return.

But be prepared sometimes to have your feelings offended if you value freedom of speech.

[Eiuol]

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Terrific metaphor

I guess we could call it an analogy to Internet platforms, but the principles involved are the same. They are the same category.

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But be prepared sometimes to have your feelings offended if you value freedom of speech.

What does that have to do with the property owner deciding what categories of speech are appropriate? 

17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

But how do you factor in the permanence of speech on social media versus the impermanence of speech at a bar?

Do you really need anything besides perhaps a rule that posts cannot be retroactively deleted after new policies are put in place? The only difference seems to be that current behavior doesn’t necessarily match previous behavior. Like I’ve been saying, it’s not the speech per se that should be moderated or controlled, but what intentions the speech reveals. So you don’t need to worry about evaluating what was said in the past separated from the person speaking. 

[Doug_Morris]

Did Andy and Bosch get any warnings before the channel was terminated?

[MisterSwig]

6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Did Andy and Bosch get any warnings before the channel was terminated?

I don’t know but I doubt it. My understanding is that with severe violations YT just nukes your channel and makes you start over, unless you’re a special user. Also, if they had a couple strikes they wouldn’t have been able to upload for a period of time, and I don’t think that happened.

[whYNOT]

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I guess we could call it an analogy to Internet platforms, but the principles involved are the same. They are the same category.

What does that have to do with the property owner deciding what categories of speech are appropriate? 

 

The answer is in the question. Why must he judge “what categories of speech are appropriate”? Usually, INappropriate. Because of the huge audience. The number of fragile evaders the platform owner knows are reading/listening in, one assumes. He is protecting their feelings from the hardier, truthful subscribers. Above which the de-platformers have demonstrated they have a need, plus being aware of the power to mold the societal ‘narrative’ - to their type of moral/political sensibilities. 

Conversely a laissez faire platform would implicitly be encouraging of rationality and truthfulness over sensations. The snowflakes can learn, toughen up to realities, or leave.  As things stand, the bad will go on driving out any good. Until there’s an over-representation of the bad, mostly Leftist, ideas.

The media platforms have become central to public discourse. What is formed in people’s minds on them is ultimately what form the society takes. So which kind of people in society does one prefer, those with independent, honest and rational ideas, facts and opinions or of evaders and their feelings?

[Eiuol]

28 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

He is protecting their feelings from the hardier, truthful subscribers, above which the de-platformer clearly has a need and the power to mold the societal ‘narrative’ - to his type of moral/political sensibilities. 

Who says the owner is protecting anyone’s feelings? Maybe the owner for himself doesn’t want to hear that nonsense of whatever it might be. As a property owner, I would care that people go on with racist statements, not because I want to protect the people who hear it, but because I think saying such things _is _rude and obnoxious. And this is rational and appropriate reason to tell people that they can’t be racist (did you see my example earlier?). Even on large platforms, because there are certain rational expectations even during intense debates. Protecting people doesn’t enter my analysis anywhere. I agree with you if the intention of the owner is to protect sensibilities, people can protect themselves fine from speech. But unfortunately, some people might enjoy a deliberately combative environment even if the property owner never intended for the platform to turn into that. 

Furthermore, actively listening isn’t required. Users can report somebody, then the platform verifies a report, then deletes the offending content. I don’t think preemptive “listening” would be appropriate. 

 

[whYNOT]

Yes, they’re fine upstanding capitalists. They could never attempt to manipulate a public’s minds. What was I thinking?

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

I’d like to mention that whether or not the election was “stolen” really depends on what you mean by that.

 

I haven’t seen good evidence of widespread, outright fraud.  I’ve looked into it and it does not seem like that happened.  However, quite a few major media companies (as well as Facebook and Twitter) have outright admitted that they were slanting things in Biden’s favor, most notably with regard to Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Ten percent of Biden’s voters would not have voted for him if they’d ever heard of Hunter Biden’s shenanigans - only they didn’t.  When the New York Times attempted to actually cover that story the rest of their peers did their very best to ignore and bury it.  Twitter even pulled the story down and prohibited any mention of it on their platform.

That is neither fraud nor censorship.  These were all private companies who chose to omit information which would’ve been pertinent to the voters, and several million of them chose to vote for Biden because they weren’t given that information and didn’t take any proactive steps to find it out themselves.

 

None of that is in question.  None of it is or should be criminal (which is why I personally don’t use the word “stolen”) but it was grossly immoral, especially for media companies for whom information is supposed to be their business.

A reporter who doesn’t care to report on the truth is like a scientist who doesn’t care to discover it: in a perfect world, unemployable.

 

The answer is not to try and prevent such private evils from happening again with any new laws, but for anyone who’s upset about it (and not unjustifiably) to have some boycotts of their own.  Any competing media company that actually functioned in its intended manner would be another great place to start.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

On 3/14/2021 at 8:53 PM, Eiuol said:

What they care about is making money and absolutely nothing else.

If only!

 

I miss the days when that’s what a company was for.  It was a cleaner and more honest way of doing business.  I think the problem today is that these companies are in fact being run by emotionalist moralizers with pitchforks.

On 3/16/2021 at 5:25 PM, dream_weaver said:

I went to a local brick and mortar earlier this afternoon, . . . egads, I didn’t check to see if the owner attended mass last Sunday.

The owner standing outside their store with a sign that reads “unbelievers unwelcome” would be a much more apt comparison.  Amazon has a webpage on “our positions” under “about us” which says, among other things:

Quote

The federal minimum wage in the U.S. is too low and should be raised.

 

Human-induced climate change is real, serious, and action is needed from the public and private sectors.

 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are good for business—and more fundamentally—simply right.

 

The inequitable treatment of Black people is unacceptable.

 

The rights of LGBTQ+ people must be protected.

 

We strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform.

 

All people should have access to housing they can afford.

 

I’m not saying it should be illegal for Jeff Bezos to hold these opinions or to make as big and beautiful a website as he wants to about them - just as it should be totally legal for any shopkeeper to put a giant sign in front of his store with whatever opinions he wants to share.  I am saying that I sure as Hell would not buy from a shop that had an atheist-bashing sign in front of it and am not doing business with Amazon for the same reason.

If you want to use your private company as a soapbox from which to say extremely non-business-related things (or prevent others from sharing their own opinions on your property) then I’d better agree with what you’re saying or else I’m not gonna fund your personal soapbox.

 

You might ask yourself whether it makes sense to do business on such ideological terms and no; I don’t think it does.  That’s why I miss the time when companies didn’t play these stupid games or pretend that they had any higher purpose than profit.

 

Ironically I guess I’m calling for those of us who are still sane to develop a bit of our own cancel culture, in the hopes of getting back down to business.

[tadmjones]

How long before the CCP decides to release the contents of that hard-drive?, if the Alaska debacle is any indication the ball is squarely in their court.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

1 minute ago, tadmjones said:

How long before the CCP decides to release the contents of that hard-drive?

They won’t for however long Biden remains their useful buddy.  I’m not holding my breath.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

On 3/16/2021 at 10:13 PM, necrovore said:

I also think there should be a term for when private citizens move to block others from having information, and though it may be legal and not an infringement of anyone’s rights, there still needs to be a word for it. In many cases it is very rude behavior, and censorship is also not the kind of behavior one would expect of a person who is confident in the rightness of their ideas.

“Omission” sounds good.  A private company can’t censor people (that would require force) but they can omit certain bits of information from the discussion, which is exactly what many companies did with the specific intent of helping Biden win.  It worked, too.  Hopefully the consequences of that little gimmick won’t have to involve anyone except its perpetrators.

On 3/17/2021 at 12:48 PM, necrovore said:

Censorship, by contrast, is when a person deliberately tries to prevent someone else from obtaining information. That’s my definition. This can be an infringement of rights in some cases (e.g., if you want to go to the bookstore to buy a book, but I stop you), but it can also not be (e.g., if I own the bookstore and decide not to carry the book or even order it – or if I buy up all the copies of the book in town, and burn them, so that you can’t get one.)

Although if you miss a book its price will suddenly skyrocket.  I never thought I’d see the day when Doctor Seuss’s mediocre ramblings would be traded in back alleys like drugs, but far more expensive.

[Eiuol]

On 3/20/2021 at 2:01 AM, whYNOT said:

Yes, they’re fine upstanding capitalists. They could never attempt to manipulate a public’s minds. What was I thinking?

Your context dropping is exhausting. I don’t even think you realize you’re doing it. 

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I miss the days when that’s what a company was for.  It was a cleaner and more honest way of doing business.  I think the problem today is that these companies are in fact being run by emotionalist moralizers with pitchforks.

You misunderstand. When I say nothing else, I mean they lack values and any purpose for their money. Of course it is great to make money for the sake of building wealth or attaining goals. I’m not talking about profit motive in general. I’m talking about making money divorced from human values. Seeking to operate a company for the sake of seeing the yearly profit increase without regard for how values are affected, it’s a really bad thing. Compare that to a company like Tesla, which certainly operates to increase yearly profit, and at the same time integrating long-term values so that wealth increases. 

It’s not hard to see how making money divorced from human values becomes focuses on second handed people. Technology people are usually utilitarians, or at least the leaders of these companies. I doubt they are moralizing as much as they are virtue signaling for the sake of making money from those same second handers. Although the companies themselves are run by utilitarians, emotionalists influence the products and services they offer. What we end up with is an interaction between utilitarians and emotionalists. When these companies don’t seek to increase wealth through long-term values, of course they end up serving the lowest common denominator.

[MisterSwig]

2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Amazon has a webpage on “our positions” under “about us” …

“The federal minimum wage in the U.S. is too low and should be raised.”

Yeah, if you’re Amazon you want to raise the minimum wage to ass-out smaller businesses trying to compete with you. 

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Your context dropping is exhausting. I don’t even think you realize you’re doing it. 

 I think you mean nuance dropping.

You must be one of the innocents who believes the media platforms are good capitalists. After they raised a billion for a Marxist cause. Really, wake up.

[Eiuol]

4 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

You must be one of the innocents who believes the media platforms are good capitalists.

I’m only responding to this because it’s a distortion of something I said. I’ve said several times throughout this thread that I don’t think these companies are acting morally. They are not good capitalists. I even just made a post explaining how they are bad capitalists, as in, not capitalists. 

 

[whYNOT]

1 minute ago, Eiuol said:

I’m only responding to this because it’s a distortion of something I said. I’ve said several times throughout this thread that I don’t think these companies are acting morally. They are not good capitalists. I even just made a post explaining how they are bad capitalists, as in, not capitalists.

 

Yes, and that latest post of yours is quite a good one. I have the impression you play devils advocate too often, investigating both sides at a cost. It makes your reasoning look indefinite.