A good time to be reminded of these distinctions:
Answers, in order, for the USA:
@toddgrotenhuis I think you are walking a fine line here. While I agree that the “State” is not doing the censorship, the result is effectively the same as if it were. When one side, and only one side is effectively silenced, censorship is occurring. Also - who gets to decide when the sanctions are too harsh? Or not harsh enough? You? Me? Twitter admins?
@AEngelsrud I don’t see any sides being effectively silenced, evidenced by the fact that we can clearly hear the repeated cacophony of “I’m being silenced!”
What people are complaining about, often, is lack of being provided a personal megaphone, which they are not entitled to.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of guaranteed reach. My rights end where someone else’s begin.
@toddgrotenhuis Ok, I understand you’re points. However, I’m not sure how you can look at the actions by Twitter, Facebook, and Apple over the last few days as anything other than censorship. No one is asking for a megaphone, they are asking for the same basic access given to most of the free world - and being denied under false and misleading pretenses. Twitter allows dictators who are known to have murdered their own people have that voice, but not our own elected president.
@AEngelsrud I take your point as a good argument that the platforms should have removed more people from their platforms, and much earlier. It seems backwards to be more fair by amplifying more voices that lie & threaten, rather than to be more fair by removing those bad actors from the platform (property).
To your other question: under liberalism (using the classic definition here), property owners (or the structures they setup with their group/org) get to deterime what is acceptable behavior in their space, on their property, in their organization. And everybody has that same right in their own space and in their orginazations. What people don't have the right is to decide what's appropriate in someone else's space. And that's what people are (indirectly) asking for here: "force someone else to let me use their proprety, despite not following their rules."
@toddgrotenhuis I appreciate this conversation and your ability to stay civil and open. I’m trying to figure this out myself and discussion with others who may have different views is helpful in solidifying my own thoughts.
By diving in to your definition of Liberalism and owners rights on their “platform” I spot several problems. Number 1 - businesses are not free to do as they see fit with their platforms. If they were more restaurants would be open for business today, rather than shuttered. Social platforms, with the great power they wield, should not get to decide who’s voice is heard and who’s is not. I would say that is more dangerous than the alternative - allowing the people to decide what they want and who they trust.
I don’t think you really thought through the implications of the thought that what we need is MORE censorship in the media. It’s staggering that you would think that to be a viable option.
@AEngelsrud Sure, so in any effective liberal property regime, there is also the rule of law, and property rights are bounded by those laws.
In the USA, for example, that usually means that one can't deny access to a business service based solely on characteristics of a person that are innate (e.g. civil rights discrimination). Also, there are laws preventing the use of property in a way that harms or promotes harm to other people (pertinent to your example).
The modern problem is not that people don't have a voice. There are many options to be heard by thousands or more, even for those that have been kicked off of some social media platforms. Our modern problem is manipulation, incitement, falsehood, and lies being delivered at scale, not the inability to find a variety of viewpoints. Precisely because of the power they wield, platform owners have a duty (ethical at least, sometimes legal) to not promote harm. Most have been derelict in this duty, because the network effects have been too important, the profits have been too good, and/or because their model is built around advertising and therefore attention. Yes, it will be hard work to be better stewards.
Pleaese do not project on to me what you believe I may or may not have thought through.
@toddgrotenhuis Goid conversation. Thank you. It was not my intention to offend you in any way. We clearly have different views on this (and I’m sure other) topics. That’s ok. That’s what makes all of us better. If we are all relegated to our own echo chambers where we only hear voices like ours, we all lose.
Just want to say nice thread, important discussion, great to read. Thankyou.
@JohnPhilpin Thank you for reading. In all honesty, none of our views are so different or polarized that we shouldn’t be able to listen to each other and absorb new thoughts or ideas. I’ve learned a lot in this short thread, and I am very thankful for that. I think too often these types of conversations are had from the perspective of trying to change someone’s mind - that’s the wrong perspective. These conversations should only be approached from the open idea of learning from each other. We may leave steadfast in our belief and unwavering - that’s ok! The powerful part of the concepts of diversity and inclusion is that we all have a voice and that voice is just as important and relevant as another. When we lose this, we have lost all.
@AEngelsrud @toddgrotenhuis Reading back through this reply, I can see how my phrasing would offensive here. Apologies. What I was trying to say, perhaps not so well, was that censorship is a slippery slope and when afforded to those with personal (or professional/business) agendas it is even more so.
@AEngelsrud no worries, I was not offended. I was simply wanting to make sure we represent our own opinions, speak for our own selves.