Yes they did. I got permabanned yesterday, no reason given. I guess mostly because I was interested in coloring war-time photos in http://sa-kuva.fi and they clearly have nationalistic, fascist and russophobic bias.
It seems as though they openly have a nationalist bias, as do almost all companies.
And I'm not sure you can accuse them of "russophobia" when they are an active Kremlin target. It's more plausible that one of their anti-hacking, anti-disinformation algorithms was over-zealous.
The fact is that finnish-speaking moderators seem to operate from Russia. I have been banned for using russian words like "DURAK" and "GOVNO" about Putin for example. Very few real Finns know what they mean.
> I just received a seven day suspension from Twitter for calling Q followers retarded.
It could be due to some filter feeling that it is inappropriate to use “retarded” as an insult, because it is disrespectful to people with actual mental disabilities.
I am around forty, but twice in the last couple of years a person half my age has taken great offense to me using the term “mentally retarded” to describe people who are actually, well, mentally retarded. So, I suspect that the euphemism treadmill is gradually consigning “retarded” to obsolete vocabulary in any context, and those who continue to use it may be seen as horrible people.
Yep I think the term is differently abled now. It seems the terms last awhile then some people use them as insults. The term gets retired and a new one stands in its place.
Mentally retarded as a phrase is no more "technically right" than "moron", "idiot", or "imbecile". All medical terms that preceded "retarded" for describing intellectual disabilities. You just like it because it happens to be the term that was being used at the time you learned it. It doesn't make it any more right or wrong. There is a medical term for the concept, its starts to become widely and popularly used as an insult, the medical profession comes up with a new term.
> Up until around the 1960s, the terms "moron", "idiot", "cretin" and "imbecile" were all genuine, non-offensive terms to refer to people with mental intellectual disabilities and low intelligence. These words were discontinued in that form when concerns arose that they had developed negative meanings, with "retard" and "retarded" replacing them
Good. QAnon is just good old-school Blood Libel†, updated and expanded for the 21st century’s connected digital world. Depriving it of its free high-traffic soap boxes is the best way to interrupt its transmission from the hardcore lunatics to everyone else. Let them piss off back to Parler and 8chan where they can enjoy their Nazi circle-jerks in relative silence.
Let’s see if FB actually sticks it this time, though it must really gouge them to do so: just think of all that quality engagement they’re giving up!
--
†Previously used by European Protestants to justify burning all the Catholics and by European Catholics to justify burning all the Jews, Q-ers aren’t even subtle about who they intend to burn next, just as soon as they reach their critical mass of numbers and hatred.
See also: Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Weimar Republic, etc, etc, etc. Strange how conspiracy theorists, who are voracious compulsive pattern matchers, always fail to match those patterns!
As a very left-leaning person who doesn't at all follow these types of conspiracies, I can't help but feel uneasy about decisions like this. Facebook is so ubiquitous and influential that it can be used to sway public opinion. That's scary. But isn't it also scary the other way? The fact that the content which can be posted there, the content so wide-reaching it can be used to sway public opinion, is controlled by a private company? In my opinion, a communication platform this large should be governed by the same free-speech laws we enjoy offline.
>In my opinion, a communication platform this large should be governed by the same free-speech laws we enjoy offline.
It is. The same free speech laws that allow Facebook and other platforms to exercise editorial discretion and ban unwanted content also allow newspapers, television and radio to choose what to publish and what not, allow businesses to refuse service and the posting of bills, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses to get lost when they show up at my door.
Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force platforms to host that speech. It's up to the so-called marketplace of ideas to decide whether or not your speech is worth spreading, and just as vendors can choose to stock a particular product or not, platforms can choose to host particular speech or not. Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished.
And yes, this implies that the marketplace of ideas can, potentially, reject a particular kind of speech and that some forms of speech may be more difficult to find a platform for than others. Free speech doesn't imply that all forms of speech must be treated equally or given equal merit, or that society cannot make distinctions between one form of speech and another, or discriminate between truth and falsehood, accepting one and rejecting the other. In a marketplace of ideas, it follows that not all ideas are equal.
If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid.
The scale of Facebook and the role it plays in today's society stems way beyond the newspaper. In an age where communication mainly happens online, it is more comparable to a telephone, or even the internet itself. For (hundreds of) millions of people, Facebook IS the internet. You could say "well $telecom can choose to censor certain words that go through their phone lines, or block websites, just like a store can choose to stock a particular product or not" but let's be honest, they're different scenarios.
> Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force [...]
Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably to treat these huge platforms more like common carriers rather than publishers. I agree with them on private messages - the carrier should have no editorial control and no responsibility for what users say.
Something like Facebook Messenger is conceptually far closer to texting (or even just sending letters) than it is to a newspaper publishing your article. And I don't think anyone legitimately considers it similar to choosing which products to stock.
For public forums I think there's probably a better middle-ground. Possibly requiring transparency, like indication if a user's post has been edited or partially deleted by moderators, and explaining how posts are sorted/recommended/hidden.
> If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid.
Normally it's the decision not of society as a whole but rather of a few huge platforms. You may agree with banning QAnon accounts, but what about "anarchist groups" mentioned in the article? Or if the platforms go full WeChat (even scanning for text in images) to make sure your private messages are for the right politicians/companies/groups/laws/platforms and against the wrong ones?
> Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished.
I'd argue that editorial control over billions of conversations (and thus what billions of people appear to say/support) is far more powerful than editorial control over what a single newspaper says. Silent manipulation of public opinion in this way can even be used to make people less critical of the control that platforms have. I think it's something everyone should be cautious of, even if the current bans line up with what they consider dangerous views.
Hypothetically, if that (ie: maximizing free speech on the social networks) created a world of superstition, poverty, violent social unrest, unchecked pollution, and war, would you reconsider your position?
If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no. As history shows things are always great until they aren't, and then you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge.
I'd rather have the freedom to read what I want and say what I want, than to have it controlled by someone who says they know what's best for me.
If free speech in the real world created a world of "superstition, poverty, social unrest, and war" would I consider removing free speech there too? Well, no.
If we except social networks, I don't believe free-speech causes such a world either. But if I did, unlike you, I would support limitations.
I sympathize to some degree with your preference: as an abstract idea, I find censorship distasteful. The thing is, I believe social media is doing enough harm to the world, that the pragmatic thing to do is, to put it bluntly, to shut people up.
So you believe that the advertising companies which run these companies should be the ones to decide what discourse is allowed online. At the end of the day Facebook isn't deplatforming people out of the kindness of their hearts. They take action because it benefits them.
Allowing FB to decide whom to censor isn't ideal, but better than what we have at the moment. At least, if the public kicks up enough fuss over the egregious cases, FB might respond.
I think, left to FB's own devices, in a decade or two, it will transform the world into a dystopia of horrors beyond imagination.
My first choice isn't for FB to censor users, but to put it out of business, and investigate the fraud and negligence of its management.
Hmm, so you’re suggesting that a variety of heterogeneous movements together protesting an authoritarian justice system that continually refuses to stop dehumanizing its subjects can be equated to a bizarre conspiracy group built on the premise that an elderly businessman-cum-president, known primarily for his sleazy business practices and reality TV personality, is single-handedly protecting the world from a secret cabal of satanist pedophiles?
It appears some folks object to the word "censorship". By my understanding of what the word means, what Facebook is doing is in fact, censorship even if folks believe that its for a good reason and because its a 'private' company, they should be able to do so freely.
In any case, when issues like these come up, both camps always arrive at the same 2 conclusions so its a waste of time.
It's the same conspiracy that caused that guy to walk armed into a pizza joint demanding to see the sex trafficking in its basement when it had no basement.
32 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 83.4 ms ] threadAnd I'm not sure you can accuse them of "russophobia" when they are an active Kremlin target. It's more plausible that one of their anti-hacking, anti-disinformation algorithms was over-zealous.
The last time I received a suspension from Twitter it was for calling out somebody for being racist.
These machine learning algorithms don't seem to be much more effective than a word blacklist.
It could be due to some filter feeling that it is inappropriate to use “retarded” as an insult, because it is disrespectful to people with actual mental disabilities.
I am around forty, but twice in the last couple of years a person half my age has taken great offense to me using the term “mentally retarded” to describe people who are actually, well, mentally retarded. So, I suspect that the euphemism treadmill is gradually consigning “retarded” to obsolete vocabulary in any context, and those who continue to use it may be seen as horrible people.
Mentally retarded as a phrase is no more "technically right" than "moron", "idiot", or "imbecile". All medical terms that preceded "retarded" for describing intellectual disabilities. You just like it because it happens to be the term that was being used at the time you learned it. It doesn't make it any more right or wrong. There is a medical term for the concept, its starts to become widely and popularly used as an insult, the medical profession comes up with a new term.
> Up until around the 1960s, the terms "moron", "idiot", "cretin" and "imbecile" were all genuine, non-offensive terms to refer to people with mental intellectual disabilities and low intelligence. These words were discontinued in that form when concerns arose that they had developed negative meanings, with "retard" and "retarded" replacing them
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard_(pejorative)
a) society, for its own protection, needs a term for "Person you shouldn't trust alone in a room with a small child"
b) nobody ever wants to be identified, personally, with that term, whatever that term is
Let’s see if FB actually sticks it this time, though it must really gouge them to do so: just think of all that quality engagement they’re giving up!
--
†Previously used by European Protestants to justify burning all the Catholics and by European Catholics to justify burning all the Jews, Q-ers aren’t even subtle about who they intend to burn next, just as soon as they reach their critical mass of numbers and hatred.
See also: Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Weimar Republic, etc, etc, etc. Strange how conspiracy theorists, who are voracious compulsive pattern matchers, always fail to match those patterns!
It is. The same free speech laws that allow Facebook and other platforms to exercise editorial discretion and ban unwanted content also allow newspapers, television and radio to choose what to publish and what not, allow businesses to refuse service and the posting of bills, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses to get lost when they show up at my door.
Your right to free speech doesn't include a right to force platforms to host that speech. It's up to the so-called marketplace of ideas to decide whether or not your speech is worth spreading, and just as vendors can choose to stock a particular product or not, platforms can choose to host particular speech or not. Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished.
And yes, this implies that the marketplace of ideas can, potentially, reject a particular kind of speech and that some forms of speech may be more difficult to find a platform for than others. Free speech doesn't imply that all forms of speech must be treated equally or given equal merit, or that society cannot make distinctions between one form of speech and another, or discriminate between truth and falsehood, accepting one and rejecting the other. In a marketplace of ideas, it follows that not all ideas are equal.
If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065586
Under current laws yes. But the comment you're replying to is proposing a change, presumably to treat these huge platforms more like common carriers rather than publishers. I agree with them on private messages - the carrier should have no editorial control and no responsibility for what users say.
Something like Facebook Messenger is conceptually far closer to texting (or even just sending letters) than it is to a newspaper publishing your article. And I don't think anyone legitimately considers it similar to choosing which products to stock.
For public forums I think there's probably a better middle-ground. Possibly requiring transparency, like indication if a user's post has been edited or partially deleted by moderators, and explaining how posts are sorted/recommended/hidden.
> If society decides to toss QAnon into the bargain bin of cultural relevance, that's perfectly valid.
Normally it's the decision not of society as a whole but rather of a few huge platforms. You may agree with banning QAnon accounts, but what about "anarchist groups" mentioned in the article? Or if the platforms go full WeChat (even scanning for text in images) to make sure your private messages are for the right politicians/companies/groups/laws/platforms and against the wrong ones?
> Even Ben Franklin recognized this[0]. As a publisher he refused to publish libelous and slanderous speech, yet recognized the right of other publishers to do so if they wished.
I'd argue that editorial control over billions of conversations (and thus what billions of people appear to say/support) is far more powerful than editorial control over what a single newspaper says. Silent manipulation of public opinion in this way can even be used to make people less critical of the control that platforms have. I think it's something everyone should be cautious of, even if the current bans line up with what they consider dangerous views.
Maybe massive social media platforms are just bad.
How is YouTube manipulating public opinion?
I'd rather have the freedom to read what I want and say what I want, than to have it controlled by someone who says they know what's best for me.
The more people invited in the more rules.
I don’t use social media, and stick to purpose focused socializing; play music, technical work, etc.
If I don’t have something scheduled I spend the time with myself.
You want more of a sense of freedom? Stay away from people.
I sympathize to some degree with your preference: as an abstract idea, I find censorship distasteful. The thing is, I believe social media is doing enough harm to the world, that the pragmatic thing to do is, to put it bluntly, to shut people up.
I think, left to FB's own devices, in a decade or two, it will transform the world into a dystopia of horrors beyond imagination.
My first choice isn't for FB to censor users, but to put it out of business, and investigate the fraud and negligence of its management.
Or, is is possible that this movement may be swaying voters in a particular, undesirable, direction?