55 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2021
    1. Sens. Amy Klobuchar

      fascist.

      anyone online now would to censor all their content, has to have complete visibility in to every single place any user anywhere can generate content. comments, messages, anywhere: there'd be the need to monitor it all.

    1. John Bowers, Elaine Sedenberg, and I have described how that might work, suggesting that libraries can again serve as semi-closed archives of both public and private censorial actions online. We can build what the Germans used to call a giftschrank, a “poison cabinet” containing dangerous works that nonetheless should be preserved and accessible in certain circumstances. (Art imitates life: There is a “restricted section” in Harry Potter’s universe, and an aptly named “poison room” in the television adaptation of The Magicians.)

      I love this idea of a poison cabinet or giftschrank.

      How might this work in an oral society? How would it be designed?

  2. May 2021
    1. Passed by the National Board of Review

      The National Board of Review was created in 1909 but was not universally enforced. It was an early more relaxed version of what would eventually become the Production Code Administration (the Hays Code) and later lead to the Production Code of 1934 - a self censorship committee enforced by Hollywood's major studios to stave off the threat of government censorship after many high profile scandals and some so called "indecent" films

  3. Apr 2021
  4. Mar 2021
    1. restrictions on free speech

      Restrictions of free speech on the internet occur in the US and are not limited to the examples provided here. Have you encountered, experienced or read about restrictions on internet based speech lately? Examples

    2. Who owns and controls it?

      This is worth discussion. Specifically the ownership part and it may be surprising to uncover how little control there has been and how that is changing in 2021 as ISPs and hosting companies refuse or welcome radical platforms and groups, https://www.npr.org/2021/02/15/968116346/after-weeks-of-being-off-line-parler-finds-a-new-web-host

  5. Feb 2021
    1. He is seriously concerned – as many of us are – about the destructive repercussions of identity politics, the censorship of dissenting opinion, and the rewriting of American history.

      A lot of inflammatory dog whistle rhetoric here (not to mention the poor use of en dashes posing as em dashes).

      He calls out destructive repercussions of identity politics, but fails to notice that everyone wants to feel safe in their identity, not just cis-gendered white male Republicans.

      He calls out censorship of dissenting opinion while writing on his own website. When did the government censor his opinions or any other opinions? Republicans are so pro-corporation and pro-enterprise, but then get upset when those same great companies enforce basic social norms?

      And then, in the same breath: "rewriting American history?!" Perhaps we just taking a more nuanced perspective of the actual truths? Maybe we're hearing the stories and perspectives of those who's dissenting opinions have been not only been censored out of the media, but never allowed in for almost 250 years?

    1. I oppose the banning of Donald Trump and his non-violent believers/content from social media platforms such as Facebook Twitter, YouTube and Amazon. I feel (irrationally?) Trump is arrogant and disgusting as a person. I like some of his anti-CCP policies, but not sure I'd vote for him. The "USA First" stance is particularly damaging as it scares USA allies away. I don't think there's enough evidence for the electoral fraud allegations, but I haven't researched the court cases extensively. However, banning him opens a very dangerous precedent, making the US more like a dictatorship... more like China. Also it's not effective. Those who were silenced will only have more motivation, and the risk of terrorism is greatly increased. The people must decide what is true. Not big companies. Individuals must be able to express their beliefs. Bot accounts must be banned, but real individuals must not. If you think a group of people is a bunch of idiots who believe fake news, then, tough, that's democracy for you. Maybe it means that your government is not investing enough in education and welfare to properly educate and give hope to those people. I'm against violence.
  6. Jan 2021
    1. The two blockbusters released this year (Guan Hu’s Eight Hundred and Zhang Yimou’s One Second) were both mysteriously pulled from festivals and released to the public this year after the state demanded edits

      general discussion on censorship - but interesting that films were delayed. would assume that the government wouldn't allow films to be ready to publish at all (with a date and all) unless they were already cleared

  7. Dec 2020
    1. conservatives

      Conservatives stand for honesty, integrity, morality, and steely-eyed realism. We hold our opinions because we are confident that they are correct, we have the confidence in them to encourage free and open debate, and if our opinions are shown to be wrong we gratefully accept the correction of our errors.

      Modern liberalism (not to be confused with classical liberalism) is the opposite. It is characterized by dishonesty and immorality (both typically excused with the platitude that "everybody does it"), self-delusion, and a reflexive resort to censorship and worse. ("Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." -David Horowitz)

      You see that in the climate debates, where leftists (climate activists) have repeatedly been caught manipulating, withholding, exaggerating, or even fabricating evidence, flouting the law, blackballing skeptics, and censoring contrary viewpoints, to promote the CAGW scare. The major blogs, publications, and institutions which climate activists control are ruthlessly censored, to suppress dissent.

      In stark contrast, the most prominent conservative (climate realist) blogs and institutions actively encourage open discussion and dissent. That's why, for example, WUWT is so obviously and strikingly superior to any of the leftists' climate blogs.

      Unfortunately, some people who call themselves "conservative" don't act like it. I'm tired of self-identified conservatives, like Michael Shannon, raging about Republicans' lack of conservatism, while they, themselves, behave like liberals.

      If Mr. Shannon were really a conservative, he wouldn't censor his blog, to suppress expression of opinions different from his own. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he does. That's why you don't see the following comment in the comments section, on this article:

      · ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      1.If conservatives can’t win Republican primaries, they certainly cannot hope to win as third-party candidates running against both Republicans and Democrats.

      2.If so-called “conservatives” don’t care about anything but money, they’re no more conservative than the country clubbers whose Republican identity is based entirely on their desire for low taxes.

      There’s something very, very wrong with a 785-word rant accusing Republicans of being “morally corrupt,” which talks almost exclusively about… money. In 785 words you devoted a grand total of three words to a passing mention of moral issues.

      One in four American babies die by “choice,” but you never mentioned it.

      The courts have spent the last eighty years brazenly lying to impose progressive agendas, and trampling the nation’s fifty-one constitutions in the process, yet now, for the first time in eight decades, honest jurors might actually have a slender majority on the SCOTUS, but you never mentioned it.

      The American family is in tatters, with 39.6% of babies born out of wedlock in 2018, but you used the word “family” just once, and never mentioned illegitimacy.

      The academy has been mostly taken over by far-left crackpots and atheists, who do everything in their power to crush all dissent, who enforce values antithetical to Christian morality, and who have created entire disciplines dedicated to promoting leftist lunacy, but you never mentioned it.

      Academics expose corruption in Grievance Studies

      Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

      The misallocation of federal monies is a real problem, but it is far from the only problem, it is far from our most important problem, and it is only peripherally a moral issue. If you’re going to editorialize about moral corruption, you should talk about morality, not just money.

  8. Nov 2020
    1. But as long as the most important measure of success is short-term profit, doing things that help strengthen communities will fall by the wayside. Surveillance, which allows individually targeted advertising, will be prioritized over user privacy. Outrage, which drives engagement, will be prioritized over feelings of belonging. And corporate secrecy, which allows Facebook to evade both regulators and its users, will be prioritized over societal oversight.

      Schneier is saying here that as long as the incentives are still pointing in the direction of short-term profit, privacy will be neglected.

      Surveillance, which allows for targeted advertising will win out over user privacy. Outrage, will be prioritized over more wholesome feelings. Corporate secrecy will allow Facebook to evade regulators and its users.

    2. Increased pressure on Facebook to manage propaganda and hate speech could easily lead to more surveillance. But there is pressure in the other direction as well, as users equate privacy with increased control over how they present themselves on the platform.

      Two forces acting on the big tech platforms.

      One, towards more surveillance, to stop hate and propaganda.

      The other, towards less surveillance, stemming from people wanting more privacy and more control.

    3. Facebook makes choices about what content is acceptable on its site. Those choices are controversial, implemented by thousands of low-paid workers quickly implementing unclear rules. These are tremendously hard problems without clear solutions. Even obvious rules like banning hateful words run into challenges when people try to legitimately discuss certain important topics.

      How Facebook decides what to censor.

  9. Oct 2020
    1. This situation is reinforced by recent survey results—surprisingto many Westerners—showing that most urban Chinese Internet users actually trust domesticsources of news and information more than they trust the information found on foreign newswebsites (Guo et al.2005, pp. 66–67).

      Survey results reveal that Chinese citizens trust domestic sources more than foreign sources.

      This is a curious result and something I'm beginning to see in the West. I wonder if it's a result of their policies. I wonder if this means that the filtering and manufacturing of opinion is successful.

    1. Though government statements emphasize anti-pornography crackdowns, ONI found the primary focus of China's filtering system to be on political content. Public security organs and internet service providers employ thousands of people – nationwide, at multiple levels – as monitors and censors. Their job is to monitor everything posted online by ordinary Chinese people and to delete objectionable content.

      The Chinese government employs thousands of people to monitor and censor content. Their job is to filter out anything objectionable that gets posted.

    1. usually overwhelmed by misconceptions (the charitable interpretation) or lies and propaganda (the more accurate one). Some of the most prominent politicians in the country — notably Senator Ted Cruz — routinely lie to the public about what the law says and how courts have interpreted it.

      LOLGOP

  10. Aug 2020
    1. In mid-2019, researchers at Facebook began studying a new set of rules proposed for the automated system that Instagram uses to remove accounts for bullying and other infractions.

      Some of the moderation on TikTok was also meant to reduce exposure too bullying, but instead lead too the censorship of LGBTQ+ and Black Creators

  11. Jun 2020
    1. One of the new tools debuted by Facebook allows administrators to remove and block certain trending topics among employees. The presentation discussed the “benefits” of “content control.” And it offered one example of a topic employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word “unionize.”

      Imagine your employer looking over your shoulder constantly.

      Imagine that you're surveilled not only in regard to what you produce, but to what you—if you're an office worker—tap our in chats to colleagues.

      This is what Facebook does and it's not very different to what China has created with their Social Credit System.

      This is Orwellian.

  12. May 2020
    1. . I assumed that archive.org had a completely anti-censorship ideology, removing videos only when forced to by the law. However, they now seem to be acting like Youtube, deleting any video that is offensive. I really don't like this switch in censorship policy that archive.org seems to have taken. if (window.archive_analytics) { var vs = window.archive_analytics.get_data_packets(); for (var i in vs) { vs[i]['cache_bust']=Math.random(); vs[i]['server_ms']=90; vs[i]['server_name']="www27.us.archive.org"; } if ($(".more_search").size()>0) { window.archive_analytics.send_scroll_fetch_base_event(); } }
    1. What's terrible and dangerous is a faceless organization deciding to arbitrarily and silently control what I can and can not do with my browser on my computer. Orwell is screaming in his grave right now. This is no different than Mozilla deciding I don't get to visit Tulsi Gabbard's webpage because they don't like her politics, or I don't get to order car parts off amazon because they don't like hyundai, or I don't get to download mods for minecraft, or talk to certain people on facebook.
  13. Apr 2020
    1. The issue here is still the same. You’ve added too many buttons to the composer toolbar. That breaks the composer layout on both narrow desktop viewports and on mobile - on any theme. This theme was designed for the default Discourse layout. If your site requires a lot of extra buttons, then it’s up to you to fix it. I think you’ve already figured out how to do it If you need to override the CSS in this theme, then create a theme component with those overrides and add it to your theme.
      • @GokulNC brought up a problem with this theme. He suggested what could be the issue and how things could be improved.
      • He got shut down with "any other theme would..." and "it's your problem"
      • He provides a screenshot showing another theme behaving better and as expected, and provides a compact solution.
      • He gets shut down with a sarcastic "not my problem"
      • I create an account and comment, calling Johani out on being non-inclusive and harsh towards somebody trying to make things better
      • My post gets deleted
      • My account gets deleted - no feedback whatsoever

      Johani: You are a small little king in a small little kingdom - the internet is a big big place my friend.

  14. Mar 2020
    1. Right now, Facebook is tackling “misinformation that has imminent risk of danger, telling people if they have certain symptoms, don’t bother going getting treated … things like ‘you can cure this by drinking bleach.’ I mean, that’s just in a different class.”
    2. When the disease emerged, the Chinese government suppressed information and then turned the social media platforms into tools for both reliable information and propaganda.
    3. The services are promoting the good and deleting the bad, sending users straight to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the W.H.O.
    4. the platforms have been moving unusually fast to delete misinformation
    1. There have been rumblings, for example, that Germany’s hate speech law goes too far in clamping down on free speech. MacKinnon said there is “real concern among human rights groups that this is going to lead to over-censorship” and put too much power in the decision of private employees about what to leave up and what to take down. “When in doubt, you censor it, whether or not it’s really actually illegal.
    2. While Americans tend to prioritize individual liberty, Europeans are more inclined to value the role of the state. Americans are generally more tolerant of offensive speech than Europeans. That has translated to a greater impetus to regulate tech in Europe.
    3. Germany at the start of the year began enforcing a new hate speech law that gives social networks just 24 hours to act on hate speech, fake news, and illegal material.
    1. The law has been controversial in Germany with some saying it could lead to inadvertent censorship or curtail free speech.
  15. Jan 2020
    1. For the parallels between the fight against harmful and hateful speech online today and the crusade against sexual speech 50 years ago are stunning: the paternalistic belief that the powerless masses (but never the powerful) are vulnerable to corruption and evil with mere exposure to content; the presumption of harm without evidence and data; cries calling for government to stamp out the threat; confusion about the definitions of what’s to be forbidden; arguments about who should be responsible; the belief that by censoring content other worries can also be erased.
  16. Feb 2019
  17. Dec 2018
    1. The residents’ lack of success in drawing attention and widespread support to their struggle is a scenario that has been repeated the world over for decades in coun-tries led by dictators: rebellions are drowned out through silencing and censorship.
  18. Sep 2018
    1. But they are actually validated by the most illiberal part of our Constitution, Article 19(2), which allows caveats to free speech on grounds like ‘public order’ and ‘decency and morality.’ Those are open to interpretation, and anything goes.

      This is the root cause of legalized sanction of censorship, but none of the dimwits who routinely protest against movies or books being shut down ever focus on it.

  19. Jul 2018
    1. We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance.  Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are 'objectively' aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant.  I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once.  The same argument is applied to Trotskyism...To criticize the Soviet Union helps Hitler: therefore "Trotskyism is Fascism".  And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually repeated. This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it.  If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to foresee their actions. "As I Please," Tribune (8 December 1944)

      Again, censorship within the Left.

      Also : motives and objective conserquences

    2. A phrase much used in political circles in this country is "playing into the hands of".  It is a sort of charm or incantation to silence uncomfortable truths.  When you are told that by saying this, that or the other you are "playing into the hands of" some sinister enemy, you know that it is your duty to shut up immediately. "As I Please," Tribune (9 June 1944)

      Censorship within the Left

    1. Think, for example, about the schools who block YouTube and a bunch of other great tools for learning and expression — so youth maybe have access to a computer and internet, but half of it’s blocked from them.

      I feel like this point is novel and not as well understood as it could be. That part of digital literacy is about helping schools / educators make smarter (difficult) choices about how to protect kids from the "bad" stuff without unneccesarily blocking them from the good stuff.

  20. Mar 2018
    1. What it is to be Transgender I had begun to annoy the extremists of trans Twitter with a piece I published in July 2014 which called for recentering trans debate around material reality. Broadly that: human beings are sexually dimorphic mammals; transwomen are biologically male (if we aren’t, then what do we transition from/to?); human beings are subjected to sex-based socialisation which begins at birth (what does this say about transwomen who cannot accept this?); the lives of transwomen are different to the lives of women (by this I mean women born women, again what does this say about transwomen who cannot accept this?). rape and death threats directed at lesbians and other feminists are wholly unacceptable.

      The very reasonable points by a trans, that cannot be uttered.

  21. Jan 2017
    1. You may have heard that the internet was designed to resist a nuclear attack. That’s not entirely correct. It’s true that the project began with military considerations. The initial research was funded by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But the engineers working on the project were not military personnel. Their ideals had more in common with the free‐speech movement than with the military‐industrial complex. They designed the network to route around damage, but the damage they were concerned with was censorship, not a nuclear attack.

      Internet was designed to fight censorship.

      Today's use of the web by Facebook, Google... and some countries is based on narrowing information diversity, the littel sister of censorship.

  22. Nov 2015
  23. Sep 2015
    1. Let me be clear – saying that you feel harmed by another queer person’s use of a reclaimed word like tranny and organizing against the use of that word is NOT social activism. It is censorship.
    2. will cut out the offensive parts; or, as in the case of “Trannyshack,” the name of the club was changed.
    3. it is becoming difficult to speak, to perform, to offer up work nowadays without someone, somewhere claiming to feel hurt,
    4. humor is something that feminists in particular, but radical politics in general, are accused of lacking. Recent controversies within queer communities around language, slang, satirical or ironic representation and perceptions of harm or offensive have created much controversy with very little humor recently, leading to demands for bans, censorship and name changes
    5. censors
  24. Jul 2015
    1. Censorship has never contributed to the cause of social justice; throughout history it has invariably been on the side of totalitarianism and repression.
  25. Dec 2014
    1. Britain’s Coalition government is rushing through an anti-terrorism bill that would require universities to take action to stop students and staff from being drawn into terrorist activity. According to Home Secretary Theresa May, this would require higher education institutions to ban extremists from speaking on campus.

      That seems all kinds of problematic, to me. The government really should not be telling universities what speech to allow on their campuses. That's antithetical to liberal education, as far as I can tell.

  26. Oct 2014
    1. Details on the EU dinner are sparse. But there is increasing concern over the role social media plays in disseminating extremist propaganda, as well as being used as a direct recruitment tool. However, there is also a significant worry that placing strict controls on social networks could actually hinder counter-terrorism efforts. "The further underground they go, the harder it is to gleam information and intelligence," said Jim Gamble, a security consultant, and former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop). "Often it is the low level intelligence that you collect that you can then aggregate which gives you an analysis of what's happening." Mr Gamble was formerly head of counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland. There were, he said, parallels to be drawn. "There's always a risk of becoming too radical and too fundamentalist in your approach when you're trying to suppress the views of others that you disagree with. "In Northern Ireland, huge mistakes were made when the government tried to starve a political party of the oxygen of publicity. I would say that that radically backfired."
  27. Feb 2014
    1. One cannot call the history of intellectual property a purely proletarian struggle. While ancient Roman laws afforded a form of copyright protection to authors, n14 the rise of Anglo-Saxon copyright was a saga of publishing interests attempting to protect a concentrated market and a central government attempting to apply a subtle form of censorship to the new technology of the printing press.

      One cannot call the history of intellectual property a purely proletarian struggle.