Re:Local rules instead of global censorship
by mrtksn on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @04:02AM
(#25831365)
Why only censorship comes to mind? In fact, you can make it 0 censorship platform where the words of bad behaviour is actually preserved like a relic of the time, a proof, a historical record. An example for everyone to see who said what.
My way of thinking is that if someone mentions(even implies or dog whistles) someone else on a social network, the person subjected to the words should have an automatic right for a visible reply. A reply that everyone exposed to the original text is also exposed. Expand it to issues too. If there is an issue, let's say global warming or geology, the flat Earthers should be able to post a visible statement under the photo of Earth posted by NASA and climate scientists should be able to post a statement to climate change deniers content.
BTW, the media situation in Turkey is much more complicated than your mental model of censorship. The media is controlled through money, essentially the media owners get lucrative government contracts if they play nice with the government(an audio recording of a few real estate developers with connections to Erdogan discussing creation of a capital pool to buy out all the mainstream media was leaked. They bought all of it anyway and got into TOP10 contract winning firms in the world [0]) and the radicalised ones that only few care about are left alone as long as their reach is limited to the radicals. The police isn't chasing journalist as much as main stream journalism becoming non-existent and simply being a negotiation tool for people who fight for power. There's a new hope with Youtube journalism becoming mainstream but of course just recently Google was forced to create a local office to moderate the Turkish content. The government introduced advertisement ban on media that doesn't have a local office to respond to government requests.
My way of thinking is that if someone mentions(even implies or dog whistles) someone else on a social network, the person subjected to the words should have an automatic right for a visible reply. A reply that everyone exposed to the original text is also exposed. Expand it to issues too. If there is an issue, let's say global warming or geology, the flat Earthers should be able to post a visible statement under the photo of Earth posted by NASA and climate scientists should be able to post a statement to climate change deniers content.
BTW, the media situation in Turkey is much more complicated than your mental model of censorship. The media is controlled through money, essentially the media owners get lucrative government contracts if they play nice with the government(an audio recording of a few real estate developers with connections to Erdogan discussing creation of a capital pool to buy out all the mainstream media was leaked. They bought all of it anyway and got into TOP10 contract winning firms in the world [0]) and the radicalised ones that only few care about are left alone as long as their reach is limited to the radicals. The police isn't chasing journalist as much as main stream journalism becoming non-existent and simply being a negotiation tool for people who fight for power. There's a new hope with Youtube journalism becoming mainstream but of course just recently Google was forced to create a local office to moderate the Turkish content. The government introduced advertisement ban on media that doesn't have a local office to respond to government requests.
[0] https://ipa.news/2018/12/30/turkeys-pro-government-construct...