But, have you ever been convinced about something, and then changed your mind? I have.
In order for that to happen (a change of mind) it is useful to have full/better information available. But if there are forces at play (eg coordinated FAANG efforts, see Alex Jones) to supress information, the possibility of finding that information is removed. You are making reasonable decisions, but you do not have the full facts. You do not even know that you don't have the full facts.
This is not a good state to be in!
The messy noise is not a bad thing. Even if you want to stick to what you know, others will trawl through that information and will uncover some gems. I mean, its not like governments and corporations don't conspire together for whatever purposes. They plainly do and we see evidence this with lobbyists, pre-prepared bills waiting for the right moment, the well-emunerated advisory roles provided to ex-politicians, etc.
The point I am trying to make, is that whatever your position is, you want all information to be free and for people to exercise their judgement. Reason will prevail. But de-platforming, etc is terrible! Don't plead to be kept in the dark by the government!
Yes, I do.
And I also want it to be free from a cacophony of noise.
And big corporations also have the right to practice judgment and filter out noise, if they want to do so.
And Alex Jones is mostly noise, he barely provides any information.
OK in this case I think the dystopia you're living in is Neal Stephenson's Anathem, where a tribe of techno-priests professionally searches the Internet to try to find true information among a sea of lies that were machine-generated by large language models which were deployed during various nation-state conflicts and are now permanently endemic on the Internet.
Added that title to my "books to read" list.
Thank you.
That is an invalid self-contradictory idea.
You can't have curated un-curated.
Oh dear - I think you have been born in the wrong time. :)
My point is that there aren't external independent arbiters of information out there. No one holds the truth. Facebook even admits that its fact checking is just opinion.
Sounds like a simple solution, but I don’t know of any country that has 100% access to all information, so I don’t think anyone has been able to test your theory throughout history.
I’d argue that a large minority of people are highly persuadable and not near the unbiased, logical arbiters required to have an ideal outcome when presented with information. You can see this in the misinterpretation of valid information and the consumption and retention of misinformation. So, 1) I don’t think the human condition is as ideal as you describe where reason always prevails.
Also, most people agree that some content is too dangerous to disseminate, like content that can be used to create great harm or destruction. Like, blueprints for WMDs, or maybe content about how to breach security at a nuclear facility, or how to hack power plants, etc. So 2) there’s a line somewhere about what content is safe for the general public to consume but I don’t know any country or person that thinks it’s at 100%. So now the question becomes not if we should draw a line at all, but where to draw the line on what content is beneficial to the public.
The question is what is more dangerous? Having information running free? Or having a governance structure that decides what you should see or not?
I do not trust governments for sure. There is such a huge conflict of interest there.
"For the sake of maintaining trust with the people, we can't afford to let them know about such-and-such a terrible mistake we made". (Says government...)
Its just a fantastic excuse to take all sorts of unsavoury actions against you.
And let's not forget that government is just people trying to make money. Arguably the worst of us, or the people with most to lose, are the one's that seek these powerful positions.
Yeah that’s the $1M question.
We have far too many examples of the latter failing with horrific consequences, and some examples where the restrictions are annoying but not catastrophic.
With the former, I don’t think we have any examples of info running totally free.
> My point is: selecting quality is not "censorship" it is mental hygiene. Bad discussions and bad ideas should really be discarded. When you tune out from a creationist, anti-vaxer, flat-earth prophet or global warming denier you are selecting for quality.
I strongly agree, generally. And I'm not a Rogan fan and I don't listen to his podcast. However, it's also important to keep in mind that in some cases it's easy to confuse quality for ideological compatibility. So you may think you're selecting for quality when you're actually selecting for things that just reinforce your beliefs.
As a kind of relevant aside, I think it's also important to distinguish "seeking the ultimate, correct truth" from "making a timely, reasonable decision." Specifically with a lot of COVID stuff, I think a lot of people have gotten hung up the former in ways that undermine the latter, when the latter is actually the more important thing at this moment.
If you, a consumer, are making the decision then it's not censorship. If some company, government, organization, school, etc is making the decision then it is censorship.
Sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for. And censorship is only illegal if the government is involved. But in general, legal or not, censorship is bad. People should be allowed to say what they think and whether they have a platform should be decided by whether other people want to listen.
What disturbs me about the Joe Rogan situation is that Rogan is not an alt-right deplorable. He's not scary or mean, he exudes youthful exuberance and curiosity. He's thoughtful, un-ideological and he's a good conversationalist. The attempt to brand him as a deplorable is genuinely creepy.
As far as the article goes, I don't think we're close to any dystopia. These are growing pains as the media opens up. I'm optimistic.
If you want to really 100% understand where someone you don't otherwise like or agree with is coming from, then three or more unedited hours of that person essentially talking without interruption is a great service. Personally, I haven't found that useful. The summary usually matches the expansion. Tim Pool (for example) made a good point or two that time he was on with the Twitter people, but it didn't meaningfully change what I think of him.
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
“Suppress” is different from “restrict”. Suppression is “ to end or stop (something) by force” or “ to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress
Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. That’s why it’s usually governments who do it. Private companies can typically only do it if they have the exclusive rights to something and refuse to publish it.
If someone is dropped from a platform, they’ve been de-platformed but by no definition of the word have they been censored.
In order for Spotify to actually “censor” Rogan they would have to not publish his content while also not allowing it to be distributed in any form, anywhere else, ever. Presumably either party could cancel the contract and then Rogan would have numerous other platforms to publish on. So in some sense Rogan is self-censoring at best if he continues to honor his Spotify contract.
Also, his podcast is only 1 medium. He could presumably still publish short form video/audio content outside of Spotify, or publish a book without their consent with any content of his choosing. Censorship by the definition of the word would mean banning content across all mediums, which Spotify does not have the authority to do.
In any event, if he really wants to share information with the public Spotify alone cannot censor him and prevent him from doing that. All they can do is restrict access to his podcast.
In this scenario, I think “restrict” or “inhibit” are more accurate and less provocative descriptions of what could happen.
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.
Seems like your source agrees with me (and I find your quibbling over "suppress" vs. "restrict" absurd). People who are trying to confuse the issue are uncomfortable with the fact that they are pro-censorship. Why not just admit it?
Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things.
Imagine 1984, but the Ministry of Thought requires you to go to the store next door to buy the controversial book you want to read. Annoying yes, but doesn’t quite have the same zing to it.
Censorship is a real problem with disastrous consequences throughout history. It’s definitely worth fighting censorship of ideas, this just isn’t censorship.
> Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things.
Yes but they both fall in the category of censorship. I'm not saying companies shouldn't be allowed to censor (I wrote: "sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for"). I'm just saying it's still censorship.
My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good.
Can you point me to a definition of censorship that supports your view?
Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”.
At that point we need a new word for the action of totally suppressing content everywhere and declining to share content to distinguish between two very different events with two very different outcomes throughout history.
Or I guess a qualifier like “total censorship” vs. “limited distribution censorship”. At this point why not just use the words “censorship” and “restricted” as originally intended?
> Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”.
No it's not. Individuals are not censoring when they decline to share something. A company or government may be, depending on why.
I honestly don’t see how and if you decide to not explain then I guess we’re done.
Disney can censor their content because they own it and it can’t legally be reproduced or redistributed elsewhere. Otherwise, it’s really challenging for a private company to censor someone who can simply produce content elsewhere.
The reason I’m making a big deal about the semantics is that censorship and free speech are charged words that get people riled up, and for good reason. But they lose their meaning if we start applying them to temporary, minor restrictions rather than actual suppression.
It’s like saying you’re being censored if you can’t say whatever you want in the lobby of Spotify HQ. No, that’s private property and you don’t have that right. Go to the public square and say whatever you want there — no one is censoring you.
The idea that you can do or say whatever you want on private property is bizarre to me. That’s never been part of any country’s laws or cultural history.
When Rogan can’t say something on his own platform or in a public setting or 1 company controls the large majority of content distribution, then I’m with you 100% that that’s censorship. Until then it’s the market at work and non-monopolistic companies conducting business within the bounds of their contract. If you don’t like it, take your content and your business somewhere else, it’s a free country.
Really? Should HN moderatos literally let every post go on unchecked? If someone starts posting links to a Kardashian selfie blog, or to NSFW stuff, why should HN allow it? It's NOT censorship, HN is in no way obligated to allow everything on its site. Free speech is good. Heck, it's awesome. You want to post NSFW or Kim Kardashian, go create a blog. It's pretty much free and you can reach the whole world.
This does not line up. A private company "censoring" is actually exercising its right to free speech. The alternati e is compelled speech. You can't have it both ways.
Every major online platform has a ToS and in this case, Spotify has a contract with Rogan. So, it's not like a public square that anyone can use, it's more like private property with terms and conditions.
Maybe people think these platforms are open to anyone because they don't read the user agreements, they just click "agree".
> the content on the platform is explicitly not the speech of the platform provider.
Sure, kind of like a book store didn't write the books, but they get to choose which ones they want to give you access to.
In a faraway land, a new law has just been enacted: all public criticism of the government is now a crime. However, the law contains an exception – it will not apply in designated Official Government Criticism Zones, which will be established in convenient locations throughout the country. Would you say that, since government-critical content is not being totally restricted – it will remain legally permitted in government-designated locations – it isn't being censored?
Maybe: Censorship is the suppression of content by someone other than the creator or legal owner in a free market such that the creation, distribution, purchase or consumption of the content by the public is impossible or unreasonably burdensome
Basically trying to differentiate between a 1984 scenario (censorship) and someone buying a painting and not letting other people see it (not censorship).
By law and government, many different kinds of speech/communication are suppressed and/or restricted–fraud, perjury, defamation, violent threats, conspiring to commit crimes, impersonating law enforcement or other government officials, unauthorised publication of confidential information (medical records, intimate images, nuclear launch codes), inciting imminent lawless action, practicing regulated professions (such as law or medicine) without the appropriate qualifications and licenses, the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theatre", encouraging vulnerable teenagers to commit suicide, etc, etc, etc. The vast majority of people agree with most (or even all) of these in principle, even though there are still disputes about them at the margins–indeed, most people would agree that the suppression of many of these kinds of speech is essential for society to function. Yet very few would call suppressing these kinds of speech "censorship"; why? Well, the word "censorship" is largely a pejorative term–you'll only call it "censorship" if you disagree with it. If you believe certain kinds of speech ought to be suppressed–as almost everybody does–by that very fact it can't be "censorship", that's the way most people use the word. Now, there probably do exist some people who will say "Yes, banning X is censorship, but I support it, that's the good kind of censorship"–but, those people are very much a minority, most people don't use the word that way.
Since we'll never be able to fully agree on what kinds of speech are justifiably suppressed, we'll never be able to fully agree on what counts as "censorship" either. However, I think a lot of these debates get derailed into pointless semantic squabbling, by people who appear unaware of the "it can only be censorship if you disagree with it" principle which governs how the majority of people use the word. Once you are aware of that fact, it becomes clear that debating what forms of speech suppression count as "censorship" is a distraction from the real issue – debating where to draw the line between the good cases of speech suppression and the bad cases of speech suppression.
Another issue underlying many of these definitional debates, is different views on the significance of the public-private distinction, the distinction between governments and private corporations. To some people, that distinction has immense ideological, philosophical, even moral significance – they believe that governments and private corporations are fundamentally different kinds of entities, and very different standards should be used in judging them. Others think that governments and large corporations have many similarities; that even if there are some fundamental differences between them in theory (although even that is disputed), those theoretical differences have far less relevance in practice; that they should be judged by fundamentally the same standards – to these people, what matters is what is being done, not whether the public or private sectors are doing it. The first school of thought is naturally attracted to government-centric definitions of "censorship", such that "censorship by the private sector" becomes definitionally impossible; the second school of thought is instead attracted to definitions of "censorship" which are neutral to the government-vs-corporations distinction, so "censorship by the private sector" is entirely conceivable.
I think, once again, too much time is wasted by approaching this as a debate over the correct definition of a word, rather than focusing on the underlying philosophical differences. Inevitably, people with radically different philosophical starting points are almost inevitably going to adopt different definitions of key words, and it is impossible to answer "whose definition is right" without first answering "whose philosophy is right". Since philosophical disputes are notoriously unresolvable, we are never going to agree on the definitions either, so we might as well just all stop arguing about the later. At least the philosophical debates, even if unresolvable, have some profound significance, for how we ought to live our lives and organise our societies, for very Truth and Goodness themselves; the same cannot be said for debates over how to define a word.
Suppose instead, that the law said it was a crime to publicly criticise the government on weekends; but, Monday to Friday, government-critical speech is fully allowed. That's not a case of "most parts... there is a total restriction": the restriction only applies 28.57% of the time.
But, on the contrary, if a government deliberately subjects certain points of view to restrictions which it does not impose on others, that still counts as censorship – even if the restrictions are not total, even if they don't rise to the level of "most places" or "most times".
Is a private corporation doing the same thing "censorship" as well? That's a perennial debate. But I don't think looking at restriction-vs-suppression, total-vs-partial restriction, differing degrees of restriction, etc, is very useful in resolving that debate. Whatever the correct conclusion to that debate may be, I don't think it is going to be based on those kinds of distinctions.
That seems too strong, what about curation or editorial discretion? The NYT deciding not to publish my op-ed screed about the lizard people isn't censorship, it's just how you run a good news agency.
Strongly disagree.
At the government level, I might agree - but not with private companies.
In other words, private companies are allowed to censor but that doesn't magically make it something other than censorship.
No one is making Joe Rogan illegal. They are mad Spotify is paying for his nonsense.
If Spotify stopped paying him, nothing would materially change for his listeners. Unless Spotify went so far as to ban his Libsyn from their systems, they'd still be able to listen, for free, on Spotify. Even if they did that weird action, people would be able to listen from any number of podcatchers.
It's meaningless.
When nearly everything is private, so is censorship.
We also break up monopolies, so no one company can control the fate of their consumers, partners, contractors, etc.
I’m sure you’ve seen the signs at local shops saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It’s an inconvenience if you get kicked out but you don’t have a right to the provider of your choosing in the US unless you were denied solely based on your status in a “protected class” (race, gender, over 65, etc.).
It’s the free market at work and if it’s not working other solutions will pop up if there’s enough demand.
And they had to find a new hosting provider: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-...
So yeah, they (and their users) were inconvenienced, but they agreed to the terms and conditions of these providers.
It's kind of like if you have a restaurant and you violate the terms of your lease (or your lease has no guarantee of future occupancy). The landlord can kick you out, and it'll be a huge inconvenience to move.
I think the lesson is that if you want to do something a little edgy, self-host or find an off-shore host with terms and conditions you're comfortable with. Or, if this keep happening enough, new hosting companies will start up that have fewer terms and conditions. But the big providers are going to be the most strict and care the least about your unique situation and your infinitesimal contribution to their bottom line.
As someone else implied, the private company can do as it please (within the law), and if getting chucked off the platform is a problem, then there is a monopoly problem to be dealt with, not a censorship problem.
I think a good point to make regarding this is that no opinion can ever be valid or invalid. Facts can be valid or invalid, and must be supported by evidence to be valid, but opinions just exist. One can be proven, the other can't.
You can personally think someone's opinion is stupid, or amazing, or whatever adjective you want to throw in, but it can never be "valid" or "invalid." Saying someone has an "invalid" opinion is just joining into the tribalism that people so love.
I personally try to ignore most people's opinions just to "filter out the noise" as you said. I try to drill into the facts, but that can be very challenging, because even factually accurate data can be misrepresented into an opposite opinion.
If someone arrives at opinion X by epistemologically faulty observations of the world or by eating up logical fallacies do you still think their opinion cannot be said to be invalid?
Opinions are not facts and facts are not opinions. But it truly does get hard to distinguish.
Lets take an examples.
> The world is flat.
That isn't an opinion, that is a "factual statement" that is wrong. No matter how they want to phrase it or look at it, there is evidence that the earth indeed is not flat.
> A UFO crashed at Roswell.
This is claiming a fact, but we can't know for sure because we don't have reliable evidence either way.
> Green is better than blue.
This is an opinion, because it's based on personal preference.
A good way to try and distinguish is "can this claim be verified." Opinions cannot be verified, as they are based on personal experience / feelings / thoughts. Facts can have measurable data that will support / deny them.
>This is an opinion, because it's based on personal preference.
"I consider Mr. X a bad person" is also an opinion (notice it's not "Mr. X is a bad person"), but most people would have that opinion due to previous observations about Mr. X, not due to some immaterial thing going on inside their heads that has nothing to do with the world as it is.
That opinion is/should be changeable based on further evidence.
Experience/feelings/thoughts are based in the mind's interaction with reality. Sure some opinions are just a reflection of whatever internal mechanism is going on inside their heads, but lots of other opinions are not.
No, it's a fact (claim).
“Mr. X is a bad person” is an opinion, but “I consider...” is a fact claim about an opinion.
> but most people would have that opinion due to previous observations about Mr. X, not due to some immaterial thing going on inside their heads that has nothing to do with the world as it is.
No, they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone.
Thinking "Mr. X is a bad person" is still subject to external experiences and should be re-evaluated if given further evidence.
If it can be re-evaluated if given further evidence, surely the initial opinion was invalid?
> they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone.
"Experience" entails an interaction with inner values for humans - you can't really separate experience from the inner values without cutting off the nervous system from it... at which point you can't call it experiencing something anymore.
You can go down the rabbit hole with logical arguments and fallacies trying to neatly categorize things into "facts" and "opinions", but it's not that easy IMO :)
For example, I could say "The world is flat" and you could provide all the evidence you want and I could simply say I don't trust the evidence, or your data or your measurement devices. After all there certainly have been "facts" with "evidence" that have been disproven over time as new measurable data was uncovered. I could choose to not believe your evidence while I wait for more sufficient evidence in infinitum. Even 99.9999% confidence still leaves room for doubt.
"I think therefor I am" or simply "it thinks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum), is the closest thing to a "fact" that I've heard. Beyond that statement you have to make a leap of faith somewhere, even to believe the Earth is round.
> A UFO crashed at Roswell.
> This is claiming a fact, but we can't know for sure because we don't have reliable evidence either way.
Russell's teapot is an interesting counter argument to these assertions made without evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
> He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
So, wether a UFO crashed at Roswell or not isn't really that interesting unless someone somewhere has evidence.
But practically, I think it's possible to organize content into "productive theories" and "unproductive theories", which is again still subjective. But a "productive theory" would mean that I have enough confidence where I can use the theory to get a useful or expected result.
For example, I don't care if the Earth is "factually" round or not, but I have enough confidence from my interpretation and trust in the collected data about the shape of the Earth that I can build a large-scale reflecting pool that doesn't overflow and program a satellite to not crash back down to the ground. I think a lot of people call these things "facts", but it doesn't mean I have 100% confidence or claim to understand the entire situation, it just means I have enough information to be successful.
An "opinion" that is clearly in opposition to a fact certainly has very little value, and I would consider it invalid. I'm not saying someone doesn't have the right to a useless, proven-wrong opinion, but the value of any of their words will be near-zero in my eyes.
Not all opinions are equal, not all opinions are valid or represent truth.
Some opinions may be purely subjective and not even involve any kind of truth or fact statement ("X tastes good") but those opinions have very little value overall. Not completely useless, but not far from it
I personally feel we're accelerating towards a future where little thought, time, effort, or trust is given to anything factual and opinion somehow is the holy grail (especially the tragic idea that all opinions are somehow on equal footing) and I think we'll be worse off for it
Facts and opinions are indeed mutually exclusive.
A fact is a statement that can be supported to be true or false by data or evidence. An opinion is a personal expression of a person’s feelings or thoughts that may or may not be based in data.
> An "opinion" that is clearly in opposition to a fact certainly has very little value, and I would consider it invalid.
Opinions cannot be wrong/right as they are personal to everyone. Opinions can indeed have value, but that again would be your opinion of their opinion. It's not your fact of their opinion. Now if they are claiming something that can or can't be proven such as "the world is flat" that isn't an opinion, that is them trying to claim a fact, and that's a personal failing to not differentiate.
> I personally feel we're accelerating towards a future where little thought, time, effort, or trust is given to anything factual and opinion somehow is the holy grail (especially the tragic idea that all opinions are somehow on equal footing) and I think we'll be worse off for it
I think we are worse off for judging opinions as facts as well. But here's the thing.... that's my opinion not my fact. I can't myself produce measurable data that says we are or aren't worse off, so it's an opinion. Personally I also think that news media / trusted sources for information should properly label opinion vs fact and be able to back up their facts with data.
An opinion from a stranger on the internet, is of fairly low value, because you can't determine what weight to put behind that individuals opinion. You don't know if they've been thinking about this problem for months, or if they just clanged together an opinion right then and there, or if their opinion was fed to them via some youtuber they watch, or any other number of ways people come to an opinion.
Whereas with books and even people within your community, it's usually a lot easier to discern or research whether or not their opinion was derived from great thought, facts and experience. I will value the opinions in a book about engineering from the chief mechanic of an F1 team for example, there's reason to think they've given the topic a great deal of attention.
Fully agree.
I just get tired of seeing people claim that someone's opinion is wrong because they have some other view point that contradicts their opinion. People also intentionally blur the lines to try and get support for their argument, to me claiming valid/invalid on an opinion is one of the methods I see fairly often.
There are a lot of stuff that is ok for you to do personally, but that large companies doing at scale becomes problematic.
For example, you do facial recognition every day. As you walk through the store, you recognize friends and people you have met before. However, if a company sent bots with facial recognition everywhere, that would be problematic.
I would also bet that your close friends and people you invite into your home, tilt very heavily toward the same racial background and sociology-economic status as you. That may be ok for you, is very problematic for a large company.
In the same way, you “censoring” something is not a big deal. You can also ban entire authors from your home and it still would not be a big deal. But when a large multibillion dollar company with millions to billions of users does it, it is a big deal.
There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in this.
Suppose I choose to personaly "censor" and stop paying attention to Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, reddit and that crappy podcast on Spotify, after I understand they're just cesspools of ignorance, childish memes and tribalism. Now I can use that time to read books from authors I don't necessarily agree with but that can engage me in a deeper discussion. Am I really practising "censorship"?
My point is: selecting quality is not "censorship" it is mental hygiene. Bad discussions and bad ideas should really be discarded. When you tune out from a creationist, anti-vaxer, flat-earth prophet or global warming denier you are selecting for quality.
A debate where all opinions are equally valid is not healthy. Logically sound opinions are better than stupid ones. It is the most fundamental idea from Information Theory: filter out the noise, keep the signal.
Information overload forces you to do selection. And that's not "censorship".