Right wing views are objectively censored on social media and Wikipedia. “Idiotic rants” are valid free speech and censorship of profanity is a deflection.

It's the same with left wing views. You just don't see them because well, they're censored. What's is seemingly a uniquely right phenomenon is viewing the annoyingly centrist stuff that is allowed on the internet as left.

Like yes, it's on your left, but it's not left by any stretch of imagination.

Free speech has no place on Wikipedia. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, and to summarize the contents of primary sources, not a way for specific people to spread their opinions.

I think this is highlighting an important point. People seem to be using different definitions of "free speech."

It appears one side is arguing against what we might call "Free Speech (tm)" while others are arguing in favor of the moral/ethical principle of not restricting the free exchange of ideas. Thus the two sides end up talking past each other.

I'm not sure what is "Free Speech (tm)", but I'd say neither version belongs on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of facts, not of self-expression. Eg, we see here on the front page that Fred Brooks passed away on Nov 18, 2022. That's either a fact or it isn't. If it is a fact, then that's what his article should contain.

"Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against. If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with. Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion.

> "Free Speech (tm)" is what you appear to be arguing against.

And what would that be?

> If I had to guess, you envision people who are vocal about free speech as holding views you disagree with.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind.

Eg, this is not "free speech" in any of its meanings: "New York, often called New York City (NYC),[a] is the most populous city in the United States. With a 2020 population of 8,804,190 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2), New York City is also the most densely populated major city in the United States."

That's a factual statement that can have been compiled by an AI. It's not an expression of the views or opinions of any single person, and one that can be extracted from maps and databases.

> Whereas as a moral/ethical principle, you cannot have a Wikipedia without the free exchange of ideas - whether it's fact or opinion.

True, but the actual contents of Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to constitute exchanges of ideas.

> This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My contention is that Wikipedia is not for "speech" at all, of any kind.

This is exactly my point - "speech" in this context means the exchange of ideas, not taken literally as making sounds with your mouth. So perhaps my point would make more sense if you s/speech/free exchange of ideas/

Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact?

I could argue that your NY reference is indeed free speech in that you are making a statement of fact or opinion in a public forum.

> Without a free exchange of ideas, how do you form a consensus of what is or is not fact?

By having free exchange of ideas allowed outside of Wikipedia, and forbidden on Wikipedia itself.

I'm saying the free exchange of ideas doesn't belong on Wikipedia pages specifically.

But the talk-page discussion of what is supportable and what belongs on those pages should not be censored by political opinion.

You’re right about free speech on Wikipedia but see the linked article where the co-founder declares Wikipedia to be political propaganda. Primary sources are biased against conservatives when they come from left-wing propaganda publications.

Social media however IS meant for specific people to spread their opinions and conservative opinions are censored there.

ya gotta source on that one buddy? I remain skeptical that there even is such a thing as "objectively" on this subject, but every time I see someone trying to look into or tally this up the main social media platforms are slightly-to-somewhat more tolerant of fringe right views than they are fringe left.

A confounder here is that social media inherits a lot of american political bias, and america has no mainstream left. Right leaning people interpret center and even center-right positions as "leftist" but that doesn't make it so.

Fact checks are biased against conservative views. Warning labels for left wing political ideas like global warming are attached to posts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube which are patronizing and censorious. A quick search found dozens of examples that backup my point but perhaps a source you might accept showing Conservative censorship comes from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-america...

Your citation doesn't appear to say that right wing views are more censored, only that right wingers think they're more censored.

Conservators feel like they are being censored because they are and liberals who support censorship are behind it.

> Fact checks are biased against conservative views.

This is literally that old joke that "reality has a liberal bias" right? I do agree.

> left wing political ideas like global warming

There's your problem. That's not a "left wing political idea," that's a fact that right wingers just don't like.

On the covid-misinformation page there are a lot of things that wouldn't be listed as a conspiracy theory if Trump hadn't said them. (I'm saying this as a foreigner.)

For instance, is the Wuhan lab the source of the virus? The correct answer is we don't know, and by now may never. The investigations just weren't done and they're about as detailed and exacting as those for an air crash. Without that it's all just guesses.

The article says that "Covid came from a lab" is misinformation, but not that "Covid DIDN"T come from a lab" is also misinformation.

I spent weeks trying to explain that a source which says "there is no evidence" means no evidence either way. It kept coming back to them saying they felt this paternalistic need to prevent the dumbs from getting the wrong opinion and because Trump had said it and the repubs are dumb, that there was a higher burden to represent that view as wrong than to represent the other views as also wrong!

In the end the article just ended up sounding like CNN. So much for unbiased.

1. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective truth. Right wing and left wing views are opinions on how the world should be, so neither belong on Wikipedia.

2. What right wing views are censored on social media? Superiority of capitalism over other economic systems? Less taxes leading to better prosperity? Reduced government regulation lets innovation flourish? Welfare programs are a waste of money? I see these views get debated and their pros and cons pointed out, not censored.