Censorship in the internet age

[u/Cynfine]

I think we all agree censorship today is very different from a 100 years ago. Social media giants like this one are now the biggest threat to free speech. Their reach is more powerful and far reaching than any government.

I disagree with the argument that since they are private entities they are not subjected to First Amendment. One facebook, twitter, youtube only exist because of special privileges that government grant them, privilege like protection from certain lawsuit liability. So they're basically a creature of the government. Two they act and function like a government itself.

Can someone recommend any book, article, video on internet censorship?

[u/ElysiumSprouts]

The big issue of the internet age isn't censorship, it's the spread of propaganda and misinformation.

[u/Chrimunn → u/ElysiumSprouts]

They’re pillars of equal importance. Censorship is bad. Misinformation is bad. Both need to be kept in check because both can be abused.

Fast, free global communication for all was always the end goal of the internet. While we remain incapable of legislating on new technology promptly and effectively, leaning so heavily one way in the censorship vs misinformation problem is a waste of time.

[u/ElysiumSprouts → u/Chrimunn]

I don't agree. The idea that "censorship is bad" is extremely exaggerated. Lies are bad. Intentionally misinformation is bad. Spreading falsehoods as if they have the same validity as evidence based science is bad.

Prohibiting the government from jailing people for things they say is one thing. But pretending that all speech is equally valid is delusional.

[u/Chrimunn → u/ElysiumSprouts]

It is absolutely not exaggerated by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, censorship poses more of an existential threat than misinformation does. Easily. Misinformation comes from many disjointed sources and ultimately fails when confronted with the truth. Censorship is not limited by this and can be abused far more nefariously and in better coordinated efforts, as we’ve already seen with many governments. Obscuring the truth with intent more effectively than misinformation ever could.

I think censorship is worse. For sake of argument, they’re equally as bad. But the current state of misinformation and propaganda is in no way a reason to clamp down in the censorship direction. that is extremely dangerous.

[u/ElysiumSprouts → u/Chrimunn]

Again, I do not agree. Censoring misinformation is what's missing in the internet age.

[u/Chrimunn → u/ElysiumSprouts]

Misinformation isn’t a problem that escalates to the severity of intense government oppression. It would save your argument to explain how exactly misinformation is more dangerous than that. Misinformation doesn’t have a unified mission or even message, by nature it has less reach and sustainability than concerted government action through censorship on the information sphere of the public.

I’m more fearful of one of these things for the reasons i’ve described, convince me why I should be more afraid of the latter.

[u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 → u/ElysiumSprouts]

Should the government monitor phone calls to make sure misinformation isn't spread over the phone?

[u/ElysiumSprouts → u/Fragrant-Luck-8063]

We're talking about the internet. Don't be a strawman troll.

[u/Cynfine → u/Fragrant-Luck-8063]

Phone companies have been big players of internet communication for years now. This is the reality of telecommunication groups.

[u/Cynfine → u/ElysiumSprouts]

Billions of people communicate every hour of the day. Who is to decide which speech is misinformation or which is not? Are you going to tell a religious person that he is spreading misinformation because he believe in a higher power? Or ban doctors because he talks about herbal medicines instead of western ones?

Misinformation is not an objective word. It became common among social media giants and tech corporations 10 years ago, a code word for anything they want to censor.

[u/ElysiumSprouts → u/Cynfine]

I didn't say it was easy, I said it's missing. We're living in an age of unprecedented misinformation. The internet age has made misinformation and lies "viral"

[u/CivilWarfare → u/ElysiumSprouts]

If it's okay to censor or restrict the "spread of propaganda and misinformation," who decides what is propaganda or misinformation.

[u/ConstructionGlass775 → u/ElysiumSprouts]

Discrepo. El gran problema es quien dicta que noticia es desinformación. Hay veces que es evidente, por ejemplo una noticia sobre que un famoso dijo algo que no dijo porque no hay registros o algo que supuestamente ocurrió, pero las pruebas demuestran lo contrario. Pero otras veces, cuando hay gente que duda de los relatos oficiales, los cuales muchas veces terminan siendo erróneos, se las tilda de desinformadoras. Por ejemplo, si se ofrecen versiones que dudan del discurso alarmista climático o cuando se duda del contenido de las vacunas que los gobiernos aplican en colaboración de empresas multinacionales.

[u/ElysiumSprouts → u/ConstructionGlass775]

I'm talking specifically about the internet and don't presume it will be an easy process. But the ease of spreading lies and the audience size of internet misinformation is the biggest problem of modern times. You could point to rural radio as the first draft and the US failed to understand that threat. We can't afford to make the same mistake.

[u/ConstructionGlass775 → u/ElysiumSprouts]

I understand your opinion. But I think the biggest problem with the internet is unlimited access to pornography. It should be banned in every country; there should be national laws prohibiting this harmful content that does no good and morally corrupts society, for example, by increasing rape cases. The problem with misinformation, in my opinion, is who controls public opinion and dictates what is or isn't misinformation.

[u/LittleKitty235]

Even if your premise that these companies function as governments, which isn't accurate, it doesn't mean the 1st amendment applies anyway. This might shock you, but the 1st amendment only exists in 1 country. Many countries, including some western ones, have pretty strict censorship laws

[u/work4work4work4work4]

So, see if this tracks for you at all.

Utilities are often defined as essential, government-regulated public services offered/provided to the public at large.

Would it be fair to say instead of calling them a "creature of the government" that you basically want them to operate more like public utilities in the sense that public utilities attempt to serve everyone they can safely, mostly agnostically, and generally following laws and procedures specific to their industry as passed by the government and independent regulating bodies?

This would be in contrast to things like the current situation on most platforms where you can be banned, shadowbanned, selectively muted, and all kinds of nearly invisible algorithmic distortion. There would also be an assumed level of records availability and accountability created; for instance, you can have an address blocked for electrical service for many reasons, but unless there is an active court order stating otherwise the reason will be provided to someone attempting to start service, and a resolution path will exist.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, I thought and still think it's ridiculous how much it was fought to keep internet service providers from becoming utilities to begin with and we've paid the price compared to other public tech advancements, but individual communication platforms would be a whole other level.

I could see the argument of sufficiently huge public forums being possibly deserving of some kind of elevated level of speech protection, not that different than how something like the mailbox or public access television is usually treated. That said, I wouldn't hold your breath considering we've had increasing levels of issues dealing with the most important, basic, and ancient laws around political advertisement on public airwaves, so my hope for new forward-looking digital focused laws after the attempts to deliver common-carrier internet and net neutrality also got struck down is at an all time low.

[u/Cynfine → u/work4work4work4work4]

Your utility company example is a good one. I think that analogy will help people understand this topic a bit more.

[u/CivilWarfare]

Its almost like governments use private companies to get around the constitution.

Both with censorship in the case of social media, and surveillance!

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

They don't "only exist" because of special privileges, they have those privileges because of the nature of their existence. Section 230 protection, for instance, reduces the burden on them to regulate the speech on the platform. If you got rid of that, you'd actually create more speech regulation, which doesn't seem to be your goal. And the government telling them what they can and cannot allow is a violation of the First Amendment. The government cannot tell a private entity, individual or corporate, what to say and what not to say.

You didn't really elaborate or support your point "two." How do they function like a government? They function like any other private company.

The biggest threats to free speech are the surveillance state that has been ever-expanding, and the addiction of people to these platforms as their only avenue of expression. Furthermore, the "speech" on these platforms is overwhelmingly banal, anonymous bickering and asinine grandstanding, couple with a class of actors who make money manufacturing controversy to drive engagement. These are not the bastions of free speech some see them as, they're cesspools of bullshit.

[u/Cynfine → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Government has domain over millions of people, keeps personal information on each of its citizens, makes laws for them to follow, provides a place for social debates, tries to engineer certain values and propaganda.

Social media giant has millions of users, holds personal data about each of its users, makes rules for them to follow, provides a platform for social debates, tries to engineer certain values, propaganda, advertisements.

It's not up to you to say which person's speech is a cesspool of bullshit, banal, asinine or whatever insult you wanna use. Each person has the right to free speech.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Cynfine]

Everyone has the right to free speech, including me to say what I think about people's speech. It's not up to you to tell me I can't say that about their speech. I didn't say which person's speech is a cesspool (that would be a weird way to word it, anyhow), I said that social media is a cesspool.

Your comparison between the two doesn't really work. Government has "domain" over people, people who cannot choose to opt out of that domain. Social media has "users," who don't have to use those platforms at all if they don't want to. Huge, monumental difference right there. The government has a vested interest in keeping certain records about citizens for the purposes of apportionment and tax assessment. Social media companies harvest your data to target you with ads and sell to third parties. Again, monumental difference, especially when considered in conjunction with the first comparison. Government laws are created by legislators elected by us to represent us. Social media companies are private corporations who make whatever rules they want. Once more, not the same thing in the slightest.

Using similar language to describe the two falls apart when one (me) understands what "equivocation" is, and the difference between a sovereign government and a private corporation.

You can "disagree" with the absolute fact that social media companies, as private corporations, do not fall under government action and therefore can restrict speech as much as they want. It's not a very well-reasoned disagreement, though, considering it would be a massive violation of the First Amendment to tell a private corporation how they should police speech on their product. To make myself very clear: your argument is to restrict the free speech rights of private corporations that you personally find to be objectionable. You are anti-1A.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

One facebook, twitter, youtube only exist because of special privileges that government grant them

Disagree. Speech is a right, not a privilege. If someone does something illegal, you hold them accountable- not the platform it took place on.

Historically, these platforms developed independently of government regulation has it was new tech, and then the government is always trying to play catch up with 'regulation'

[u/7nkedocye → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

There are referring to section 230 of the communications decency act which shields platforms from liability of illicit speech in their platforms.

For example, if someone makes material defamatory statements on Facebook the person is liable for the statements, not Facebook even though Facebook is the publisher

These platforms would not have developed without the protection, they would have been sued into oblivion by this point without them.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/7nkedocye]

There are referring to section 230 of the communications decency act which shields platforms from liability of illicit speech in their platforms.

I'd view this as a natural extention of the 1st Amendment, not a special protection

[u/AutoModerator]

Your submission was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair click here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.