Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 9:03:08 GMT -5
The past few years have witnessed several milestones in censorship across nations worldwide. Europe has been leading the way, with criminalization (people serving jail time) of everything from criticism of immigration policy in Germany to pro-life websites in France. In 2017, France witnessed the axing of TV advertisements "depicting Down syndrome children as loving, quirky, independent kids whose parents adore them" (the tribunal ruling in this case that such depictions are "likely to disturb women who have had recourse to a medical termination of pregnancy and thus is inappropriate for airing during commercial breaks" [ibid.]). North Americans haven't been exempted, although censorship in our nations is still largely of the 'soft' variety, i.e. companies voluntarily censoring materials at the behest of governments. Prominent examples include deplatforming [ 2] [ 3] of conservative/anti-establishment ideologues from social media (also, from hosting services, crowdfunding sites, app stores, and even banks) [note that a few progressives are also being deplatformed; see 'deplatforming' link for stats], as well as a de facto blacklisting of most Russian content across major social media sites in the wake of Russiagate in 2016/2017. In Hawaiian public libraries, content filters are built directly into web browsers using technologies such as NewsGuard, which de-rank materials deemed 'inaccurate' or 'misleading' by prominent newspapers and neoconservative (i.e. pro-war) think-tanks. Most recently, censorship has come into the spotlight again in New Zealand, where New Zealanders face fines of up to $200K or imprisonment of up to 10 years imprisonment merely for possessing a copy [ 2] of footage taken by a gunman during a recent shooting in a New Zealand mosque. Similar penalties are levied at New Zealanders found in possession of digital copies of the gunman's written manifesto. The New Zealand government has forcibly blacklisted (i.e. forced ISPs to block traffic) from various websites and Internet services that allow uncensored discussion of the shooting to take place. [ibid.] Regardless of our personal views on censored content, it's undeniable that governments around the world are sharply ramping up their efforts to prevent citizens from reading, viewing, sharing, discussing, and critiquing materials they deem contrary to the public interest. Citizens have reacted by increasingly moving "underground", making increasing use of anonymizing and ban-circumventing technologies to bypass censorship. For instance, it's a trivial matter to obtain a copy of the banned materials in NZ (or anywhere else) anonymously and undetected, and to store them in such a way that it's impossible to prove possession. Sharing, analysis, and discussion of the banned footage/manifesto continue en force in NZ and across the world.
Where do you stand? Do you approve of government censorship efforts so far? Do you trust governments to use censorship responsibly in future? Do you anticipate abuse? What constitutes both? Where is your line in the sand? Where do you see censorship (in particular, Internet censorship) going in future? What about counter-censorship and the growing digital underground? TL:DR: Internet censorship is growing rapidly. What do you think of it, and where is your line in the sand?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 14:11:59 GMT -5
I thing that societies, courts and laws will struggle with this for some time in an attempt to get it right. "Struggle" tends to imply both opposing forces (pro-censorship, contra-censorship) will prevail at odd times. But to the best of my knowledge, the battle front has only ever moved one way in the past 15 years: towards more censorship. Furthermore, the movement is accelerating. We passed these five major milestones in just the past 3 years. It's fair to say governments have introduced more meaningful censorship in the past 3 years than in the previous 22 (that is, since the dawn of the consumer Internet).
What do you contend the opposing force that halts/reverses the accelerating advance will be? Do you expect a majority of Internet users to eventually become so uncomfortable with Internet censorship that democratic (legislative) solutions become viable? Is there any precedent we can look to for hope? (Thanks for your reply, BTW.)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 18, 2019 17:14:23 GMT -5
Would now be a good time to note that real liberals are the natural enemies of authoritarianism?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 20:27:36 GMT -5
Well I am really mostly speaking to the North American situation. Other than seeing the trends as they develop I don't have an idea of what the popular opinion in Europe is on this, for instance. Of course countries like China, Russia, etc., are on a different path entirely anyway. In the United States there are very strong forces against internet censorship, from the ACLU to the Libertarian Party. So this also encompasses politicians across the political divide, with Libertarian leaning Paul Rand joining with liberal leaning Senators, for instance. In our country there is I think more resistance to censorship overall than maybe there is in Europe. On the other hand, with the predominance of conservative judges being put on our benches now this could tip us more in the direction of censorship- unless the libertarian streak prevails. The US is marginally better situated than the rest of the world. I can't see your current SCOTUS upholding any of the kinds of bans or restrictions mentioned in the OP on behalf of the state. The worry comes with the 'soft' bans. Even if I've got the greatest website on Earth, if search engines refuse to find it, hosting services refuse to host it, social media sites refuse to link to it, crowdfunding sites refuse to list it, banks refuse to do business with it, and advertisers refuse to advertise on it, it's going to die in obscurity. There's nothing the ACLU or the courts can do about this (except for possibly anti-trust laws and breaking up monopolies/duopolies, but I won't hold my breath).
There's a rising tide of demand for censorship in the US like everywhere else, and the proponents mean business. They routinely launch DoS attacks (easily accomplished when a site is deplatformed and has to host its full content on its own servers), bombard targets with frivolous lawsuits, and make life hell for corporations that do business with target sites. Sometimes they harass site owners personally. For many of them, censorship is their raison d'etre. They fancy themselves crusaders for human rights and have a lot of free time.
To date, deplatformed sites have had some recourse in moving onto "alternative" servers, social media sites, funding platforms, etc. abroad, beyond the reach of raging activists/litigants in the US. But these alternatives are vulnerable to the whims of their respective governments, and if the concentration of "offending" sites in any one country grows too high, I can see the SCOTUS giving the OK to the NSA, FCC, et al. to censor communications with "enemy states". Some of your politicians are already chomping at this bit in the wake of Russiagate in 2016. They're selling it to the public/courts as "protection of democracy", conveniently leaving out the fact that it hamstrings sites fled to Russia to escape persecution in the US. The Internet underground is another story. Technologically, censors are at a huge disadvantage, and the disadvantage is only going to grow along with the size of the underground, which in turn will grow with the need to circumvent censorship. Having said this, I don't want to live in a world where I have to obscure my identity, cover my tracks, scour the dark corners of the dark web, and live in contravention of bans to seek out information and communicate freely on the Internet. I will if I absolutely have to--if it becomes a moral prerogative--but I sincerely hope that day isn't soon in coming.
Would now be a good time to note that real liberals are the natural enemies of authoritarianism? Not at all. When it comes to censorship of the Internet, I'm a flaming liberal myself.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 10:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,467
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 19, 2019 12:26:53 GMT -5
(Could we bring back the "2 cents" emoticon?) Those alive and aware over the past few decades witnessed something that is unprecedented in human existence, the loss of gatekeepers to information. Those alive and aware over the past few decades witnessed something that is unprecedented in human existence, the loss of gatekeepers from misinformation.
I am unsure if I have enough faith left, after 6 plus decades on the planet, to believe that most human beings can reasonable deal with this new reality.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 19, 2019 14:12:07 GMT -5
In general, I'm not for internet censorship by the government; however, there are certain things that absolutely must be controlled. Child pornography, snuff films, etc. fall into that category as far as I'm concerned. Responsibility for control of such damaging material has to fall on somebody or something and I can't see putting it in hands of individual site owners, or internet service providers, so the federal government might just be the only viable answer. Now, that kind of ugliness mostly resides on the dark web where the wild, wild west lives again. There will, therefore, never be a perfect answer. Technology is such that there will always be that next step and any sort of control will always be a step behind, as I see it. In short, I'm against censorship on the whole but recognize the need for as much control in those most egregious areas as is possible.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 19, 2019 14:49:23 GMT -5
Well I am really mostly speaking to the North American situation. Other than seeing the trends as they develop I don't have an idea of what the popular opinion in Europe is on this, for instance. Of course countries like China, Russia, etc., are on a different path entirely anyway. In the United States there are very strong forces against internet censorship, from the ACLU to the Libertarian Party. So this also encompasses politicians across the political divide, with Libertarian leaning Paul Rand joining with liberal leaning Senators, for instance. In our country there is I think more resistance to censorship overall than maybe there is in Europe. On the other hand, with the predominance of conservative judges being put on our benches now this could tip us more in the direction of censorship- unless the libertarian streak prevails. The US is marginally better situated than the rest of the world. I can't see your current SCOTUS upholding any of the kinds of bans or restrictions mentioned in the OP on behalf of the state. The worry comes with the 'soft' bans. Even if I've got the greatest website on Earth, if search engines refuse to find it, hosting services refuse to host it, social media sites refuse to link to it, crowdfunding sites refuse to list it, banks refuse to do business with it, and advertisers refuse to advertise on it, it's going to die in obscurity. There's nothing the ACLU or the courts can do about this (except for possibly anti-trust laws and breaking up monopolies/duopolies, but I won't hold my breath).
Isn't that the definition of the free market taking care of a problem?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 16:59:12 GMT -5
I don't even mind so much the restricting of content on certain platforms - even while recognizing the reach and almost universal use by some of them- as I do the restriction of "bandwidth" for smaller players. That to me is the restriction that really plugs freedom of expression on the internet, even given your points above, I think. Right or wrong? I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about a type of censorship where a company or a website is throttled as to how much daily content they can upload/download to viewers? If so, these kinds of restrictions are (generally speaking) impossible to implement with the way distribution of content occurs over the contemporary web. For individual consumers, there is still a chokepoint at the ISP (that is, your ISP can technically throttle your access to specific sites) but this is also easily circumvented for those willing to put in the effort.
I am unsure if I have enough faith left, after 6 plus decades on the planet, to believe that most human beings can reasonable deal with this new reality.
So you're... pro-censorship? Indifferent? Resigned to whatever fate awaits us? In pictorial form: ? ? ? The US is marginally better situated than the rest of the world. I can't see your current SCOTUS upholding any of the kinds of bans or restrictions mentioned in the OP on behalf of the state. The worry comes with the 'soft' bans. Even if I've got the greatest website on Earth, if search engines refuse to find it, hosting services refuse to host it, social media sites refuse to link to it, crowdfunding sites refuse to list it, banks refuse to do business with it, and advertisers refuse to advertise on it, it's going to die in obscurity. There's nothing the ACLU or the courts can do about this (except for possibly anti-trust laws and breaking up monopolies/duopolies, but I won't hold my breath).
Isn't that the definition of the free market taking care of a problem? It would be if it were a purely economic problem and governments shutting down access to alternative services wasn't an option. Presently, I'll say free-market capitalism is a "factor" in the rise of censorship.
However, it's also one of the main forces behind the growing digital underground. So... take your pick.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,467
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 19, 2019 17:21:47 GMT -5
... I am unsure if I have enough faith left, after 6 plus decades on the planet, to believe that most human beings can reasonable deal with this new reality.
So you're... pro-censorship? Indifferent? Resigned to whatever fate awaits us? In pictorial form: ? ? ? ... How about musical form: So if you're tempted to rescue me Drowning in this quicksand up to my neck Before you grab my hand to save me Why don't you ask me if I'm finished yet We will see November 3, 2020. Until then, I am generally in a holding pattern.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 19:29:13 GMT -5
Ooo... kay.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 19, 2019 23:31:36 GMT -5
Is the government mandating that certain things are pushed off platforms? Or is that a decision a company makes so it doesn't lose customers and advertising?
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 20, 2019 1:40:56 GMT -5
You mean censorship like not live streaming a mass shooting? I think someone should police stuff like that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2019 7:13:29 GMT -5
Is the government mandating that certain things are pushed off platforms? Or is that a decision a company makes so it doesn't lose customers and advertising? Both. I'm looking at all three types of censorship mentioned in the OP: hard bans (government edicts), soft bans (deplatforming), and propaganda (governments/companies front-loading warnings/recommendations/filters into computers, web browsers, etc.). You mean censorship like not live streaming a mass shooting? I think someone should police stuff like that. To what extent? For example, do you believe somebody who makes the footage available for download should face fines or a prison sentence? Likewise, do you believe somebody who possesses the footage on a home computer without the intention to distribute should face fines or a prison sentence? Are the fines ($200,000) and prison sentence (10 years) in New Zealand appropriate? Too harsh? Too lenient? One caveat: Don't assume persons in possession of the footage are watching it because they find the massacre entertaining. Sites hosting it thus far tend to be conspiracy theory sites, mainly interested in analysis. They variously suspect the footage is doctored, the attack is a false flag, the attack is military-related, etc., and they comb through the footage looking for evidence and inconsistencies. It's also a topic of discussion on pro-2A sites where people analyze tactics, etc., and theorize "what if" a good guy had a gun, "what if" we were present and had only a few seconds to react, etc. Footage like this is the only non-simulated mass shooting scenario most civilians have access to, and they use it as a training tool (in a sense) to gauge what to do and not to do if facing such a gunman. I don't know if any of this makes a difference to you, but if it does, you should consider that most people who'd be punished for distributing or possessing the footage would fall into the above two categories.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2019 8:49:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about a type of censorship where a company or a website is throttled as to how much daily content they can upload/download to viewers? If so, these kinds of restrictions are (generally speaking) impossible to implement with the way distribution of content occurs over the contemporary web. For individual consumers, there is still a chokepoint at the ISP (that is, your ISP can technically throttle your access to specific sites) but this is also easily circumvented for those willing to put in the effort.
I am talking about net neutrality (the term escaped me when I wrote that in the bolded.) RichardInTN and I debated NN at length a year ago, although the discussion was mostly about an absurd Burger King parody that purported to "explain" NN. NN issues do intersect soft censorship issues in part, but ISPs are one place where soft censorship truly wouldn't work. Any ISP that started throttling content at the level of conservative vs. progressive sites would instantly lose legions of customers. Switching ISPs is as easy as switching phone companies. It's not like Twitter or Facebook where everybody is more or less stuck with the same platform.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:32:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 11:30:15 GMT -5
OK, I'll put my head on the block. I do not approve of internet censorship in most cases. However the concept of inciting public harm (such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre) is a much more nuanced and yet broader concept here than IRL. For instance- the cases of goading to suicide. I thing that societies, courts and laws will struggle with this for some time in an attempt to get it right.BTW- this is different than parental/ educational/ work/ controls, for which I think opportunities to control content should and will be expanded. I haven't thought about it in great depth. The crux. (bolded) Who decides what is right ? The rest is minutia surrounding this unanswered question.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,467
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 20, 2019 11:55:40 GMT -5
OK, I'll put my head on the block. I do not approve of internet censorship in most cases. However the concept of inciting public harm (such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre) is a much more nuanced and yet broader concept here than IRL. For instance- the cases of goading to suicide. I thing that societies, courts and laws will struggle with this for some time in an attempt to get it right.BTW- this is different than parental/ educational/ work/ controls, for which I think opportunities to control content should and will be expanded. I haven't thought about it in great depth. The crux. (bolded) Who decides what is right ? ... Judges and lawmakers influenced by society in general.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 20, 2019 12:17:18 GMT -5
The crux. (bolded) Who decides what is right ? ... Judges and lawmakers influenced by society in general. So, ultimately, the Supreme Court? That's where I think most cases would end up as the whole media environment is too new. Either that or we'll see a bunch of new laws pushed through without thought of unintended consequences either at a state or federal level.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,467
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 20, 2019 12:38:04 GMT -5
Judges and lawmakers influenced by society in general. So, ultimately, the Supreme Court? That's where I think most cases would end up as the whole media environment is too new. Either that or we'll see a bunch of new laws pushed through without thought of unintended consequences either at a state or federal level. "... without thought ..."? I doubt it. Without full understanding of and avoidance of all negative consequences that might flow from any particular law. Sure. That is why we have a court system with ultimate authority resting with the Supreme Court. There is zero chance that perfection will be achieved the first go round or likely ever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:32:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 9:36:12 GMT -5
The crux. (bolded) Who decides what is right ? ... Judges and lawmakers influenced by society in general. And to think that posters would say to me. "How can you vote for Trump, just because he would pick the type of judges you would like" ?
|
|