5 ms·

Can you give an example of a lefty state government aggressively pushing for censorship?

gentleman11 3y ago
I want to minimize how much I get yelled at online, so I’d rather not cite a source this time and make it look like I’m taking a side. The point is there are lots of examples, easy to look up, and from both sides, not just one side
- evan_ 3y ago
  Should be really easy for you to post a link then, if there are so many examples to choose from
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    An example is in the original article: "For example, California presents its Age-Appropriate Design Code as a privacy regulation. Yet, the law imposes obligations on websites to deploy algorithms, designs, and features in a certain way or face fines. Of course, algorithms, features, and designs are the means by which websites develop, display, and disseminate speech."
canadiantim 3y ago
Canada, just look at Bill C-18. If that's not enough, they are about to try to pass an "anti-hate" bill as well targeting the internet, e.g. demanding taking down any content flagged as hate within 24 hours or massive penalties, so of course the default will be censorship to avoid penalties.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > Canada, just look at Bill C-18. I'm not from Canada and taking a cursory look at what this bill does I don't see any censorship here. Could you explain?
  - canadiantim 3y ago
    Sure, no problem. Bill C-18 is a tax on links to news articles. Currently the regulator in charge of implementing the law is only targeting 2 large companies: Google and Meta (you may have heard Meta stopped news sharing within Canada as a result and Google is considering the same), but it's expected for the regulator to apply this law to progressively more companies over time. But I would argue this severely restricts the free flow of information on the internet, which is effectively censorship (because it's removing news links from the internet, atleast in Canada)
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      It's more of a kind of trade war than censorship since the links being removed are removed in a content-neutral manner, not based on whether they support/oppose a specific viewpoint. Also, it's Meta that decided to remove the links of paying the tax. Removing links was not mandated by the government. Having said that, it's a very stupid law.
      - canadiantim 3y ago
        You're right the links are removed in a content-neutral manner, but the law also hurts smaller publishers more than larger publishers because the larger publishers are getting direct money contributions from the government to compensate them but the smaller ones aren't. So the most likely net effect of the law is to put out of business a lot of smaller news media in Canada and only the well-connected large news businesses will remain.
    - lukeschlather 3y ago
      C-18 is about copyright. You can argue all copyright is censorship in the same way, which while I think is a valid viewpoint it's not really a good argument, copyright and censorship should be treated as two different things. Put another way, if it should be legal for Google to do whatever they want with copyrighted content, I should also be able to do whatever I want with Google's intellectual property. You've got a status quo bias by looking at C-18 as "aggressively pushing for censorship" but ignoring Google's successful "censorship" of people who would copy other copyrighted works.
the_optimist 3y ago
Censorship is aimed at dissent from the ruling class, and broadly never left or right. Leftist examples include within the nation state of the United States (most closely aligned with the 95% of leftist voter roles in DC and Eastern Virginia) through the persecution of Assange, social media censorship most transparent in the Twitter files, Hunter Biden laptop reporting (see Greenwald), media censorship regarding COVID treatments, and banning Trump and many others from social media. I know a lot of people will say, “but there’s a good reason and that censorship is justified.” It is still censorship.
chmod600 3y ago
There was a campaign by Democrats in the US about "misinformation" and all kinds of solutions were being proposed. It culminated in the Disinformation Governance Board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinform...
Dig1t 3y ago
Whether you agree with it or not, the left broadly labels things it disagrees with as "racist" "bigoted", or anything "phobic". Anyone or anything attached with one of those labels, regardless of its veracity, is off limits in the public sphere. Recent attempts to regulate "misinformation", "disinformation", and the new "malinformation" are all mechanisms for censorship as well. In the United States, the Disinformation Governance Board was created by the lefty government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... Ironically, during a hearing on censorship, RFK Junior was set to testify. The Democrat senator from Florida moved to stop the session and censor his testimony citing something else he had previously said that the senator did not like. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4108865-rfk-jr-hearing-puts-censorship-misinformation-fights-at-center-stage/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4108865-rfk-jr-hearing... >Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made a motion to move the committee into executive session — closing the hearing to the public — over concerns about Kennedy’s recent statement on COVID-19. i.e. in a hearing specifically on censorship, the Democrat senator moved to censor Kennedy's testimony. I am not saying that I agree with what Kennedy said, but this is an obvious attempt at censorship. The lefty government in Europe just started enforcing the DSA, and to quote Wikipedia: >Swedish MEP Jessica Stegrud argued that the DSA's focus on preventing the spread of disinformation and "harmful content" would undermine freedom of speech.[58] As evidenced by the Twitter Files, before Musk took over the left was censoring right leaning accounts heavily, corresponding directly with US federal agencies and taking orders to "investigate" specific accounts that were critical of lefty politicians.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  It is done specifically for power: denounce, denounce, denounce, until the power is granted to the denouncer. Not once is a viable solution offered.
HardlyCurious 3y ago
Well, I can't think of any media articles talking about, specifically state level, censorship efforts from the left. But the Whitehouse was recently told by courts it couldn't communicate with social media companies about content moderation. Trying to claim that isn't censorship will require some mental gymnastics. But let's not forget the censorship around the hunter Biden laptop story and the censorship of lab leak theories for covid. Both completely legitimate topics, both completely blocked out during an election year. The right wasn't calling for or defending those actions, the left was.
brightlancer 3y ago
> Can you give an example of a lefty state government aggressively pushing for censorship? From the article: "For example, California presents its Age-Appropriate Design Code as a privacy regulation. Yet, the law imposes obligations on websites to deploy algorithms, designs, and features in a certain way or face fines. Of course, algorithms, features, and designs are the means by which websites develop, display, and disseminate speech."

I want to minimize how much I get yelled at online, so I’d rather not cite a source this time and make it look like I’m taking a side. The point is there are lots of examples, easy to look up, and from both sides, not just one side

evan_ 3y ago
Should be really easy for you to post a link then, if there are so many examples to choose from
- brightlancer 3y ago
  An example is in the original article: "For example, California presents its Age-Appropriate Design Code as a privacy regulation. Yet, the law imposes obligations on websites to deploy algorithms, designs, and features in a certain way or face fines. Of course, algorithms, features, and designs are the means by which websites develop, display, and disseminate speech."

canadiantim 3y ago

Canada, just look at Bill C-18. If that's not enough, they are about to try to pass an "anti-hate" bill as well targeting the internet, e.g. demanding taking down any content flagged as hate within 24 hours or massive penalties, so of course the default will be censorship to avoid penalties.

Kbelicius 3y ago
> Canada, just look at Bill C-18. I'm not from Canada and taking a cursory look at what this bill does I don't see any censorship here. Could you explain?
- canadiantim 3y ago
  Sure, no problem. Bill C-18 is a tax on links to news articles. Currently the regulator in charge of implementing the law is only targeting 2 large companies: Google and Meta (you may have heard Meta stopped news sharing within Canada as a result and Google is considering the same), but it's expected for the regulator to apply this law to progressively more companies over time. But I would argue this severely restricts the free flow of information on the internet, which is effectively censorship (because it's removing news links from the internet, atleast in Canada)
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    It's more of a kind of trade war than censorship since the links being removed are removed in a content-neutral manner, not based on whether they support/oppose a specific viewpoint. Also, it's Meta that decided to remove the links of paying the tax. Removing links was not mandated by the government. Having said that, it's a very stupid law.
    - canadiantim 3y ago
      You're right the links are removed in a content-neutral manner, but the law also hurts smaller publishers more than larger publishers because the larger publishers are getting direct money contributions from the government to compensate them but the smaller ones aren't. So the most likely net effect of the law is to put out of business a lot of smaller news media in Canada and only the well-connected large news businesses will remain.
  - lukeschlather 3y ago
    C-18 is about copyright. You can argue all copyright is censorship in the same way, which while I think is a valid viewpoint it's not really a good argument, copyright and censorship should be treated as two different things. Put another way, if it should be legal for Google to do whatever they want with copyrighted content, I should also be able to do whatever I want with Google's intellectual property. You've got a status quo bias by looking at C-18 as "aggressively pushing for censorship" but ignoring Google's successful "censorship" of people who would copy other copyrighted works.

the_optimist 3y ago

Censorship is aimed at dissent from the ruling class, and broadly never left or right. Leftist examples include within the nation state of the United States (most closely aligned with the 95% of leftist voter roles in DC and Eastern Virginia) through the persecution of Assange, social media censorship most transparent in the Twitter files, Hunter Biden laptop reporting (see Greenwald), media censorship regarding COVID treatments, and banning Trump and many others from social media. I know a lot of people will say, “but there’s a good reason and that censorship is justified.” It is still censorship.

chmod600 3y ago

There was a campaign by Democrats in the US about "misinformation" and all kinds of solutions were being proposed. It culminated in the Disinformation Governance Board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinform...

Dig1t 3y ago

Whether you agree with it or not, the left broadly labels things it disagrees with as "racist" "bigoted", or anything "phobic". Anyone or anything attached with one of those labels, regardless of its veracity, is off limits in the public sphere. Recent attempts to regulate "misinformation", "disinformation", and the new "malinformation" are all mechanisms for censorship as well. In the United States, the Disinformation Governance Board was created by the lefty government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... Ironically, during a hearing on censorship, RFK Junior was set to testify. The Democrat senator from Florida moved to stop the session and censor his testimony citing something else he had previously said that the senator did not like. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4108865-rfk-jr-hearing-puts-censorship-misinformation-fights-at-center-stage/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4108865-rfk-jr-hearing... >Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) made a motion to move the committee into executive session — closing the hearing to the public — over concerns about Kennedy’s recent statement on COVID-19. i.e. in a hearing specifically on censorship, the Democrat senator moved to censor Kennedy's testimony. I am not saying that I agree with what Kennedy said, but this is an obvious attempt at censorship. The lefty government in Europe just started enforcing the DSA, and to quote Wikipedia: >Swedish MEP Jessica Stegrud argued that the DSA's focus on preventing the spread of disinformation and "harmful content" would undermine freedom of speech.[58] As evidenced by the Twitter Files, before Musk took over the left was censoring right leaning accounts heavily, corresponding directly with US federal agencies and taking orders to "investigate" specific accounts that were critical of lefty politicians.

hellojesus 3y ago
It is done specifically for power: denounce, denounce, denounce, until the power is granted to the denouncer. Not once is a viable solution offered.

HardlyCurious 3y ago

Well, I can't think of any media articles talking about, specifically state level, censorship efforts from the left. But the Whitehouse was recently told by courts it couldn't communicate with social media companies about content moderation. Trying to claim that isn't censorship will require some mental gymnastics. But let's not forget the censorship around the hunter Biden laptop story and the censorship of lab leak theories for covid. Both completely legitimate topics, both completely blocked out during an election year. The right wasn't calling for or defending those actions, the left was.

brightlancer 3y ago

> Can you give an example of a lefty state government aggressively pushing for censorship? From the article: "For example, California presents its Age-Appropriate Design Code as a privacy regulation. Yet, the law imposes obligations on websites to deploy algorithms, designs, and features in a certain way or face fines. Of course, algorithms, features, and designs are the means by which websites develop, display, and disseminate speech."