This is a fair point - that people are seeing different things in Russia and Ukraine.
But can we reflect for a second that we are all in the same boat? We don't know what we are presented on screens is real either. Who's to say we are receiving the truth? Are our leaders beneficent? I think not.
We are all in the same boat. We are all propagandised. We don't even know what is going on anywhere else, except for what we are able to personally verify. And even that is limited by how we are able to explain and frame our experience!
Great point. In my circles I have far too often seen people criticizing other governments of propaganda, while also accepting the narratives we live in without question.
An important distinction is that if I want to find foreign spin in the west, I can do so trivially and legally and share it with anyone I want. And the worst punishment I will see is a downvote.
The core claim in the liked article isn't about content moderation, it's about censorship. And it's really upsetting to see the extent to which HN commenters want to conflate them.
Content moderation is de facto censorship. If someone is sharing a honestly held opinion, not threatening anyone - that should be allowed.
You seem to be unaware of the level of censorship that goes on here, youtube, twitter, etc, etc. It is called breaking community guidelines, de-platforming, shadow banning, hate-speech, etc.
Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days? Regardless of what you think, should he be allowed a voice?
All of this is taking place outside of the legal system btw. Which is meant to establish people's right to free speech.
It simply is not. And the proof is that you can see in this very thread a bunch of flagged, dead comments that are still visible, still citable, and (importantly) whose posters are not guilty of crimes for their creation.
I'm sorry, but no. Difficulty of finding information is not the same thing as censorship. And we have to stop pretending that it is.
> Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days?
Nope, actually I don't. But interestingly: I absolutely know that Alex Jones' rhetoric is still pervasively accessible to anyone who wants to hear it. Here's his site, if you're having trouble finding it due to all the, ahem, "censorship": https://www.infowars.com/
If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship?
This is all works on account of corporate policies - not law. Law would dictate that unless what was said was illegal, that a person had a right to say it.
Which is supportive of the fact that we are living in a fascist (corporate + governance) system. That the legal system is now a joke.
> If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship?
Not in a world where you can continue to post on Infowars or 4chan or reddit or HN or wherever instead, no. Why would it be? You really don't see the difference? In Russia, it is illegal to report on international perspectives about events in Ukraine. That content doesn't exist, and you can't link to it without committing a crime (and, likely, also using a ban evasion tool like a VPN).
Do you have an example of an idea or perspective (even one!) that is being suppressed by "major platforms" in a "co-ordinated fashion" that I won't be able to refute with a simple link as I did above?
Yes, you can have a website and your own voice. But if you are being excluded from public platforms - not because you are doing anything illegal, but because a majority or even just the owner doesn't like your opinion - this is a genuine problem. You will live in an echo chamber.
These are legal issues and there is legal framework already in existence to prevent illegal acts. Shops cannot refuse service to the public. But an online public platform - eg Twitter - is able to refuse. The ability to refer to a terms of service document that can justify stopping your usage of a public platform when a person has done nothing wrong, should not be legal. That you can be silenced can interpreted as a political act, eg Trump. You might agree with the political slant (but then how would you even hear about alternative views?).
I really don't get how you can think or argue that voices are not being censored in the public domain.
> if you are being excluded from public platforms [then] this is a genuine problem
Maybe. But it's not "censorship" as commonly understood in a historical context. And it's absolutely not, in even the remotest sense, comparable in severity or impact to the kind of criminalization of discourse that is happening in Russia right now. And any attempt to conflate the two is just ridiculously inappropriate.
It is not effectively censorship. Censorship is not effective if it merely makes communication slightly less convenient.
>Do you remember when Trump was banned from Twitter?!?
Yes, and he deserved it. And yet everything Donald Trump says and does still gets national press coverage, and he's starting his own social media platform with a backlog of millions of followers. It's garbage, but that isn't censorship's fault.
Being banned from Twitter isn't censorship. Donald Trump wasn't "censored" for having a different opinion. Nor was Donald Trump "censored" in any way that actually interfered with or hindered his ability to communicate.
People really should stop picking Trump as an example of a martyr to the cause of free speech, he's a really bad one. I know they want the narrative to be that "cancel culture" was just so powerful that it silenced a sitting President but it's just not working out that way.
Very good points. Including the shadow banning that takes place here and everywhere. Different opinions and views are increasingly censored by those that are empowered. "Power corrupts". Unless a fair system is in place of checks and balances, there will be those that will abuse it whenever they can get away with it.
But can we reflect for a second that we are all in the same boat? We don't know what we are presented on screens is real either. Who's to say we are receiving the truth? Are our leaders beneficent? I think not.
We are all in the same boat. We are all propagandised. We don't even know what is going on anywhere else, except for what we are able to personally verify. And even that is limited by how we are able to explain and frame our experience!