Censoring of Conservative Voices by Social Media et al.

[Recusant]

I considered mentioning this topic in the George Floyd thread, where a particular person got some attention. Swiftly discarding that notion, I'm starting a new thread.

I know that some here have expressed positive sentiments regarding Candace Owens, who has successfully got herself into the public eye as a proponent of American political conservatism. She's run afoul of GoFundMe's Terms of Service, and has been suspended--she can no longer use the platform to raise money.

I thought we might discuss this, but also wanted to open up the wider topic, as seen in the thread title. I've followed the public face of this for a while, and what I've seen for the most part is people who've definitely violated ToS agreements being subject to the consequences.

There is a gray area, in which social media platforms label something as "hate speech" on their own definition, but often the offence is less ambiguous: People lose their privileges on the platform for spreading misinformation, or advocating for/inciting violence.

Back to the present instance:

"GoFundMe Suspends Candace Owens After She Trashes George Floyd" | Daily Beast

GoFundMe suspended pro-Trump personality Candace Owens from its fundraising platform on Sunday, after Owens raised more than $200,000 on the site for an Alabama cafe whose owner called George Floyd a “thug.”

Owens has become one of the right’s most prominent critics of Floyd and the protests held after his killing, with one video she made highlighting his criminal record going viral on Facebook. Those same remarks appear to have prompted GoFundMe to ban Owens. She later repeated the same attacks on Floyd during a chat with right-wing star Glenn Beck, and that video was then boosted by President Donald Trump.

In a statement, GoFundMe said that Owens, who is black, had spread “falsehoods against the black community.”

“GoFundMe has suspended the account associated with Candace Owens and the GoFundMe campaign has been removed because of a repeated pattern of inflammatory statements that spread hate, discrimination, intolerance and falsehoods against the black community at a time of profound national crisis,” the fundraising platform said in a statement. “These actions violate our terms of service.”

[Continues . . .]

[Tom62]

I must admit that admire people like Candance Owen, because she doesn't take the liberal narratives for granted. Even though I don't agree with her on a lot of things, I find it very refreshing to hear her different opinions. So far I haven't caught her lying or invoking hate. Yes, perhaps she should have been more "sensitive" regarding George Floyd, but she was right in saying that Floyd wasn't a saint.

I think that we should make it very clear what hate speech is and what is not. Is it something real, like telling people to murder other people because you hate them for a particular reason. Or should we also include speech that might hurt the feelings of other people. Problem with the latter one is that it is practically impossible to have a discussion on social media that doesn't makes someone feel uncomfortable. I ran into these kind of problems myself, because Dutchmen like me are very direct, often snarky and we score very low on the SJW scale. I try to do better than that, but it is hard and sometimes it just feels great to rattle someone's cage (if he/she is annoying).

[Recusant]

I agree that it's good to maintain a skeptical approach to liberal narratives. It's a different kettle of fish to promote an alternative narrative that fails to address facts, distorts the facts, or uses outright falsehoods.

[No one]

Have you met any humans?

[Tom62]

I agree that it's good to maintain a skeptical approach to liberal narratives. It's a different kettle of fish to promote an alternative narrative that fails to address facts, distorts the facts, or uses outright falsehoods.

But that have politicians and the media been doing for ages.

[Recusant]

Is it censorship when a platform ejects a person who engages in such dishonesty?

Are we expected to just assume that everybody is lying?

Should we defend and excuse those who are lying that happen to be promoting a narrative we find acceptable?

We could get into selective enforcement. First, evidence of such selective enforcement needs to be shown. There's more to it than showing that a particular political element runs afoul of user agreements more often than others. That may be selective enforcement, or it may be that those who make themselves the public face of a particular political element tend to be more willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

[Davin]

Well, tinfoil hat stuff aside, if people break the rules of a private company's service, and they get removed from that service for it, it's not a big deal.

As far has places calling things in the gray area "hate speech", I think they're trying to be safe by erring on the side of not allowing hate speech. It's their platform, I don't see much abuse, so I don't have a problem with it.

Candice Owens did lie and distort the truth, I don't know specifically about the GoFundMe because I didn't see it, but I have heard her lie and distort many time.

[billy rubin]

Is it censorship when a platform ejects a person who engages in such dishonesty?

Are we expected to just assume that everybody is lying?

Should we defend and excuse those who are lying that happen to be promoting a narrative we find acceptable?

We could get into selective enforcement. First, evidence of such selective enforcement needs to be shown. There's more to it than showing that a particular political element runs afoul of user agreements more often than others. That may be selective enforcement, or it may be that those who make themselves the public face of a particular political element tend to be more willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

who decides who shall be the arbiter of truth? after that, how do they determine what truth is?

ordinary human speech has always been full of lies, half-truths, and dissembling, and we accept it as the grease that keeps society civil.

facebook regards itself as a neutral billboard, and the content people post as outside its responsibility. but its users treat it as journalism, and get their news from it. should it re-define itself under that model? twitter did, when it decided that it had a responsibility to flag certain opinions.

who decides what opinions merit fact checks and blocking? any private enterprise is beholden to no one but itself when it comes to deciding what points of view to censor. in america, freedom of speech is a right only with respect to interference from government. as a citizeni am free to say anything i want that isn't a direct threat to public safety and skirts slander and libel laws.

not a simple question.

[Recusant]

Should it choose to do so, the platform is the arbiter of truth as pertaining to content its users post. Secondly, online communications are generally in the form of text or images; not the same as ordinary human speech. Text and images posted online allow scrutiny in ways that ordinary human speech does not.

It doesn't seem to me that the issue is platforms' varying approaches to content. The question here regards the repeated, ongoing assertion that there is bias against conservatives across multiple platforms.

[billy rubin]

there is definitely bias against certain sides of various issues. i listen to public radio hours per day as i drive a truck, and when i can get past being annoyed that everybody answering a question has to begin their answer with "so . . . " i nbotice implicit bias in how things are worded. american public radio has a definite liberal bias.

one good public radio example is abortion. i frequently hear abortion issues introduced as a question of "women's health." whatever your position on abortion, pregnancy is not a health hazard for most people. couching the question in those terms phrases the discussion in a way that the issue itself does not project.

there are various other routine biases that i hear from reporters in their stories that catch my attention but that i cannot remember because i note them, discount them, and forget them.

in general, there is certainly bias against conservatives in liberal mainstream media. and there is bias agaionst liberals in conservative mainstream media. i scan a variety of news sources during my day, and i see each side slant the news to advance the program of its editorial position.

but i do not see a concerted bias against conservatives unless you purposely avoid certain sources. if all you look at is conservative news, then anything that occasionally intrudes through the bubble will stand out.

[Recusant]

"Women's health" is accurate, and it seems obvious to me that it's chosen for its neutrality. Pregnancy may not be a health hazard for the majority of women these days, but it is a very important aspect of health care for women. Choices regarding abortion are legitimately made by a woman in consultation with her doctor, and other aspects of the woman's overall physical and mental health bear on the decisions she makes about her body.

What would your choice be for a less "liberal biased" terminology here?

In any case, while bias against conservatives in left of center mass media outlets might be a legitimate line of discussion, the question here relates to the repeated claims that supposedly neutral social media platforms have a bias against conservatives, and that conservative voices are being censored unfairly by those social media platforms.

[Dark Lightning]

It's a bit of fresh air to see people have a rational discussion about the hot-button issues that I see around other sites where it just devolves into a lot of nastiness! I personally don't have a lot of experience with argumentation, and seldom indulge due to the vitriolic nature of the disagreements. I spent the majority of my life doing extremely technical endeavors. That, and raising a family left me little time to indulge in political discussions. I'm enjoying this discussion! I'll not contribute much, though, because I have little experience in this area of political discourse. I am, however, learning quite a bit.

[Randy]

I've never been one to follow politics much. I'd listen to what the candidates said and voted accordingly. My brother, on the other hand, will argue for the sake of arguing. He's well informed from the conservative side (Rush Limbaugh, etc.) He's rational about other things but I think he takes the spewing verbatim.

He may have changed in the past three years, I don't know. I'm not up for debates anymore. It is taxing.

[billy rubin]

What would your choice be for a less "liberal biased" terminology here?

i dont see a medical issue here at all for most situations. i think referring to abortion as a health procedure is inaccurate until we're talking about a diagnosable health risk, rather than an elective end to pregnancy. if a woman has a real health risk with a continuing pregnancy, and they do occur, then the health issue is obvious. if she is ending a pregnancy for any reason other than a health hazard, then its not a health issue, as i see it.

i would refer to abortion as abortion. whether a woman wants to be pregnant or not is up to the woman who is facing the decision. its her choice as to what happens within her body. no further justification is necessary for her to have access to the procedure..

In any case, while bias against conservatives in left of center mass media outlets might be a legitimate line of discussion, the question here relates to the repeated claims that supposedly neutral social media platforms have a bias against conservatives, and that conservative voices are being censored unfairly by those social media platforms.

i don't see that in the united states.

[billy rubin]

It's a bit of fresh air to see people have a rational discussion about the hot-button issues that I see around other sites where it just devolves into a lot of nastiness! I personally don't have a lot of experience with argumentation, and seldom indulge due to the vitriolic nature of the disagreements. I spent the majority of my life doing extremely technical endeavors. That, and raising a family left me little time to indulge in political discussions. I'm enjoying this discussion! I'll not contribute much, though, because I have little experience in this area of political discourse. I am, however, learning quite a bit.

this sort of thing is how i make up my mind about stuff.

i'm very opinionated about certain subjects, usually those that i think i know a lot about. on the rest, i have opinions, but i'll change them if someone presents a decent reason.

i've had major paradigm shifts in my thinking when someone pointed out that i had my head up my ass.