Philosophical Questions: Censorship

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

Is some degree of censorship necessary?


No. It is entirely possible to have freedom of thought and expression without slopping it on nonconsenting bystanders. Privacy and moderation tools on social networks allow people to choose what they want to explore and who they want to interact with, and don't stifle anyone else's right to say what they damn please in their own space. Some art and fiction hubs let you stipulate what you do and don't want in a search. There can be spaces for children without reducing everyone's content to that level.

Comments

[meridian_rose]

Meanwhile most of Europe seems in lockstep to quash "misinformation" by trying to further control the internet, even trying to snoop on encrypted chats. Where misinformation is whatever they say it is, the ultimate censorship.
I worry we're heading for a "the world is flat and anyone who disagrees is a heretic" redux, having already seen a uptick in last few years of comments like "lol I suppose you do your own research/you should just believe the science" where we are supposed to wholeheartedly agree with the current Truth (TM) on pain of cancellation for even questioning.
Along with the usual "if you've got nothing to hide why do you need privacy" and "it's for your safety and convenience".
Here in the UK I can't even view Imgur pics now without turning on a VPN - and there's been talk a few times of banning or controlling VPN use. Plus the looming threat of digital ID which could control what you see are allowed to access online, in a country where we've already had people arrested for memes/ tweets, and Facebook posts.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Meanwhile most of Europe seems in lockstep to quash "misinformation" by trying to further control the internet, even trying to snoop on encrypted chats.<<

Yeah, that's horrifying.

>> Where misinformation is whatever they say it is, the ultimate censorship.<<

That's pretty much where censorship always ends up.

>> I worry we're heading for a "the world is flat and anyone who disagrees is a heretic" redux, <<

Likely so.

>>having already seen a uptick in last few years of comments like "lol I suppose you do your own research/you should just believe the science" <<

Of course you should do your own research! That is the foundation of science and journalism.

>> where we are supposed to wholeheartedly agree with the current Truth (TM) on pain of cancellation for even questioning.<<

*shrug* If people want to be stupid, that is their free will, but I don't have to be around them. My audience likes what I write, including the fractious stuff.

>>Along with the usual "if you've got nothing to hide why do you need privacy" and "it's for your safety and convenience".<<

Privacy is a survival need. Any zookeeper can tell you this: it's why all the animal enclosures have hides, even though that's boring for visitors. Without a way to escape from the stares, animals tend to die of stress. So do humans. Privacy was the first thing people had to invent in order to go from extended families to larger groups such as clans and villages. Humans are damn irritating creatures, and if they can't get away from that sometimes, they will eat each other.

>>Here in the UK I can't even view Imgur pics now without turning on a VPN - and there's been talk a few times of banning or controlling VPN use. Plus the looming threat of digital ID which could control what you see are allowed to access online, in a country where we've already had people arrested for memes/ tweets, and Facebook posts.<<

Then they're going to revise the lessons on what happens to a tyrannical society. But also, I'm confident that young digital natives will find ways to run rings around old lawmakers.

[maevedarcy]

Agreed. Censorship is never the answer. Once you start deciding some things are "bad", it becomes a slippery slope of what "bad" is. Specially when trying to create child-friendly spaces.

I understand that kids need support and guidance in certain topics, which is why we should focus on adapting that content to be age appropriate, not banning children from topics entirely. That's only gonna make children look for certain topics in spaces that are not child-friendly and without any guidance which can harm them in the long run.

As for adults, I think we all agree that just like you have the freedom to decide if you want to pierce your nose or vote for a certain candidate, you should have the freedom to have spaces that are only for adults where adult topics are treated seriously. Most platforms allow some kind of blocking so you can avoid the content you don't want to see (from filters and tags to big ass banners that say 'adult content ahead, please brow with caution'), so censoring spaces just for fear that children will see it is not the answer.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Censorship is never the answer. Once you start deciding some things are "bad", it becomes a slippery slope of what "bad" is. <<

Exactly. Like right now, criticizing Israel for committing genocide is "bad." I don't give a fuck, what they're doing is evil. I'm not going to change my ethics for sake of fashion.

>> Specially when trying to create child-friendly spaces.<<

Like saying that children don't need to know it's okay to be transgender, or that teens don't need to know sexual safety, because some adults would rather young people just die. Information saves lives.

>> That's only gonna make children look for certain topics in spaces that are not child-friendly and without any guidance which can harm them in the long run.<<

That's one problem, especially when it comes to fake IDs, which people already use routinely in some places.

Another problem is that the more sites demand age verification, the more identity fraud and other information theft will increase.

And then there's the issue that privacy-sensitive adults will prefer sites that don't demand personal information, which pushes more people into "family-friendly" sites, which may or may not be a good thing.

Of course, another effect is people spending less time on privacy-violating internet as a whole, which probably is a good thing, although it sucks to lose resources that many have come to depend on.

Already a problem is that, when you raise kids without boundaries, you get teens who don't understand why you're losing your shit over them sexting each other, since they don't have the boundaries that would tell them this is a poor idea.

>>As for adults, I think we all agree that just like you have the freedom to decide if you want to pierce your nose or vote for a certain candidate, you should have the freedom to have spaces that are only for adults where adult topics are treated seriously.<<

Exactly. Though if you require people to sign in, a lot of people won't go there, either because it is unpalatable or is downright unsafe. Anonymity is essential.

[greghousesgf]

no.

[merrileemakes]

I'm gonna be a dissenting voice here. Some level of censorship is valid, because some people and most corporations are utterly cooked and should not have free rein of the public discourse.

An Australian right-wing shithead was taken to court and found in breech of the Racial Discrimination Act when he published multiple articles saying that lighter skinned First Nations people only identified as First Nations to get government handouts.

Australian ISPs blocked 4chan, 8chan and other deep recesses of the internet for a few days when the Christchurch mosque massacre happened, to stop people sharing recordings of the live stream and to limit online support of this vile act. Australian and New Zealand press have never published the name of the perpetrator because Fuck That Guy. His name will not make the history books.

When Australia had a national vote on whether to legislate same-sex marriage the Australian Christian Lobby asked for the anti-discrimination laws to be suspended in the name of "free speech". The government refused and I'm glad.

The government has also refused a visa to holocust-denying Candace Owens when she wanted to do a speaking tour.

Australia bans the advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals, tobacco and vapes.

On the flip side, Australia has a huge history of censorship, especially books and media in the 20th century. Before the 1970s we were up there with Ireland and South Africa. you couldn't even find Brave New World on the shelves here (oh the irony).

But I do think the current state of play is, in general, more helpful for society as a whole than harmful. At least, I've never seen anyone publicly decrying their lack of "free speech" as someone who I actually wanted to hear more from.