• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
  • Showing only topics with the tag "censorship". Back to normal view
    1. (Let me make this clear before you continue reading, I don't know any good solutions) Recently, all over the internet, I feel like I am seeing more and more companies filtering out content that...

      (Let me make this clear before you continue reading, I don't know any good solutions)

      Recently, all over the internet, I feel like I am seeing more and more companies filtering out content that are considered hate speech. I personally do not like this for two reasons.

      1. I think it is a band-aid solution. People who have their voice taken away from themselves are not suddenly going to change their mind.
      2. In a way, it is a form of removing freedom of speech. Now, I understand that a lot of the companies that are censoring hate speech are doing it primarily for the sake of sponsors, but I mean this in a more broad scope.
      3. It is effectively hiding societal problems.

      I think one argument for the increased censorship is: even if it doesn't combat hate speech, it stops the spreading of hate speech. By spreading, I mean more people believing that hate speech. Though at first this could be a good idea, I think it is the wrong way to go about it. I really don't know what exactly is the right way to deal with this issue. Maybe more inclusion of different communities? Maybe education? Learn how to think critically?

      Here are a couple other things I have been thinking about, but I am not too sure about. I do not know if they are true or not, but if any of you could provide more insight, I would like to know more:

      1. Hate speech is actually lower than ever. The reason why some people feel like it is higher is because the hate speech is entering to people's bubbles through the internet. Before the internet, there was still that kind of talk, it was just in a different medium.
      2. Though not hate speech, but in a way related, with Anti-vax, the people who are most susceptible to converting to an anti-vaxxer, are parents. A lot of times these are the people who didn't grow up with the internet, the way they view the internet is not exactly how younger people view the internet. There is more doubt in what we see online between younger people than older.

      And I have had people say I must be a white upper class person to have these kinds of opinions. No. I am not white. Not upper class. I have dealt with racism in one way or another for all of my childhood, less so as an adult.

      28 votes
    2. With the constant growth of Tildes, and the impressive achievement of gaining 10,000 user accounts, there is a need to discuss some things. There was a user on here last summer that was banned as...

      With the constant growth of Tildes, and the impressive achievement of gaining 10,000 user accounts, there is a need to discuss some things.

      There was a user on here last summer that was banned as a result of a post about a study between a correlation between race and iq. In a different thread, a user named go1dfish posted to discuss the topic and oppose the ban.

      I recently encountered go1dfish on another site, looked them up on Tildes, and discovered that @go1dfish was banned. I then messaged them asking what had happened. I highly suggest that you read these two pastebins, go1dfish's post on their website and chat between go1dfish and I. go1dfish's post has a copy-paste of the Tildes thread in it.

      go1dfish did not appear to violate the guidelines/rules of Tildes, yet they were banned anyways. They were civil and did not necessarily agree with the other banned user, they just hate censorship of any kind. I realize that this site is not a haven of complete free-speech, but merely discussing how one should be able to post scientific studies should not warrant a ban.

      In the words of go1dfish,

      "I argued my case and rather unexpectedly got banned, no message or anything, and once the site came public again all of my contributions were totally deleted." "I speak out against censorship of meta discussion.... and they ban me for meta discussion."

      The state of the rules of the site is rather vague, and leaves for much room for confusion as to what is acceptable. I call for a change in the rules to be more specific.

      And instead of removing controversial issues, we should address them, and rise above them together.

      The current moderation system is fundamentally broken. If titles and tags of topics can be changed by the moderator, then there is clearly something wrong. This is why many people left Reddit. Spez edited others' comments and posts, and created a massive uproar. Tildes needs a way to verify that bans are not handed out in judgement calls or out of emotion, but instead out of a rulebook.

      go1dfish addresses this as well,

      "Also, I had no fucking clue it was the guy's anniversary. This is precisely why moderation of forums needs to happen via objectively defined rules rather than subjective on the spot determinations. People get pissy for reasons out of the control of others and do things they otherwise might not do."

      Also, I would like to say that this site, quite like Voat, has become extreme in the viewpoints held. The variety in the vocal users has ebbed away slowly, leaving one main political viewpoint, which all of you can probably guess.

      I will remain on this site for as long as possible, in order to provide some dissenting opinions, and I greatly encourage any of you who have dissenting opinions to do so.

      I really have no big point to this post, other than to expose some flaws in this site.

      I am open for any of you to state your views on the issues I addressed, and instead of criticizing the way I presented my arguments, I hope that you criticize the argument itself.

      Notes:

      1. go1dfish gave me permission to post what they replied with, and by extension what was posted on their site at the time of the ban.

      2. I asked Deimos if by chance there was a way to get the exact comments that go1dfish posted in case anything was changed from the original, but as a result of the ban, the original is gone.

      3. Also, please try to be civil, as the previous discussion was not so.

      37 votes
    3. Personally, free speech to me means that while platforms like Facebook and YouTube are not required to host it, if they so choose to host it they should be able to do so. Speech should not be...

      Personally, free speech to me means that while platforms like Facebook and YouTube are not required to host it, if they so choose to host it they should be able to do so. Speech should not be restricted because it is offensive or because it is viewed as immoral. This applies doubly so to political speech, which terrorism is the most extreme form.

      30 votes
    4. I'm curious to see what the public consensus towards the site is nowadays. They have been controversial since their inception, but no matter what you think of them, there is no denying that the...

      I'm curious to see what the public consensus towards the site is nowadays. They have been controversial since their inception, but no matter what you think of them, there is no denying that the information they've released has sparked massive debate around the world.

      13 votes