One of the easiest ways to infuriate a Christian is pointing out what they say and do is so at odds with Christ.
More liberal censorship
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
One of the easiest ways to infuriate a Christian is pointing out what they say and do is so at odds with Christ.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
riiight, because those you claim are acting "at odds" with Christ are so so consumed by fury
Hey, coward. If you disagree with what I say, step out from behind your plaster wall and face me like a man.
Hypocrite. :loser:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I'm sure some points have merit, but on the whole incomes across as conservatives crying foul when someone states something that isn't there version of the truth.
Foe example claiming a description of Pinochet as a dictator as a proof of biase makes the whole article laughable.
Foe example claiming a description of Pinochet as a dictator as a proof of biase makes the whole article laughable.
| cen·sor·ship ˈsensərˌSHip/Submit noun the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. "details of the visit were subject to military censorship" |
https://www.google.com/#q=censorship
Seems to fit the definition to me, since official isn't a synonym with government. The Wikipedia article even lists media organizations and "other groups" explicitly as potential censors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
That doesn't mean it's inappropriate or undesirable in all cases. In fact, I would argue that interfering with the right of a publisher to choose what they publish is, in itself censorship.
Do you think the FCC "censoring" those same words on public airways is censorship? What if a town tried to ban them on public streets?
Well, I agree, but not for the reasons that you'd probably suggest. Limiting based on the volume isn't a content-based restriction, so it doesn't meet the definition of censorship. This is the reason that your town can have a noise ordinance but can't ban KKK rallies.
I think I'd agree, there.
Anyway, I don't want to get too nick-picky, but I figured I might as well flesh out where I think we differ. I think Facebook is well within their rights, and even acting responsibly by banning certain harmful content from their pages. But I also think it's perfectly fair to call this censorship, and to note that in other contexts, the same level of power that FB and other social media entities like Twitter can wield is a little terrifying. It's important to remember that they aren't free and open marketplaces of ideas like the Internet often is assumed to be, and that they have their own business and marketing agendas, as well as the occasional editorial ones. TOL is, of course, exactly the same way, only to a much greater degree, and it is a bit hypocritical for its mods to complain about how Facebook acts in this area as they claim for themselves the right to exercise even greater levels of control on their domains.
Yes, and yes.
I'll think of a better example for next time.:chew:
It's voluntary, and we allow them to operate as they have (and will). If anything's scary about Twitter or FB's success it's the extent to which people will share their lives with pretty much anybody.
Correct. I joke occasionally that Twitter (I mean: seriously) and Facebook are where ideas go to die.:chuckle:
Most things can be described as voluntary to some extent. No one forces you to open a Twitter or Facebook account, but there's an awful lot of professional and social pressure to do so. Meanwhile, you can choose where you live, although sometimes it's rather hard to call it a completely free choice. In the US, we broadly have the expectation that any organization that wields governmental power will refrain from most forms of censorship, but they are often allowed to place restrictions on time and place. For instance, your town is required to permit a public KKK rally, but they aren't required to allow it at a publicly-sanctioned farmers' market or a public library.
The FCC's authority to ban certain words and images is similar, based upon the premise that it's reasonable to set up a space that is safe from certain types of content for people who are sensitive to it, as long as they don't completely block those messages. I don't entirely agree with how they do this in practice, because they haven't been required to also make a space for people who don't want that protection in the public airwaves, and also because I don't think banning words that you will encounter spray-painted on the sides of buildings is really very effective, but I think that the approach is broadly reasonable, ignoring some of the particulars.
The things that really worries me is the subtle way Facebook et al control discussion. What they present as your news-feed, while it may be informed by choices that you make about what to follow, ultimately, they choose what you'll see using an algorithm that is secret, and you are likely mostly unaware of. I don't think most people are able to give informed consent to that level of subtle influence. By tweaking the algorithm one way or another, entire issues get vanished or greatly amplified for millions of people around the world, and none of them fully realize it. It's almost like giving someone control over not only what you read, but what writing you become aware of.
This isn't entirely new. The large media companies have done the same thing to generations of people. But the scale, and the consolidation is fairly new, and it seems to me like it's enabling people to live in curated bubbles their whole lives.
I've spent some time trying to design an alternative, something distributed, perhaps using a set of blockchains like BitCoin, where the software that makes the important decisions is open source and transparent and feeds are discovered via your network of peers without being influenced by a central administrator. I haven't figured out entirely how it would work, but I'd love to have enough time to do it eventually.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Conservapedia's a complete joke...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Essentially 'Conservapedia' is only 'useful' for far right wing zealous fundamentalist Christians who don't mind being spoon fed whatever they're probably accustomed to believing anyway I would posit. As a proper encyclopaedia it's practically next to useless. I tried testing a fairly neutral subject on the composer Stravinsky and here is Conservapedias entry:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Igor_Stravinsky
And here is Wikipedias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Stravinsky
One is entirely informative, and the other...well...
lain:As a supposed answer to Wiki, Conservapedia may as well just be a right wing blog site...which it probably is already come to think on it.
I have no agenda except to disturb that agenda.
Jesus disturbed the agenda of his day and ours so completely that Christians have thought it wise just to ignore him.
Right. Your sole aim is to obscure the truth and add spam.
Ah, so that's why you call yourself a Christian.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Who trained you? Adoy?
Beware one should be ... of pompous supercilious cranks...and possibly rogue X wing fighters...
Yep. Facebook, google, twitter....social media exists to promote the left. And the mission of the left is stop liberty and prosperity so the gospel is not spread.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You mean like the liberty to have equal rights? Not to be persecuted under any felonious means et al? The rights for freedom of speech etc? Make your case as to why the "average" liberal would deny you the rights to spout off as you do Stripe. Let's hear it.
Or at least, read it...
lain:Give up mind-reading and guessing at someone else's motives. You're lousy at it. And it reflects on the parents who raised you.
I have accepted Jesus into my life. That's all I can tell you.Ah, so that's why you call yourself a Christian.