> I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't being discussed in Western governments within the next 5 years unless trend changes drastically.
I would be. Despite the attacks on privacy, freedom of speech is still alive and well in the US. Actual censorship is incredibly unconstitutional and would create a gigantic shitstorm.
> I’m continually surprised that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest dont simply create a web interface for law enforcement that allows them to delete (or more likely make invisible) content they want to censor.
In the US, we have the First Amendment, which prohibits government censorship. Of course, the government still sometimes uses political pressure to censor things, but there's a need to keep a semblance of rule of law.
> I hope we find a place we are allowed to talk about these things more than 5 minutes before censorship hits. The connections/ability to manipulate existing media is quite alarming.
> As proof, consider that we are having this conversation right now, about an article that was published and is freely, legally available online to anyone with a web browser.
As long as you control what a large segment of the population sees, you can orchestrate peoples actions. Censorship has never been absolute or complete and doesn't need to be in order to be effective.
> the government is working hard on expanding the existing censorship
That was the result of an ISP's own blocking system.
And there is no government censorship, please stop saying that - customers are given the option to opt-out of content filters -- it's not mandatory. This has always been the case, the only difference now is that ISPs must ask subscribers.
>Government censorship is happening if you want it or not. The main difference is now that there is a lot more collateral damage with SSL deployed.
Good. Make the censorship visible. Make it all or nothing. Force people to move to technologies that cannot be censored (or that at least are more resistant).
The alternative is to let the government censor everything they want and let people see only what the government approves of, with the latter just being easier to deploy and switch to the former if it ever crosses the line.
> I actually think that the worry about government censorship isn't as strong as you think. The US government unlike a private corporation can't legally engage in viewpoint based censorship.
> Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago.
This is the exact same argument used all the time to justify censorship. Most people agree about government censorship being bad and corporate censorship being fine.
However, what people miss is that this is government censorship. To think what's going on now isn't government suppression is completely naive. There are several examples of the US government influencing social media to have them censor. They admit it all the time.
> Near future ? Events that defy government’s guidance aren’t allowed,
... on a private platform, so? I hate censorship also, but the more these major platforms do this, the more people will begin to recognize there are alternatives. They're shooting themselves in their own foot, and I for one, am happy to stand back and let them do so.
> the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.
Those who disagree that this is the case don't bother me. Everyone has a right to be wrong.
What worries me is how many people seem to think that it's a fine idea and that talking about it is at best unseemly.
> This just feels like an excuse to find a way to filter human communication
Interesting. I've modded a fair amount of communities and the censorship argument to moderated discussion comes up frequently as new rules are implemented.
From an online discussion point of view I don't think it holds merit at all. If I run a football board and have a rule that says "no basketball talk" that's my prerogative.
As long as it's not government driven, censorship is perfectly fine (if you don't like the rules of my service, you are free to use someone else's). When it is government driven, censorship is murky territory at best, but not immediately bad and illegal/unconstitutional. The FCC in some form or another has rules against broadcasting certain types of content. You can't swear, you can't show nudity (or certain types of nudity anyways). That's government driven censorship, and its largely accepted.
Slashdot had a hands off approach for a long time. I couldn't go to their site without seeing a n-word reference in the comments because their approach was abused. If you go to reddit, facebook, twitter, snapchat, instagram, or any other major site you run into astroturfing campaigns. We've grown to accept that Microsoft is good at it and Sony is bad at it. But somehow when AT&T does it, it's evil.
I don't know what the solution looks like. I just know that we need to evolve. Filtering communication is part of it. A bigger part of it would be finding ways to drive healthier habits.
> Seems like a slippery slope towards government censorship.
Luckily when it’s done by the government, that’s actually unconstitutional and you have a recourse. When it’s done by a private company, you have none.
> What most young people or people on the left seem to want very badly is for tech companies to remove viewpoints they disagree with. Unfortunately the reality is that this is in fact political censorship. And it will lead directly to the type of censorship that China has.
Trump is in power and he has repeatedly requested that cable news be censored by the FCC.
2017: https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-chair-finally-says-agency-wo... “FCC Chair Finally Says Agency Won't Censor Trump's Enemies: Six days after President Trump suggested revoking broadcast licenses, FCC Chair Ajit Pai says agency won't act based on content.”
So just saying, let’s not just blame young people or people on the left. There are very loud right wing voices demanding that the media be censored in their favor as well right now by government force.
Personally I’d be more concerned at this point about government censorship than twitter adding a link to a post. There are many different websites on the internet, but only 1 US government.
> That said, I think crossing this content line for an infrastructure company is a big deal, and I hope it's not repeated.
It's an incredibly terrible move. Such an arbitrary and biased move.
What has happened in the past few years where everyone defended free speech to everyone deciding arbitrary and whimsical censorship is something to be lauded? It feels like someone just flipped a switch and people became pro-censorship.
The tech industry is doing the same the chinese or russians are doing. Justifying censorship for "good/morals/etc".
Hate the nazis all you want but we are hurting ourselves by allow censorship on this level. These peole aren't going away. But now there is terrible precedent where social media/tech/etc can censor whatever they want. It's incredible.
> The government should not be censoring this. Private companies, as always, should feel free to censor what they want, regardless of positions.
They aren't merely censoring, they are also libeling them by attaching a misinformation/disinformation type of label, or adding their own speech to it.
They literally discussed how they're doing this last week during a white house press conference.
reply