Glad you chipped in with that @Wendoverman. I googled Hanratty this morning wondering if it would lead to that famously ambiguous comment. The name didn’t sound right in that context but I’d completely forgotten the name Derek Bentley. Seem to recall the incident occurred at a block of flats opposite Wormwood Scrubs.
@HCblue said:
Absolutely, on the echo chamber point. This is the problem you risk creating when you censor certain positions much more stringently than others on a platform like Twitter. Those you cast out want to go somewhere and you thus create the possibility of the separate chambers you mention where much less is gained by the reader from interaction on each.
I think it's worth specifying that Parler was created in response to the increasing amounts of censorship seen as taking place on Twitter, by people tending to be free speech advocates rather than by extreme right wingers looking for a safe place to express hatefulness of that ilk. Not everyone there is a refugee from Twitter, of course, and a good number of people maintain accounts on both platforms.
Bad speech is the price of free speech. My position is not to advocate for the replacement of company censorship with state censorship - I agree that would be just as bad and, in fact, I suspect that the proprietor of Twitter would, by nature, prefer to reduce the level of moderation of his site but that he, and the owners of Facebook et al. feel a considerable pressure from government because of the near monopolies they hold - but instead for a more careful, balanced and transparent process to be used in the moderation of the platforms. The downside of the current process is starting to be seen clearly. The objection of Amazon and Facebook that led to their recent actions towards Parler might be seen less as principled and more as driven by competitive impulse abetted by governmental pressure to be seen to be keeping their users safe from "harm".
As a keen advocate for the benefits of free speech, I recognise that the recent events in America have highlighted the difficulty of distinguishing between rhetoric that destabilises society and legitimate, and thus extremely valuable, dissent from received wisdom.
Great post @HCblue, Twitter and Facebook shouldn't take on the task of trying to decide what should and shouldn't be censored. As long as you aren't insighting violence I think they should stay out of what is being said. Clearly there is a substancial appitite for a platform like Parler as they have "Users: 4 million (active); 10 million (total)".
@micra said:
Glad you chipped in with that @Wendoverman. I googled Hanratty this morning wondering if it would lead to that famously ambiguous comment. The name didn’t sound right in that context but I’d completely forgotten the name Derek Bentley. Seem to recall the incident occurred at a block of flats opposite Wormwood Scrubs.
Sadly for Bentley who was of low intelligence but was 18, and was already in police custody when the constable was killed. his mate who fired the shots was 16 and therefore could not hang. Police needed to get someone to swing for killing a colleague and despite the jury suggesting clemency, the judge was having none of it. I think Chris Craig was out of prison by his late 20s.
@Bacon_Sandwich said:
Great post @HCblue, Twitter and Facebook shouldn't take on the task of trying to decide what should and shouldn't be censored. As long as you aren't insighting violence I think they should stay out of what is being said.
Who should then? Are you saying Facebook users should be allowed to post child pornography and beheading videos, and live-stream their mass shooting spree in a synagogue?
Where it does become troubling, is when these firms pick a side in politics. This is probably where @HCblue and I agree on a lot of things. For instance, Facebook picked a side in Myanmar and contributed to genocide.
Where we differ I'd imagine is where we draw the lines on extremism. My line for what I consider right-wing extremism is roughly in line with the laws on hate-speech. If you're posting messages wishing refugees would drown in the channel then you're a right wing extremist. My line for what I consider left-wing extremism is "tankies".
Parler's moderation policies put their line of what constitutes left-wing extremism at "people who don't want to see other races exterminated". I'm not sure they have a line that shouldn't be crossed for right-wing extremism.
Hence my initial post in this thread referring to Parler as "toxically fascist".
@micra said:
Glad you chipped in with that @Wendoverman. I googled Hanratty this morning wondering if it would lead to that famously ambiguous comment. The name didn’t sound right in that context but I’d completely forgotten the name Derek Bentley. Seem to recall the incident occurred at a block of flats opposite Wormwood Scrubs.
@Bacon_Sandwich said:
Great post @HCblue, Twitter and Facebook shouldn't take on the task of trying to decide what should and shouldn't be censored. As long as you aren't insighting violence I think they should stay out of what is being said.
Who should then? Are you saying Facebook users should be allowed to post child pornography and beheading videos, and live-stream their mass shooting spree in a synagogue?
Where it does become troubling, is when these firms pick a side in politics. This is probably where @HCblue and I agree on a lot of things. For instance, Facebook picked a side in Myanmar and contributed to genocide.
Where we differ I'd imagine is where we draw the lines on extremism. My line for what I consider right-wing extremism is roughly in line with the laws on hate-speech. If you're posting messages wishing refugees would drown in the channel then you're a right wing extremist. My line for what I consider left-wing extremism is "tankies".
Parler's moderation policies put their line of what constitutes left-wing extremism at "people who don't want to see other races exterminated". I'm not sure they have a line that shouldn't be crossed for right-wing extremism.
Hence my initial post in this thread referring to Parler as "toxically fascist".
I really dispise the wording of "Are you saying?". It's straight out the Cathy Newman misleading line of inquiry.
It's very obvious that people don't want to see "child pornography and beheading videos, and live-stream mass shooting spree in a synagogue". It's breaking the law so obviously should be banned from these platforms. Who is debating it should be any other way? Trolls perhaps. I'm not sure internet trolls should be troubling you or anyone.
Alex Jones is a cretin but this interview with Joe Rogan is on point here:
I’ve not come across either of those guys before @Bacon_Sandwich so I’m not sure who you are describing as a cretin. I assume not the interviewee. I was expecting from your post to see the One Show host and I was ready to spring to her defence. Irritating and, in keeping with the show’s formula, jokey and superficial but certainly no cretin!
To think Joe Rogan and Alex Jones cannot be compared in that way is to betray a keen unawareness of both what they say and do. Can we see your citations now?
A significant difference between the two is that Jones shouts his nonsense with the fervour of a Deep South preacher whilst Rogan adopts the ‘I’m just asking questions, just putting it out there’ kind of faux ignorance defence.
It seems to be a common tactic on social media when you challenge people’s claims.
@Lloyd2084 said:
A significant difference between the two is that Jones shouts his nonsense with the fervour of a Deep South preacher whilst Rogan adopts the ‘I’m just asking questions, just putting it out there’ kind of faux ignorance defence.
It seems to be a common tactic on social media when you challenge people’s claims.
Indeed. And he got called out for that beautifully by Brian Dunning here 7 years ago, but it makes him a hell of a lot of money so he keeps it up. There's a few bonus Joe Rogan conspiracy beliefs in that article too.
The only real difference I can see between Rogan and Jones is that Jones is definitely intelligent enough to actually know exactly what he's doing, while from what I have heard of Joe Rogan I find it plausible that he's just too thick to understand any of it.
Didn't Jones' lawyer try to use a 'he's just a performer he does not believe anything he actually says' defence in one of the (seemingly ongoing) sandyhook cases?
@Wendoverman said:
Didn't Jones' lawyer try to use a 'he's just a performer he does not believe anything he actually says' defence in one of the (seemingly ongoing) sandyhook cases?
I believe that one was the defence in his child custody case.
(Noting in passing that @Wendoverman seems to have established his own echo chamber that satisfies his currently existing states of mind and knowledge) I suggest that there is indeed a clear distinction to be drawn between a person who makes confident assertions about conspiracy theories that follow a particular ideological bias and a person who carries out open-minded discussions on a wide variety of subjects, by no means limited to what the ordinary listener might characterise as conspiracy theories.
I've not listened to any of his output since he got the Spotify deal - not for ideological reasons but because I've not happened upon him since then and was not sufficiently devoted to him to be minded to make the effort. But a quick Youtube search produced the following examples of his output from among the first few results. I question how it might lead one to the conclusions drawn above rather than a recognition that he presents an opportunity to listen to a variety of potentially interesting discussions with potentially interesting people with whom one may or may not instinctively find oneself in accord.
@HCblue said:
(Noting in passing that @Wendoverman seems to have established his own echo chamber that satisfies his currently existing states of mind and knowledge) I suggest that there is indeed a clear distinction to be drawn between a person who makes confident assertions about conspiracy theories that follow a particular ideological bias and a person who carries out open-minded discussions on a wide variety of subjects, by no means limited to what the ordinary listener might characterise as conspiracy theories.
I've not listened to any of his output since he got the Spotify deal - not for ideological reasons but because I've not happened upon him since then and was not sufficiently devoted to him to be minded to make the effort. But a quick Youtube search produced the following examples of his output from among the first few results. I question how it might lead one to the conclusions drawn above rather than a recognition that he presents an opportunity to listen to a variety of potentially interesting discussions with potentially interesting people with whom one may or may not instinctively find oneself in accord.
Sorry, @drcongo. I hadn't noticed your hyperlinks in your earlier message - be interested to know how that's done here!
I'll grant you there's a fair bit of nonsense in those clips. I take Rogan to be something of an American Everyman - I don't think it's a contrived persona either - and think that's got something to do with his popularity. I guess I've tended to skip past videos I've seen in the past that didn't seem to be on subjects that interested me and focus on the ones that did seem likely to.
I think that's the point I was making. Rogan, so it seems to me, presents a wide variety of discussions with a wide variety of people and allows the listener to draw their own conclusions. I hope the links I provided show that the range of subjects for discussion is such that this is the case and suggest that it is reasonable to say that this demonstrates the value of "free speech" in that it presents ideas and allows one to draw one's own conclusions. I am as happy questioning the basis for the things with which I think I disagree, which would include much of what you presented, as I am doing the same for the things with which I tend to agree. Isn't that the point? It's not necessary, or beneficial to oneself, to categorise speakers in a way which automatically categorises their thoughts without meaningful, or any, consideration.
@HCblue said:
I think that's the point I was making. Rogan, so it seems to me, presents a wide variety of discussions with a wide variety of people and allows the listener to draw their own conclusions.
This is the same fallacy that the BBC falls prey to when trying to be "balanced". When you present nonsense as a valid alternative opinion to fact then you're a dangerous arsehole, especially when it comes to science and medicine. Telling people that it's fine to believe that vaccines cause autism is irresponsible and dangerous.
Either he knows he's presenting bullshit as valid "alternative facts" (exactly like Alex Jones), in which case he's a piece of shit preying on the credulous, not caring that these "alternative facts" could get people killed, or he's so stupid he actually believes these things. Neither is a good look.
It's not necessary, or beneficial to oneself, to categorise speakers in a way which automatically categorises their thoughts without meaningful, or any, consideration.
Yes, yes it is. If I hear someone presenting flat earth theory as a valid opinion, it is extremely beneficial to me to categorise them as a brainless kook that would be a waste of my time to pay any attention to. Rogan promoting conspiracies that were started by a pig farmer in the Philippines on a child porn website is enough for me to categorise him as either wilfully dangerous or spectacularly thick. Neither is worth my attention when there are intelligent, interesting people I could be listening to instead.
I’m just asking questions, just putting it out there. Maybe he's a dangerous swivel-eyed lunatic, maybe he's stupider than a cheese plant. I'll allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Naturally, one picks those to whom one allocates time to listen according, at least to a certain degree, to one's predispositions and those will be based, again to some degree, on one's perception of the value likely to be gained from doing so from past experience. This seems normal and reasonable. No part of what I have said has been intended to suggest that one must listen to or accord unjudgemental credulity to anything anyone says. We are free to allocate our time as we see fit.
However, there is, I think you will concede, a danger to allowing no possibility that those predispositions might be at least partly misplaced. For example, I might be inclined to view your apparent tendency to hypercriticism in your characterisation of those with whose output you take issue as a marker that you have little or nothing of use to add to my understanding of things. You may have a similar impulse, albeit expressed differently, perhaps. Nonetheless, we (or at least I - I don't mean to speak for you) continue to communicate in the hope that some value may come from the interaction beyond the aspiration to get the other, and our audience, to side with our perspective.
Comments
The point stands. (Though I think there is also an issue of being fitted up by coppers but we cannot blame Trump or Steve Baker for that...)
I went down a massive internet rabbit hole on that spelling once, as sure as you that that's what I had been taught at school.
Glad you chipped in with that @Wendoverman. I googled Hanratty this morning wondering if it would lead to that famously ambiguous comment. The name didn’t sound right in that context but I’d completely forgotten the name Derek Bentley. Seem to recall the incident occurred at a block of flats opposite Wormwood Scrubs.
Great post @HCblue, Twitter and Facebook shouldn't take on the task of trying to decide what should and shouldn't be censored. As long as you aren't insighting violence I think they should stay out of what is being said. Clearly there is a substancial appitite for a platform like Parler as they have "Users: 4 million (active); 10 million (total)".
Sadly for Bentley who was of low intelligence but was 18, and was already in police custody when the constable was killed. his mate who fired the shots was 16 and therefore could not hang. Police needed to get someone to swing for killing a colleague and despite the jury suggesting clemency, the judge was having none of it. I think Chris Craig was out of prison by his late 20s.
Who should then? Are you saying Facebook users should be allowed to post child pornography and beheading videos, and live-stream their mass shooting spree in a synagogue?
Where it does become troubling, is when these firms pick a side in politics. This is probably where @HCblue and I agree on a lot of things. For instance, Facebook picked a side in Myanmar and contributed to genocide.
Where we differ I'd imagine is where we draw the lines on extremism. My line for what I consider right-wing extremism is roughly in line with the laws on hate-speech. If you're posting messages wishing refugees would drown in the channel then you're a right wing extremist. My line for what I consider left-wing extremism is "tankies".
Parler's moderation policies put their line of what constitutes left-wing extremism at "people who don't want to see other races exterminated". I'm not sure they have a line that shouldn't be crossed for right-wing extremism.
Hence my initial post in this thread referring to Parler as "toxically fascist".
It was in Croydon in Surrey.
I thought it was croydon...on the roof of some warehouse they were caught trying to rob, I would ask Steve Baker or someone on Parler...but
I really dispise the wording of "Are you saying?". It's straight out the Cathy Newman misleading line of inquiry.
It's very obvious that people don't want to see "child pornography and beheading videos, and live-stream mass shooting spree in a synagogue". It's breaking the law so obviously should be banned from these platforms. Who is debating it should be any other way? Trolls perhaps. I'm not sure internet trolls should be troubling you or anyone.
Alex Jones is a cretin but this interview with Joe Rogan is on point here:
I’ve not come across either of those guys before @Bacon_Sandwich so I’m not sure who you are describing as a cretin. I assume not the interviewee. I was expecting from your post to see the One Show host and I was ready to spring to her defence. Irritating and, in keeping with the show’s formula, jokey and superficial but certainly no cretin!
Alex Jones was prosecuted for inciting people to harass the parents of the Sandyhook school shooting. He is a very nasty piece of work.
Agreed @Lloyd2084 Jones is an absolute disgrace.
Joe Rogan isn't much better.
Indeed...
To compare Joe Rogan and Alex Jones in that way is to betray a keen unawareness of both what they say and do. Citations needed, with bells on.
lol
Do they both share ‘legitimate grievances’ over the pervasiveness of Marxism in modern society?
Do either of them not spend their lives grifting the public by promoting provably false conspiracy theories, like vaccines cause autism, moon landings were faked, Antifa started wildfires, 9/11 was an inside job and incredibly, QAnon's Obamagate nonsense. Enough citations?
To think Joe Rogan and Alex Jones cannot be compared in that way is to betray a keen unawareness of both what they say and do. Can we see your citations now?
I find if you block certain posters - no platform, silence or censor if you will - you don't get into these arguments.
A significant difference between the two is that Jones shouts his nonsense with the fervour of a Deep South preacher whilst Rogan adopts the ‘I’m just asking questions, just putting it out there’ kind of faux ignorance defence.
It seems to be a common tactic on social media when you challenge people’s claims.
Indeed. And he got called out for that beautifully by Brian Dunning here 7 years ago, but it makes him a hell of a lot of money so he keeps it up. There's a few bonus Joe Rogan conspiracy beliefs in that article too.
The only real difference I can see between Rogan and Jones is that Jones is definitely intelligent enough to actually know exactly what he's doing, while from what I have heard of Joe Rogan I find it plausible that he's just too thick to understand any of it.
@drcongo did you see any of the Comedy Store documentary series?
No. Worth watching?
Didn't Jones' lawyer try to use a 'he's just a performer he does not believe anything he actually says' defence in one of the (seemingly ongoing) sandyhook cases?
I believe that one was the defence in his child custody case.
(Noting in passing that @Wendoverman seems to have established his own echo chamber that satisfies his currently existing states of mind and knowledge) I suggest that there is indeed a clear distinction to be drawn between a person who makes confident assertions about conspiracy theories that follow a particular ideological bias and a person who carries out open-minded discussions on a wide variety of subjects, by no means limited to what the ordinary listener might characterise as conspiracy theories.
I've not listened to any of his output since he got the Spotify deal - not for ideological reasons but because I've not happened upon him since then and was not sufficiently devoted to him to be minded to make the effort. But a quick Youtube search produced the following examples of his output from among the first few results. I question how it might lead one to the conclusions drawn above rather than a recognition that he presents an opportunity to listen to a variety of potentially interesting discussions with potentially interesting people with whom one may or may not instinctively find oneself in accord.
I defer my opinion on Joe Rogan to the contact Tracys
Sorry, @drcongo. I hadn't noticed your hyperlinks in your earlier message - be interested to know how that's done here!
I'll grant you there's a fair bit of nonsense in those clips. I take Rogan to be something of an American Everyman - I don't think it's a contrived persona either - and think that's got something to do with his popularity. I guess I've tended to skip past videos I've seen in the past that didn't seem to be on subjects that interested me and focus on the ones that did seem likely to.
I think that's the point I was making. Rogan, so it seems to me, presents a wide variety of discussions with a wide variety of people and allows the listener to draw their own conclusions. I hope the links I provided show that the range of subjects for discussion is such that this is the case and suggest that it is reasonable to say that this demonstrates the value of "free speech" in that it presents ideas and allows one to draw one's own conclusions. I am as happy questioning the basis for the things with which I think I disagree, which would include much of what you presented, as I am doing the same for the things with which I tend to agree. Isn't that the point? It's not necessary, or beneficial to oneself, to categorise speakers in a way which automatically categorises their thoughts without meaningful, or any, consideration.
This is the same fallacy that the BBC falls prey to when trying to be "balanced". When you present nonsense as a valid alternative opinion to fact then you're a dangerous arsehole, especially when it comes to science and medicine. Telling people that it's fine to believe that vaccines cause autism is irresponsible and dangerous.
Either he knows he's presenting bullshit as valid "alternative facts" (exactly like Alex Jones), in which case he's a piece of shit preying on the credulous, not caring that these "alternative facts" could get people killed, or he's so stupid he actually believes these things. Neither is a good look.
Yes, yes it is. If I hear someone presenting flat earth theory as a valid opinion, it is extremely beneficial to me to categorise them as a brainless kook that would be a waste of my time to pay any attention to. Rogan promoting conspiracies that were started by a pig farmer in the Philippines on a child porn website is enough for me to categorise him as either wilfully dangerous or spectacularly thick. Neither is worth my attention when there are intelligent, interesting people I could be listening to instead.
I’m just asking questions, just putting it out there. Maybe he's a dangerous swivel-eyed lunatic, maybe he's stupider than a cheese plant. I'll allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Naturally, one picks those to whom one allocates time to listen according, at least to a certain degree, to one's predispositions and those will be based, again to some degree, on one's perception of the value likely to be gained from doing so from past experience. This seems normal and reasonable. No part of what I have said has been intended to suggest that one must listen to or accord unjudgemental credulity to anything anyone says. We are free to allocate our time as we see fit.
However, there is, I think you will concede, a danger to allowing no possibility that those predispositions might be at least partly misplaced. For example, I might be inclined to view your apparent tendency to hypercriticism in your characterisation of those with whose output you take issue as a marker that you have little or nothing of use to add to my understanding of things. You may have a similar impulse, albeit expressed differently, perhaps. Nonetheless, we (or at least I - I don't mean to speak for you) continue to communicate in the hope that some value may come from the interaction beyond the aspiration to get the other, and our audience, to side with our perspective.