/lit/ - Literature

Fediverse, baby.
Jailbreaking phones, baby.
Urbit, baby.

Decentralize the shit out of this thang.

Filtering racist rednecks isn't censorship, it's just making the Internet a more civilized place and keeping room temperature spergs out of it.

>>17251997
What censorship, anon? I just write whatever the fuck I feel like.

muh freeze peach

>>17252009
this

theres no "censorship", websites just ban you for posting obnoxious racist shit. if you want to spew racist hate, go to gab or 4chan or preferably get a life

>>17251997
>Big Tech censorship

It's not censorship to prevent accounts with millions of followers from posting lies. Sites like Twitter have a duty of care, just like TV networks. If Fox or CNN or BBC started reported lies you would want them to be held accountable, and so they should be. The same goes for Twitter accounts with 700k followers, they can't be forced to admit their lies like a TV station can be, so banning them or deleting Tweets is the only solution.

>>17252009
>>17252026
A pendulum swings both ways.

>>17252009
>>17252014

>>17252009
Yikers.

So all the Unabomber, Moldbug, and Land threads are coming from the same person, right?

>>17252033
You won't do shit nigger, you'll just sit on your dilapidated chair and watch as they ban you all over the net for being a racist asshole like the cuck you are.

>>17251997
Is censoring domestic terrorists really such a bad idea?

>>17252032
You're allowed to post lies, so long as it doesn't go into libel/slander territory.

Also
>banning isn't censorship

Oof.

>>17252009
This is very problematic sweetie

>>17252039
>>17252048

>B-banned? What do you mean I'm banned? I should be allowed to racially abuse any actor I want to, this is censorship, you have no right!!!

If you get banned from Twitter or Facebook it's because you're posting obnoxious shit that people don't want to see, not because you're breaking open some truth that the powers that be want hidden.

>>17251997
>>17252039
>>17252048
>>17252033
>>17252010
>>17252007

>>17252033
im not going to be posting about blacks being subhuman or jews controlling everything on facebook so i dont gotta worry about bans

>>17252072
I don't play online games.

>>17251997
most people on here are leftist pseuds don't have a single original thought in their head, what do they care about corporations censoring stuff?

>>17252071
>>17252072

>>17252063
>Oof

Banning people for posting lies, racist or hateful stuff isn't censorship. In regard to lies, it's to stop lies being spread which media companies have a duty to do. In regard to being racist or whatever fringe stuff you want to spew, it's because they want more people to enjoy using the site, and people being racist puts people, and investors, off.

Also, maybe the mods and staff don't like racism, so they don't want it on their platform. It's not like they're banning people for not liking a certain TV show, it's something that's generally abhorred in society. Is it censorship for Youtube to delete Brazilian animal abuse videos?

Racists have always been banned from websites. Websites are allowed to have rules and people don't want hate speech on their site. The people getting banned are getting banned for a reason (usually blatant racism or calls to violence)

>>17252096
Based

>>17252096
We can't all be big brained, Fuentes watching genius like you anon. Thank you for taking a break from reading Evola to bless us with your post.

>>17251997
>Do you miss him yet
No

>>17252096
yes regurgitating crackpot copypastas you read on /pol/ is real original

>>17252026
>theres no "censorship", websites just ban you

that's literally the definition of censorship - stopping people speak/write/say things you don't like. As for the nuances and legality of these entities from enacting such policies one must point first to their hypocritical stance when it comes to places like China and also to the way they wish to perceive themselves (for regulatory purposes). Are they a mere 'platform' for hosting views or if they take the stance of editing/filtering/curating content then of course they are something more and legally there are implications which follow. Further to this point when they (social media) effectively corners the market on 'voicing opinions' to the point where if you cannot get a say on social media you are a nobody and cannot get heard then it will have both negative repercussions in the real world creating/worsening the conditions of the angry, maligned voiceless who will (whether you agree with them or not) feel dispossessed and marginalised. Not good at all as that will drive them to more fringe and extreme channels to vent their anger and engage in self-reinforcing mentally masturbatory circles.

There is a reason why big comapnies have strict oversight when it comes to market regulation to prevent cornering and effectively shutting down healthy competition. The same thing should be applied to these huge, socially dominant platforms to prevent cornering the market on so-called 'free speech'.

For the record I don't disagree with what they are doing when it comes to shutting down bigoted/outright racist comments or incitement to violence but at the same time I am not so stupid to ignore their blatant hypocrisies and that all their actions are guided by capitalist outlook and liability mitigation.
These 'platforms' are trying to be the gatekeepers of free speech and what can and cannot be discussed in society - they need greater regulation and oversight.

Further, social media is a cancer upon humanity and the sooner something big happens to shake it up the better.

>>17252172
go on a different website that allows racist shit if you want to post it

>>17251997
For 1997 Pseuds

>>17252007
For 2007 Pseuds

poetry in the machine

>tfw now everytime I try to discuss with people about how we are literally being tracked and spied by multiple corporations they will think I'm a retarded right winger because of trumptards incorporating this issue in their discourse
I wish you all die

>>17252178

>herpa derp it's all about being able to say racist stuffs!

Low IQ simpleton who knee-jerked a response.

has politics just devolved into these two groups

>conservatives
muh grievances

>libs
scolding culture

its boring, anyways if conservatives actually cared about free speech they'd call for nationalizing twitter

>>17252172
The only shit getting banned is blatant racism or inciting violence, which has always been against the site rules that people agree on when signing up. Trump got banned for inciting a riot, using his platform to spread dangerous falsehoods, and defending the capitol rioters.

>>17252195
>if conservatives actually cared about free speech they'd call for nationalizing twitter
They don't understand free speech in the first place, despite going on about it forever

>>17252032
Who decides what's trute or not?

Let's entertain the idea that private corporations like Twitter have a duty to adhere to Free speech laws. How are they supposed to combat harmful conspiracy theories like Qanon? Qoomers did the opposite of what they set out to do and actually impeded the fight to prevent child trafficking. Twitter and other social media/forums are responsible for the proliferation of qanon and the subsequent harm the movement caused. So yes, they should absolutely remove pernicious lies.

>>17252226
true*

>>17252172
> angry, maligned voiceless who will (whether you agree with them or not) feel dispossessed and marginalised.

these are the people that want to deport non whites and kill leftists in a civil war. they can crawl back in their holes for all i fucking care

> drive them to more fringe and extreme channels to vent their anger and engage in self-reinforcing mentally masturbatory circles.

theyve already been doing that the whole time theyre already unhinged and repost shit from their echo chambers to twitter. thats how q spread. deplatforming them from a bigger site will prevent them from spreading their poison to impressionable people

>>17252032

You fail to see the problem, and ironically Ted did and one of the guys who inspired him as well (Jacques Ellul).

You see, if you want to go by the values of classical Western society, then the rule of law is what keeps deviations from "virtuous coexistence" in check. This should be and is pretty obvious - as per Hume we need a third party to settle two-way conflicts because otherwise personal interests would overweight the balance when compared to the aforementioned rule of law. This is what a justice system is for with its many branches.

One such role involved in keeping virtuous coexistence under Western society is the gatekeeping of information. Ideally, you would have many independent parties able to evaluate and relay different fluxes of information from their source to the general populace. For instance, you'd want someone who is NOT involved in government to report government news, and on the other hand it wouldn't hurt to have a government agency taking a peek into private companies and overlooking their actions.

The situation we have today, however, is far from that. For the sake of mere optimization of technological development we are concentrating more and more "gatekeeping power" into the hands of single all-encompassing entities, i.e, it happens automatically as technology develops, no one is planning this alone. For instance, back in the 60's Fox, CNN and BBC would be held accountable for spreading lies because other independent parties would be able to verify that their gatekeeping is fraudulent. Nowadays how many truly independent from one another news channels are there? Most of them work under a greater conglomerate aimed at optimization of flow and spread, with a human context of monopoly surrounding its development (but make no mistake, this is purely a technical occurrence).

The same happens with even more strength, ironically, for the case of the internet. Zuckerberg has unparalleled and previously unheard of power of gatekeeping information because Facebook is no longer an independent party for the relaying of information but has instead become the very space of public discourse itself. Except it's not public at all! They can decide to slowly but surely convey ideas in however manner and shape they want, which is exactly opposite to what you're thinking of. This is extremely fast to do, very optimal gatekeeping, but extremely concentrated and ironically twisted from what we would expect the internet to be.

So, to be sure, someone being so seriously harmful through lying on the internet should be stopped but, they should be held accountable by the RULE OF LAW, i.e, legally prosecuted by a party that is independent of the very platform that acts as the site of public discourse itself. Otherwise the entire thing is compromised (protip it already is) and the very notion of trust in information gatekeepers has completely eroded. Actually I'd even say shit like this is exactly why we'll get more Trumps soon.

>>17252215
yeah true

>>17252229
we could have a good education system or y'know media reform or regulation or state funded media outlets. preventative measures are better but that probably won't be broached

>>17252009
BASED BASEDBASEDBASEDBASED

I deleted social media. I miss messaging that cute girl from my class but I cannot go on participating in this diabolical spectacle

>>17252241
>these are the people that want to put whites in camps and kill conservatives in a civil war. they can crawl back in their holes for all i fucking care

>>17252226
shut the fuck up chud, literally kill yourself you racist cunt

>>17252229

Oh, let's give some guys the power to decide what everyone can read, listen or talk about, this is not censorship okay, is just a nice idea

>>17252255
>we could have a good education system or y'know media reform or regulation
all good ideas, but wouldbe more long term. we already have the damage done with the brain fried trumpers eating up a totally different reality. how do we address the people already brainwashed?

>>17252032
>>17252026
>>17252014
>>17252009
Why are they so scared and angry?

>>17252266
except thats not accurate
nobody wants to put whites in camps. meanwhile qanon, "muh great replacement", anti-blm, and white nationalism are mainstream trump viewpoints
even the most fringe lib/left people are anti far right, not anti white people as a whole

>>17252096
No, about half of /lit/ is just like you, assuming everyone else here is a leftist and thinking you're the only one with original thoughts, as you repeat what every alt-right pseud on the internet says. Leftists hate corporations. Right wingers applauded Trump when he cut corporate taxes.

>>17252271
Blatant lies like Qanon should be challenged or prevented from being spread when they have harmful irl consequences

>>17252255
I don't disagree and desu a nationalised twitter is preferable as I dont trust big tech at all. Social media is way more fun when there's hardly any rules like early twitter, but that's just a feeble dream at this point considering a few bad actors can ruin it for everybody by posting dangerous stuff.

>>17252279
no clue besides joke answers like forcing them all to move to some die hard republican state and having it secede. I think a conversation around media reform would be beneficial if done right. everybody but brunch libs knows there is something wrong with media

>>17252288
Just as you can see from all these responses in this thread; they are convinced that anyone who disagrees with them are automatically qualified as disabled persons who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.

It's basically the NPC meme reversed, except instead of using it to make fun of people, they use it to plan re-education programmes.

Right wingers talk a lot of shit about the free market and business autonomy for people who cry when private businesses hurt their feelings

>>17252338
I mean, if you believe shit like Qanon unironically, you probably do have some sort of mental illness

>>17252096
>tween who just became aware of politics
>thinks it's smart
Imagine being this guy

>>17252341
Yes, and our people on the left who fight against corporate overreach suddenly turn into libertarians who love them when this happens

>>17252270
That question really made you short-circuit lol. The answer, lurking just behind your conscious mind, is that your masters tell you what's true, and you, being an obedient slave, react like an Uncle Tom when you see other slaves getting uppity and questioning official truth.

>>17251997
He's still alive and will either be freed or killed in a prison riot during the Second American Civil War©

>righttards
>orgasm over capitalism
>completely ignore the concentration of capital and power
>complain when this concentration leads to just a few people control all of information
Boy, if only there was some German philosopher who warned us all for exactly this

>>17251997
>leftist defending the right of oligopolistic markets to restrain free speech to whatever they feel is appropiate

>>17252314
>>17252009
Seriously, why leftists say they support free speech while actually supporting censorship? I agree 100% with censorship, I won't judge you for pushing it, but why the need to lie? Why don't you guys accept that shutting down ideas or crazy theories just because they don't seem true to you is the definition of censorship? Please, have some honesty.

>>17252374
We don't love corporations. We just find the whole thing quite humorous, poetic even.

>>17252436
Where did they say they're leftists?

>>17252426
im not going to be losing sleep over the kkk being banned from twitter desu. they wont ban you unless you are explicitly racist or calling for violence. even then not always. fucking richard spencer and nick fuentes are still on there despite being open neo nazis

>>17252423
Spengler?

>>17252449
you do understand that when they first get rid of the racist right they'll then come for the hard left until only the mainstream sanitized neo-liberal open society late capitalistic global hellsystem remains right?

>>17252009
>Filtering (x) isn't censorship
thats literally what censorship is though

>>17252491
sounds good to me

>>17252491
the hard right gets censored for calling for violence, not just their political opinion

Censoring harmful speech is not a bad thing.

>>17252491
I'm fine with that, both sides are insufferable faggots who pretend to have a moral high ground while discriminating anyone who doesn't comply with their extremist autism.

>>17252009

https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer
still on twitter...hmmm

even nazis can stay on the platform if they play by the rules. trump broke them by calling for violence.

what censorship? my i2p site hasnt gone down, neither has the pleroma instance im registered on. maybe thats just because i dont expect tech companies to stand up for me against the majority.

>>17252288
Deep down they know they're boot lickers and it offends their self image of independent thinkers.

>>17252659
>trumptards
>independent thinkers
they just accept whatever propaganda their dear leader gives them no questions asked
these people literally worshipped the us president. independent is the last thing i'd call them

>>17252681
>seething so hard it cannot even follow a conversation

>>17252556
Hi r*ddit

Trumptards deserve to be banned

A left-wing defending the status quo is inherently conservative.
Claiming society has the right to police thought implies an abrahamic worldview of man as born pure, and later corrupted by impure ideas.
Man is incapable of discovering natural moral values, such as eschewing violence. He is instead compelled to do violence by violent demagogues, and if the propaganda for violence is censored, then there won't be any violent desires.

From this gnostic worldview, the only logical conclusion is that any "horizontal" information spread is inherently corruptible. There's a need for administrators, moderators, janitors in all information exchange. Because otherwise, someone with the wrong ideas might spread disinformation through the populace.

Hierarchy is right wing. Egalitarianism is left wing. There are graduations of views, but both are irreconcilable extremes. Either all men are born equal or man needs superiors.

In this sense. The american "left" is quite right wing.
Right wing in practice, not in theory. It aims to create an egalitarian societal structure by imposing increasingly hierarchical societal systems.
There's nothing egalitarian about imposing a priestly academic class on the populace. At least the communists had the excuse that state capitalism was just a transitory period.

>>17252911
Right wing is hanging commies, left wing is lying pseudo-intellectuals

>>17252523
retard. ‘Harmful speech’ is anything which challenges the criminal American imperialist system.

>>17252911
>Leftists are the REAL Nazis - checkmate, leftards!
>Meanwhile leftists are burning down cities and deplatforming everyone right of centre

>>17253043
>right of centre
More like right of far left

>>17252979
No commies have been hung since the 50's and since the 90's they're in increasingly short supply. While the pseuds inherit the earth.

There's no right wing. Just shades of leftism getting more red.

>>17251997
the problem isn't technology, it's capitalism.

>>17253073
>There's no right wing.
No shit

>>17253043
Everyone is a leftist and everyone is a real nazi.

>>17253087
t. self proclaimed right winger

>>17253078
The problem is not capitalism either

>>17253078
Capitalism is enabled and facilitated by technology.

>>17252009
>censoring people I don't like isn't censorship.
It's because of mongoloids like you that we keep having a dead ideology like communism offered as a panacea.

>>17252448
>want to censor right-wing speech
>"how do you know they're leftists"
It's a mystery, anon.

>>17253112
no, it is.
>>17253119
true but it doesn't have to be this way. technology can instead enable and facilitate socialism.

imagine thinking everyone is either a leftist or a right winger.

>>17253170
Socialism can only exist as a LARP reaction to capitalism. It will be either stagnation like the USSR, or capitalism with a few extra steps like China.

>>17253196
not true.

Why do jewish girls do this?

>>17253203
All reactions to capitalism are just LARP as long as you don't eschew technology.

>>17252009
Midwit take. The exact thing I've come to expect out of this board.

>>17253230
that doesn't even make sense.

>>17253281
All cultural expressions participate and are exploited by capitalism. The idea of a cultural state that isn't subservient to capitalist modes of operation is pathologically idealistic and leads to LARP.
LARP that is exploited by and participates in capitalism, either directly, or as an eventuality.

>>17252226
the same people who told us Saddam Hussein was in the possession of weapons of mass destruction

>>17253344
Capitalism is only dying if its technological foundation crumbles from under it.

Impotent LARP is specifically a liberal pathology, either in the form of coffee house playing with ideas or activists histrionically tying themselves to trees to get intoxicated from such ritualistic transgressions. Action can and has been done against neoliberal capital hegemony with sincerity, even if success is middling and ideology is incoherent, from wigger nationalists like Brevik to real human beings like Elliot.

>>17251997
Mr Ted was very right about the impossibility of controlling the system, as outlined in Anti-Tech Revolution.
>coordination problems
>zero-sum problems
>information problems
>unforeseen consequences of changes to dynamic system
i'd add in that the amoral have strategic advantage in number of options. You can't beat the powerful at their game without becoming just as oppressive, and even if you end up 'on top' you're still not in control of the whole system.

>>17252009
kys

>>17251997
I censored facebook, twitter long time ago, I don't use them.

>>17252364
>mental illness
>Believes men who chop off their penises are women
>Believes their leaders who overwhelmingly have sex with children are 'good' people

>>17252026
give a life.

>>17252032
who decides what is a lie? incel moron appointed by your mom?

>>17252338
>they use it to plan re-education programmes.
It's important to realize just how BTFO the right is on the "re"-education pill. We have this conception of sending people/getting sent to some kind of dystopian camp. The liberal looks at this assumption and rightly goes "why the fuck would we restrict re-education to a camp?"

>>17252297
>not anti white people as a whole

Don't insult my intelligence.

>>17252115
to be racist and hateful is a human right.

>>17251997
If you worry about social media censorship, you are already oversocialized

>>17252229
"harmful". again another daddy promotes his agenda.

>>17253646
logic of a tranny, because you are faggot.

in 4 years you will all love Trump

>>17253646
Social media isn't just peacocking, it's infamous used outside the west as a whistleblowing platform. You can't disperse information effectively without it, you can't even desperately attempt to make some alternative because banks/paypal/patreon services will deny you service.

They want to let you whine about it on some tor imageboard that gets 3 posts a week, domesticating you and fooling you into thinking things have more outreach than they actually have, or at least have the potential to do so.

i dont care if they suppress trumpers for spreading false information and wacko racist c they deserve it.

>A select few private companies are becoming the main forms of public discourse for society
>The mechanics of these websites encourage bubbles of group think
>These companies are responsive to profit motive, public opinion, internal ideology, and the weight of whatever standing government
>The ones that respond to these pressures are the ones who make the cut on what is allowable
>People willingly cheer this on it can somehow only happen to the "bad people"

>>17253649
>>17253656
>namefag
>retarded
Czechs out

>>17252072
>video game analogy
Go back.

>>17253721
I'm cheering it on because it will happen to everyone. China has overcome politics, we can too.

>>17252009
>censorship isn't censorship
dumbass

>>17253926
>presuming any competency from America that even be close to China's level

>>17253948
racist bullshit violates the terms of service. if you post racist garbage, they have every right to boot you from the service.

>>17253959
That's still censorship, you just agree with it. Good god just admit you don't mind censoring some things because you think they're evil or whatever.

>>17251997
Pretty good, since I'm a fucking cuck and a simp and love BBC and seeing white people dead this just benefits me in every sense of the word

>>17252523
anything can be considered "harmful speech"

>>17253956
Idc about competency. I'm just tired of politics. I want to go sleep soundly knowing we were always at war with Eurasia.

>>17252009
8 Points has been added to your social credit profile
我的皇帝万岁

>>17252209
>The only shit getting banned is blatant racism or inciting violence
lmao what total bullshit
I've personally witnessed incel platforms get banned and removed, and the only crime incels are guilty of is being low value men wanting to commiserate.

>>17254070
retard leftist is doing it for free and by pavlovian reflexes, not even need social score system

>>17254083
i see nothing wrong with that. incels deserve to get banned for misogynist hate speech and extremist rhetoric

>>17254091
24 points have been removed from your social credit profile
我的皇帝万岁

>>17254083
Good
Incels are vile. They probably got banned for posting some disgusting rape fantasy or praising a school shooter "ironically"

I’ve been not liking censorship for a lot longer than the presidential Twitter ban

>>17254102
>>17254111
>an entire forum should be deleted because of the posts of a couple of users
You dumbasses don't realize that all internet is going to be tied to your real life identity because this mindset.
What's better than removing a platform for toxic discussion to take place? Identifying who is participating in the discussion.

>>17254149
there are some things that run the risk of escalating into extremism, violence, and hate. if your site is being used to discuss criminal acts, terrorism, or sociopathic behavior, it becomes a problem. if we're removing isis forums that have blueprints about ops and discussions about fantasies rooted in their extremist ideology, then most people wouldnt have a problem with deleting that. the incel sites were hubs for mass shooters, extreme misogynistic rhetoric, and rapists. theyre not that far off.

>censorship good if its the bad guy
>authoritarianism good if its to stop the disease
>riots good if its for the approved cause

we see you

>>17254102
most geniuses from history were misogynists, you are going to ban books too?

>>17254185
theyre not censoring people for "bad opinions", theyre censoring people for inciting hate and violence against people irl

>>17254185
Yes.

>>17254170
>the incel sites were hubs for mass shooters, extreme misogynistic rhetoric, and rapists.
kek, delusional, Meanwhile the US government will bomb some more Syrians under Biden.

>>17254185

>>17254204
>4 people die on their own side
>BLM smashes businesses and riots the entire summer, inflicting much more harm and violence.
>bbbbbutttttttt CNN told me MAGA bad, ban them, ban them.

>>17254185
>>17254213
>then out of the sudden Hitler got elected in Germany

>>17254240
no. more people are opposed to you rednecks than support you

>>17252364
>mental illness
Kys

maybe we should ban magatards
they are fucking annoying. lets do it. im all for it. id be happy to never hear from these nazi fucks ever again. dont need to hear some fat neckbeard whine about a black woman in his vidya or how j00z are the reason his penis is small

>>17254246
Just other socialized retards like you, you're a joke.

>>17254260
Magatards are a small group. Most people jumped on opportunistically while Trump took all the blows. Now they will be the ones taking them.

>>17252009
"It's not censorship if I agree with it"
Kill yourself, nigger

>>17252061
If they were actually doing anything close to terrorism you should report them to the authorities instead of silencing them when they out themselves

>>17254204
real violence IRL is collecting taxes, taking away property after divorce.

>>17252297
>meanwhile qanon, "muh great replacement", anti-blm, and white nationalism are mainstream trump viewpoints
The world isnt your echo chamber, go outside.

>>17252072
>Paying 60$ for vidya

>>17252445
ywnbarw

>>17252009
>Penguin Publishing won't publish my loony racist manifesto
>Oh no! I'm being censored!

reminder: all shills here, sjws, glowniggers are uneducated neets out of real economy, legal migrants invited by moms through vaginas for loosh and entertainment. same about journalists and scientists, and all other gender equalists. products of mindless natalism.

>>17252009
Best bait I've seen today.

>>17254185
Implying they care about moral consistency.

>>17252178
And what do you do when the company that owns the servers hosting the website says they won't host them anymore? I suppose you can start your own server farm....


...for the time being. But don't be surprised when big DNS servers and ICANN decide to ban redirects from www.freespeechforever.com to 48.156.242.135 or whatever the actual ip is, and when no search engine will index your site to be found.

I mean, I guess this is OK. They're all private companies, right? Imagine how awful it would be if racists were able to, say, use the postal service to send out racist newsletters, or the telephone system to call their racist friends. Deplatform, deplatform, deplatform. It's just other people showing you the door because you're being an obnoxious boor, right?

>>17252229
>Let's entertain the idea that private corporations like Twitter have a duty to adhere to Free speech laws
On the one hand they want to be viewed as a telecom, and on the other they don't. It's all very self serving.

>How are they supposed to combat harmful conspiracy theories like Qanon?
Why should they? If a rando normie can't tell the difference between legitimate news and opinion and qanon conspiracies, the fault is not with qanon or the medium through which the qanon conspiracy was transmitted; the fault is with the rando normie (and the society and educational system that left him so susceptible to that message in the first place).

>>17252250
>For instance, back in the 60's Fox, CNN and BBC would be held accountable for spreading lies because other independent parties would be able to verify that their gatekeeping is fraudulent

Most of your post is cogent and well thought out, and while I disagree with parts of it there's much to use to base a future discussion on. But this particular line needs to be edited/reworked if you use it in another forum. Fox and CNN obviously weren't around in the 60s (Fox is a network that didn't exist before the late 80s and wasn't known until early 90s; their news division would take another decade or so to rise to prominence as well; CNN also wasn't around in the 60s); the BBC is an arm of the UK government, and so it doesn't fit well as an example here.

>But of course what’s happening is more complex and subtle than that, more closely connected to how we conceive of the relation between intellect and spirit. The new-model En glish-class graduate — the one who has been force-fed the gross oversimplifications proffered by these lesson plans and teaching manuals — values empathy and imagination less than the ability to make quick and irreversible judgments, to entertain and maintain simplistic immovable opinions about guilt and innocence, about the possibilities and limitations of human nature. Less comfortable with the gray areas than with sharply delineated black and white, he or she can work in groups and operate by consensus, and has a resultant, residual distrust for the eccentric, the idiosyncratic, the annoyingly . . . individual.

>What I’ve described is a salable product, tailored to the needs of the economic and political moment. What results from these educational methods is a mode of thinking (or, more accurately, of not thinking) that equips our kids for the future: Future McDonald’s employees. Future corporate board members. Future special prosecutors. Future makers of 100-best-books lists who fondly recall what they first read in high school — and who may not have read anything since. And so the roster of literary masterpieces we pass along to future generations will continue its downward shift, and those lightweight, mediocre high school favorites will continue to rise, unburdened by gravity, to the top of the list.

>>17253165
They didn't say they wanted to censor right wing speech. They want to censor racists and Qanon conspiracies that make gullible boomers act stupidly.

>>17252009
/lit/ is the new /pol/. it's over lads. Lets go celebrate Stoner somewhere else.

>>17254862
They literally banned the president.
What makes you think they won't go after you?

>>17254888
The whole internet is /pol/. There are no apolitical spaces left.

>>17254947
They will go after you. The thing is is that Twitter/Facebook etc. are tools of the surveillance state. Using them in the first place inherently decreases your freedom. You immediately doxx yourself to private corporations in partnership.

The problem isn’t that you get kicked off of Twitter it’s that you used Twitter in the first place. It’s a false reality and a false sense of freedom. The only way to freely express yourself is to self publish. Luckily for you it’s easier than ever to self publish, but it’s going to take more work than 140 characters from two lazy Twitter fingers.

>>17254748
He said
>would be held accountable
he didn't say
>were held accountable
are you sure you belong on a board about reading books if you lack basic reading comprehension, pseud?

>>17252009
Unironically based.

>>17254979
Easier than ever? Maybe when you could spam 2$ shit novels on amazon. The only authors from this side of the pond that managed to self publish, did it after creating an advertising persona on twitter. Nobody would buy the BAPbook if the schizo didn't spam pictures of naked 3rd world male models on twitter.

And even then. Once he catches their radar, even the apolitical types like Delicious Tacos will get cleared off.

There's no way to kick it off as an author with non-estabilishment views. Unless you're talking about writing some shlock like genre fiction, which isn't real literature anyway.

>>17252026
Are you retarded?

>>17255027
Actually you're being ironic.

>>17255061
No. No one is against censorship except LARPing lolbertarians. Nazis want commies censored and commies want Nazis censored. Free speech is a lie and pure propaganda, one of the many lies of liberalism.

>>17255038
Alas, you can still publish. You, not being creative enough to find an outlet other than Twitter to market what you have published is not my problem. Try Academia.edu instead.

>>17253692
The only time social media was used for "whistleblowing" outside the west was when western powers wanted to release anti-government information. Stop believing in the Arab Spring meme, it was a psyop.

>>17255082
Hell, even the smarter libertarians are pro-censorship.

>>17255082
I don't want it, that's literally why I am on this site, which is the closest thing to uncensored that exists. I don't want 'a voice' I don't want to be on twitter or 'make a difference', I want to shitpost with other people who have the same everything goes sensibilities.

A good thing. Perhaps people will at last awaken to the many downsides of centralized, proprietary platforms.

>>17255086
Are you speaking from experience, or are you just telling the young'uns to pull themselves by their own bootstraps, walk into that publishing office and shake the tranny's penis?
Writing isn't the same as working in the trades. There isn't a constant demand for authors. It's not the 19th century and people have other forms of entertainment, so you can't even do low brow things like pulp fiction.

It's a good mindset to act like everything is easy. But when it's not true, you're giving everyone bad advice.

>>17255123
This anon gets it

>>17255129
I didn’t promise distribution. I promised an ability to publish your views. It’s incredibly simple. Google self publishing right now. Start a blog. You don’t need a social network site to social network.

>>17255149
Sure, let me start my blogspot. Or maybe geocities might be better. I'm sure those readers will come by the thousands to read my posts because of my writing talent.

Twitter is the biggest platform where people can appreciate your writing style and shitposts. If not the only one. Blogs worked in 2005, they don't work now. What's next, are you going to suggest fledgeling writers to buy google ads? Those clicks will come flowing right in!

>I didn’t promise distribution. I promised an ability to publish your views. It’s incredibly simple
You didn't promise anything. You claimed that it was easier than ever. Which it isn't.
You know it isn't, but you don't want someone to disagree with your optimism. So you're suggesting inane shit like publishing your novel in academia.edu . Because, you know, the guys who study cancer cells are the prime demographic for finding and appreciating new authors.

>>17254980
I know what he said, anon. The larger point is that there are better examples to use than a mish-mash of entities that didn't exist in the 60s and ones that did but that were (and are) literally state media.

>>17252096
You got them absolutely seething with this comment. kek

>>17252009
>>17252026
>>17252014
>>17252256
>>17252436
>>17255027
#whiteterroism

>>17252115
>Is it censorship for Youtube to delete Brazilian animal abuse videos?
Yes. That's what censorship means.

>>17255288
>your novel
There it is! Look friend no one said anything about novels. You assumed when I said “publish your views” I meant you could sell novels. I didn’t, and if you think Twitter censoring your shitposts is what’s going to hold you back from being a working author then bud I think you must be even more naive than you were making me out to be.

>>17255394
So you want people to "self express" on academia.edu? It's ok to admit you were wrong, you don't have to cover your ass on an anonymous board.

>>17254204
I didn't see Democrats inciting "action" getting banned during the nigger floyd riots. I guess you can do whatever you want as long as you call it a "peaceful protest"

>>17254246
>75M+ votes to Trump
Implying that any of those 80M votes to Biden are even real, It seems like more people support them than oppose.

>>17252115
>they want more people to enjoy using the site, and people being racist puts people, and investors, off
Discourse must occur between polarized parties, in order for potentially violent passions to fizzle into neutrality, or they will grow into more potent forms. Suppressing emotions instead of finding an outlet is rarely successful.

>>17254606
There definitely are Trumptards are unironic white nationalist desu. Most are either infowars conspiracy nuts, jesus freaks, or racists. Normie Trumpers were repeating shit like George Soros conspiracies straight from /pol/, theres overlap.

>>17252009
BASED

>>17254722
We should educate the populace in media literacy better, but we have to deal with the fact that most people are not well versed in discerning fact from fiction on the internet.

As far as I see it, if the speech being posted is a demonstrated public danger and blatant misinformation used to rile people up into doing something dangerous in real life, it should be banned or restricted. Websites ban pedos and gore and should be able to do so, so the same should be with harmful propaganda. The Qanon stuff, Trump telling people to go storm the capitol, and racist conspiracies all have potential real life consequences that could encourage violence, so it could very well be justified in my view

>>17252009
>>17252026
>>17252032
>>17252172

>‘Turning point in the battle for control’: EDWARD SNOWDEN, others warn of consequences to Trump’s Facebook ban
>https://www.rt.com/usa/511852-edward-snowden-trump-facebook-ban/

Edward Snowden and others have reacted to news, and ensuing celebration, that Facebook will ban content from Donald Trump for two weeks by warning that giving such power to social media platforms sets a dangerous precedent.

Many are celebrating the announcement by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that President Trump will be banned from posting content on the social media platform, as well as Instagram, for at least the next two weeks following violence at the US Capitol – but others are warning that this moment could have dire consequences for free speech in the near future.

>“Facebook officially silences the President of the United States,” Snowden tweeted on Thursday in reaction to the news. The whistleblower said the decision “will be remembered as a turning point in the battle for control over digital speech.”

>I know a lot of folks in the comments read this are like "YAAAAS," which, like—I get it. But imagine for a moment a world that exists for more than the next 13 days, and this becomes a milestone that will endure.

>In a followup message, Snowden warned that those celebrating the suspension should “imagine a world that exists for more than the next 13 days, and this becomes a milestone that will endure.”

In response to the argument that Facebook is a private platform, something that has become an heated topic of debate as politicians argue for and against censorship, Snowden cryptically acknowledged platforms like Facebook currently have the right to enact such bans and they will increasingly do so.

He also blasted the company for having “zero regard” for the opinions of “either regulators or consumers.”

>>17255656
>>17252009
>>17252026
>>17252032
>>17252172

>>17255288
blogs were killed by paid shill comments. as any platform. government literally defecates on people.

the whole internet business model and structure sucks. I have seen people migrating back into FidoNet 10 years ago.

>>17252072
>corporations should be able to decide what speech is acceptable

>>17255964
they do it because society finds it unacceptable. a lot of non trump people were demanding the racists be removed from the site

>>17254102
better turn off that electricity you are using it was made available to the masses by an incel

>>17255977
giving into a mob i see no way that could go south

>>17252009
This would be reasonable if these companies weren't near monopolies, applied their laws without blatant ideological bias, and if there were not an increasingly faint line between corporations and government.

>>17254204
Didn't Pelosi say people should confront politicians in public?

>>17252096
based

>>17251997
Big Tech shouldn't even exist and I don't use it either way so why should I care if they censor me? Ted definitely didn't rely on the good will of some faggot journalist to publish his manifesto.

It's so fucking easy seeing all the leddit posters in here fucking hell. Fuck off to where you came from faggots

>>17255656
Based Snowden. It turns out that he was too good for this country after all.

>>17256283
>Ted definitely didn't rely on the good will of some faggot journalist to publish his manifesto.
His main goal was to get his manifesto published by the NY Times.

>>17252009
Posts like this one are thread fuel and poison.

>>17256646
And he knew they wouldn't do it unless under the threat of more bombings.

>>17251997
>How are you enjoying your Big Tech censorship, /lit/?
I'm a democrat

>>17251997
ipfs, zeronet both exist, if you don't want to be censored stop opting into platofrms that can censor you, self host and use decentralized models they exist for blogs, social media sites, video streaming

>>17256827
also I'm sick of fucking commies like you (OP) claiming private companies have to allow anyone to access and use their service, the only people who care about censorship are tech illiterates and social media addicted, entitled zoomers who thinks everything they say has value

>>17255977
>Populism is bad except, when it goes for my [colour, direction on x-axis, team]

>>17257118
Yes

>>17256679
Doesn't mean you have to be in favor of it.
I feel really uneasy about all the heavy-handed actions that are being pushed through after this incident. No sir, I do not like it.

>>17256679
You'll get round up next. By both parties.

>>17255977
has nothing to do w that, mobs are obeyed and ignored at convenience
>>17256836
bootlicker faggot piece of shit

>>17257143
>you're a bootlicker for not thinking every company should allow anyone to use their platform
go suck of hasanabi some more you commie

>>17257148
you're a bootlicker for having no critique of corporate power which completely dominates the forum for public discourse and political discussion, something much more important than MUH PRIVAAAAAATE PROPERTY RIGHTSSSSSSSSSSSSSS AHHHHHHHHHHH fucking kike

>>17257156
I have critiques of corporate power, but social media critiques are wasted time since you can create uncensorable social media, blog, videos etc already - if you don't want to support censorable platforms don't use them, if you don't want to be censored, don't.

>>17257163
1. the value of social media is in unity of platform, i.e. in that everyone uses the same ones so you can actually reach new people.
2. new ones get shut down, censored, and flooded with federal agents trying to op people all the fucking time you FUCKING. FAGGOT. everyone know this shit already inc you

>>17257156
You can be against crony capitalism without being against capitalism sweetie

>>17257167
>in that everyone uses the same ones so you can actually reach new people.
so something like mastodon that makes it so that any self hosted instance integrates with everything?
>new ones get shut down, censored, and flooded
if only projects like IPFS, materdon, peertube allowed you to self host and replicate- oh wait

>>17257178
you mean some shit nobody uses that is totally irrelevant cool got it

>>17257193
IPFS is used by amazon and a ton of companies in the cryptospace and has hundreds of thousands of nodes
masterdon has millions of users
peertube https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances shows how many people use it but that only accounts for users who are on instances deciding to share data

looking forward to your reply with some different issue you have oh also they all support bridging meaning you can communicate from masterdon/peertube to twitter/youtube meaning user numbers aren't even relevant also ipfs can be served via gateways in the same way regular sites are

>>17252423
Where does this “rightists have a hard on for capitalism” trope come from.

See? This is the thing about leftists that prevents me from joining their cause(s). It seems we fundamentally don’t inhabit the same reality. From where I’m standing, leftists, unlike rightists, do this thing where they’re not only willing, but almost necessarily build fake caricatures of their political adversaries in their head which are almost never actually depicting a real person, their affiliations, opinions, etc. The entire worldview is predicated on projecting things you consider “bad” onto others whether they’re actually even there or not in the first.