Tim Pool Doesn't Understand Censorship
Posted by BiggestShoelaces 4 years, 10 months ago to Politics
My new video explores why Tim Pool is a raving mad socialist that doesn't under censorship.
“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.
“Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 98
“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.
“Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 98
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/UD6_d07CHto
You are correct in saying that Google/Youtube or Facebook have no responsibility to accept any content I generate, but if they ruin my reputation through slanderous means, the damage done is permanent. Moreover, it is incredibly difficult to prove in court what is obvious to any reasonable observer.
I am totally OK with you quoting Rand on censorship and being "uncivil" as some others have said. Rand would have disagreed with me, too. Back when Rand wrote what she did about censorship, she was right.
I am no longer sure that Rand's definition of censorship is still entirely valid. Most of the censorship that happens now is paid for by George Soros and his friends using their economic influence to get their governmental puppets to do their bidding.
For example, you ought to look at the differences between being a platform vs. a publisher. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have immunity from libel lawsuits via the Communications Decency Act. Facebook long considered itself a platform, but recently Mark Zuckerberg said that it is responsible for the content on its platform, which according to the legal definition, makes it a publisher rather than a platform.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/pla...
https://medium.com/@subsign/is-facebo...
Consider the possibility that some individuals and companies may be more powerful than some governments. Social media companies used the Obama administration and their own platforms to start the Arab Spring. While I am no defender of those North African governments, Libya and Tunisia were made into hell holes via the Arab Spring. Things got much worse in Libya in particular. I have had several students from there tell me separately about how the Arab Spring ruined things so badly in Libya that they came here asking for asylum rather than ordinary student visas. The Arab Spring resulted in regime change in Egypt, too; I am not sure whether it was an improvement there or not. These individuals and companies often work through the United Nations under wonderful concepts like the "Responsibility to Protect".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respons...
I suppose part of my argument hinges on whether you consider the United Nations a governmental entity. I don't, but they ... do.
A further deteriorating culture does not make invalid concepts valid and does not justify endorsing false statist premises of government control over private organizations. The notion that Google and facebook can be controlled by government, miraculously on behalf of populist conservatives while not in fact damaging everyone, is more destructive, contradictory Pragmatism.
Making Google responsible for and subject to law suits for statements others make does nothing to force them to change guidelines conservatives don't like, does nothing to spread better ideas, and doesn't even allow conservatives to harass Google with law suits they already can't afford; it only lashes out in uncontrolled anger to try to punish Google in a way that will be applied to and harm all of us and reduce the ability to publish on web platforms as the owners further restrict their use in fear of abusive suits. Reform can only come from rational thought, not these emotional populist outbursts demanding more statism in a fit of irrationality.
"I am no longer sure that Rand's definition of censorship is still entirely valid. Most of the censorship that happens now is paid for by George Soros and his friends using their economic influence to get their governmental puppets to do their bidding"
"to get their governmental puppets"
It still requires government.
Having "power" through argument is why we must defend everyone's right to express themselves, including companies right to refuse service.
The un acts as a government, it doesn't matter if an agency is unelected, most governments are not. What matter is whether they act to have a monopoly on force. Companies working through the UN is cronyism, and its political force.
Each example requires political force, or a mix of political force and economic force. There is no immoral examples of pure economic power.
Thank you for your response.
Given what you just said, I am curious to hear your opinion on Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie forming a cabal to elect William McKinley.
What they did is very much like what Google and Facebook are doing now, except that Google and Facebook have a "protected" status that Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie did not until after they bought McKinley. When Teddy Roosevelt became president after McKinley's assassination, the tide turned on Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie. Their response to Teddy Roosevelt was the Jekyll Island fiasco that resulted in the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal or a reserve).
The Rearden trial is very much based on the Rockefeller anti-trust trial.
Business a century ago was far freer than today's controls, and Google and Facebook do not have "protected status" by not being liable for what others say. The advocates of more abusive litigation against private companies are lashing out with punishment unrelated to freedom of speech. They threatening statism against their own ideological enemies simply to be punitive, without regard to principles.
An intelligent post reflecting reality.
I am not holding my breath that the person starting this thread will understand or heed one word of it, though.
There are those who are driving an agenda regardless of its benefits to society and the American individual.
Not even mentioning that hey have no say dictating our lives from Canada.
Kind of what Dan Conway went through times a million.
If the word “censoring” meant it was only a goverment action, it would be nice. I wish it would mean that. I wish other people thought it meant that. It would make things so much clearer and easier.
But now back to reality.
Censorship, in the political context that you are using it, only pertains to government action.
In other words, you are using the term incorrectly in the context you are discussing.
You should have stated this first regarding all your censorship related posts. It would have drastically changed the arguments, for the better.
This is the first legal definition I found,
“ Law and Legal Definition. Censorship generally is the deletion of speech or any communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a body authorized to censor.”
...not just the ones in this one topic.
It's quite amazing how many downvotes the correct, Objectivist statements on this issue are getting on what is supposed to be an Objectivist forum.
However I cannot agree with your latter point. An objectivist society (lets not go crazy, we fight here, getting a whole world would be impossible) could not be bought. Not because of the people and their attitudes but because if you remove mandatory taxation and regulations then any paid off legislator would have an uphill battle attempting to create new laws as the citizens can just stop supporting the government. Think about the interaction between the lobbist, the politician, the actions the lobbyist is buying, and whether that action would even exist under objective law. We ought to explore this lone of thought further.
The only way for the government to expand is to remove rights (mostly property rights) which is what will happen when the government expands to force social media companies to act like government agencies.
The video mentions the WSJ. The Journal recently introduced a system whereby all comments are "judged" by moderators if they are allowed or not allowed to be posted. Many subscribers cancelled service, myself included.
No private action is censorship? Oh, you'd call it "business practice", right? What do you call companies withdrawing sponsorship from FOX because they don't like what Tucker says?
It is meaningless posturing to deny that only the gov can censor.
All those cancelling WSJ referred to the intolerable censorship put in practice.
You can delude yourself but the fact remains that Google, FB, WSJ, NYT et al censor. Or if you prefer, they "select" content that presents a one sided view acceptable to the left's agenda.
Read the damn Ayn Rand quote that is written on this post and the white board behind me. You are no objectivist thinker.
👎
And "Get out of the Gulch--?"
That's downright rude without the "socialist pig" added.
Me dino has been told I did not "belong here" a couple of times but that pales in comparison.
When you can properly think about this issue, you will see I have presented you an argument in the form of an example of "hate" speech and a companies/websites rights to remove violators of that agreed terms of service.
Whoa! New thought. Maybe not. I know one is a stickler for board rules. Don't know the newer one that well yet.
We would never have understood what hate speech was without your magnanimous lowering yourself to our level of intellect. We are no match for you.
If that is the conclusion you drew, hope it makes you happy.
Anything to make children content...😩
There are certain thought processes they will perceive only when they grow up.
Let's do something about it. Let's first go with it is their property and can "censor" anyone they want so our action will be to stop using their service. Now what's left? That we act because we believe they don't have the right to remove us from their property, how do we stop them?
Still angry, little boy?
I never advocated for more government regulations.
You are as illogical as the left is, so much so that you don't realize how controversial your argument is.
Don't use AR as your cover. Understand her first before you spew off your attacks.
👎
Alrighty then. So, Mr. Biggest, we want you here. We really, really, REALLY, do. HOWEVER, if you choose not to adhere to the few rules of our little business here, we're going to have to let you go. But, of course, the choice is yours.
So, have a look at the Gulch CoC ( https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#... ), and make a decision. Just know that if you decide you would like for us to hit the big red button and ban you, it's over. There is no coming back.
P.S. Please stick around (just sans the ad hom).
When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[10]
It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homi...
This has been surprisingly effective
Again, I will not do it again as the example of "free speech" vs TOS doesn't seem to sink in.
Downvoting all my posts just because one had an accurate judgement is ad hominem leftist tactic. No rebuttal, just attack
Just say “all lives matters” and you can be labeled a white racist.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dear-f...
You labeled this poster a “socialist pig.”
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Do you actually believe this poster wants “the people” to take over the means of production?”
Edit (clarifying my yes):
To state that:
"It is meaningless posturing to deny that only the gov can censor." Is to state that censorship is possible outside of government force, which is to neglect the difference between political and economic force. To believe that private businesses can censorship is to state that you believe your right's are being violated by the company. To believe that your rights are violated by private choice is to believe that you have a right to have "free speech" over the rights of property owners. To push to have your "free speech" while on someone elses property, is to want to violate the rights of property owners. The outcome of believing your right is violated is to get government involved so that the people can rise up and take over the choices of the property owners.
I disagree that believing a private businesses can censor is to state that you believe your right's are being violated by the company.
I believe a private company can censor, and that’s because of their property rights. It has nothing to do with free speech.
I also believe that the collusion between these “private” companies and political power (government) makes this issue much more complex.
Censorship was a word that was conceptualized at a time when only government power existed. In a country like America, there is no conceptual word for "removed for violating the terms of service or because the property owner did not want to support its antagonists". The whole issue is the package dealing of the old world of full government control and todays property rights.
If you want to call it censorship because reasons, and you believe that a private company can "censor" because they have the right to, then you are just playing rationalist analytic-synthetic word games.
https://youtu.be/cvaVBCWE27Y?t=308
Banning me for expressing my "free speech" proves my point. A website can ban anyone that violates the TOS.
If calling a socialist a socialist pig is uncivil, and promoting socialism is civil by the metrics of atlas society objectivism, then I would be happy to leave the gulch voluntarily.
Long ago inspired by Rush Limbaugh (Dingy Harry for Harry Reid) to do such stuff,
me dino may have created Cackles The Evil Hag but $hillary is not a board member.
And I do not run things here.
Just letting you know that not being civil toward another board member breaks a board rule.
Suzanne 43 can't censor you either. She came along after me dino landed here.
Why are you saying "Me dino"?
Just got through watching a DVD rental. Equalizer 2 drags. Me dino advises against it.
Why are you in character? What character?
Here the king of the Jurassic period finally gets bit parts~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cye3A...