Including the right to say “Fuck” on the radio? Without paying a fine to the FCC? (F for Federal, as in government…)
Why, could you imagine the reaction of red blooded conservatives driving in their cars, to church perhaps, hearing “Fuck, fuck, fuckity fuck” on their own car speakers?
They’d be calling for heads to roll.
Censorship, as you use the term, and “Freedom of speech” are not the same critter.
Although I share some instinctive discomfort with how much power Zuckerburg and the social media oligarchy appear to have, how much power do they really have? Can you lay out a realistic scenario of how this could all go horribly wrong?
I mean, let’s say Rupert Murdoch bought Facebook (setting aside the fact that this is beyond even Murdoch’s means), so instead of a quirky but reasonably benevolent Zuckerburg we now have the evil dictator Murdoch in charge. And Murdoch sets about censoring anything he doesn’t like. It seems to me all that would happen is that Facebook would instantly implode, everyone would abandon it. So I think the dominance of the social media behemoths is somewhat illusory. They are not selling some product that nobody else can manufacture. Their dominance as a forum for public discourse is really quite fragile, and entirely dependent on continued public goodwill.
They have some limited scope for setting the rules of engagement that we might not like, like @Miller’s ban, but I think they are naturally pretty heavily constrained from doing anything too unfair or unreasonable.
But, to be clear, you just okayed banning homophobes, as opposed to merely telling them to fuck off.
You were asked: “Serious question: Can Grindr ban homophobes from using their app?” Your reply was: “Certainly.”
Why is the first okay, and the second not okay?
You just said that bigots can be censored on Grindr, so I expect you already understand the answer to this question.
Everyone thinks censorship is a good thing. The only thing that’s ever really in dispute is where the line is drawn over what’s beyond the pale, and in what context.
Of course the answer is yes, you should have the right. If this was a thread about FoxNews, I don’t think the question would arise. FoxNews should have, as it does, the freedom to do what they do. They should keep the freedom. But I say they should exercise it differently.
Facebook is publicly held through Meta Platforms. It is not the toy of one man, and if he tries too hard to make it that, he will be removed as CEO.
Would you prefer a world where I can not only speak my mind on public property, but can also do it while on your property — and you can’t remove me? A world where, if you start publishing a newsletter, you can’t refuse when I ask you to publish my views there as well — every time? And so on?
Visuals? Yes, many should be censored, the most obvious example being child pornography .
Text? Only direct incitement to murder. So Facebook is right to block incitement to kill Muslims in Myanmar.
While it is their right to block Donald J. Trump, I think it was a mistake.
I think the argument is this one:
We can do better than that. How about,
cancel culture
n.
A set of predominating attitudes and behaviors in a group or organization characterized by total and radical disinvestment from public individuals and organizations in response to offensive or objectionable behavior
A set of predominating attitudes and behaviors in a group or organization characterized by a tendency to protest offensive or objectionable behavior by boycotting public individuals and organizations who have not totally and radically disinvested themselves from such behavior
Random selected commentary on “cancel culture” in the spoiler. I found it interesting that for example the Hannity quote seems to support cancel culturedef 1 but oppose cancel culturedef 2. Actually I was having difficulty finding transcripts of Hannity or Carlson speaking about cancel culture by name.
Click to show/hide commentary
"I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is this sense sometimes of: 'The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people,' and that’s enough. Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, 'Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out.'
[Then he pretended to sit back and press the remote to turn on a television.]
"That's not activism. That's not bringing about change. If all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far. That's easy to do."
~Barack Obama, former President of the United States, speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit on 10/30/2019 (described as a criticism of cancel culture by The New York Times on 10/31/2019)
"Cancel culture is a little bit like fake news. It’s a term that means everything and nothing. It’s just shouted out there as a signal. If you say that the Suess family choosing to not publish some books is cancel culture, then you have no idea what that means."
~Dan Pfeiffer, former Senior Advisor to President Obama for Strategy and Communications, interview for Slate Magazine, published 04/14/2021
"In case you think we are overstating Frank Luntz's allegiance to corporate power, take a look at his Twitter feed sometime if you're ever bored, quote: 'Delta employees made them the top-rated airline,' he wrote last January in what sounded very much like a press release. 'That's something only good workers can do, not shareholders.'
"Then not long ago when Donald Trump called for boycotting Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines, after they interfered in a very shocking way, right in the middle of Georgia's political system, Luntz came to the defense of them. Of course, they're his clients.
" 'This left-wing cancel culture is out of control.' He wrote mockingly."
~Tucker Carlson, talk show host, on his 04/30/2021 Tucker Carlson Tonight broadcast (transcript on Fox News)
"The only way I can do one more special is if it’s at the end of my television career because it will end my television career. We're in the cancel culture now. No stand-up that is sponsor-driven can say anything he wants to. Chris Rock can't. Kevin Hart can't. Cedric the Entertainer can't. D.L. Hughley can't. I can go down the list. The only person that can say what they want to say on stage is Dave Chappelle because he's not sponsor-driven. He's subscription-driven.
"If I had tried to continue as a stand-up, there's no way I could maintain it. Political correctness has killed comedy. Every joke you tell now, it hurts somebody’s feelings. But what people don’t understand about comedians is that a joke has to be about something. It has to be about somebody. We can't write jokes about puppies all the time. The joke can’t be about bushes all the time. Some of these jokes will have to be about people, because that’s the most interesting topic. So if I come back, I'll have to wait until I’m done. And I'm not done. I want to do one more. I'll probably have to call it 'This Is It.' "
~Steve Harvey, entertainer, speaking at the Television Association Press Tour, as reported by Variety on 01/11/2022
"But here's the great thing about living in a free country, if you don't like what Whoopi Goldberg said, guess what? Change the channel. If you don't like her show, change the channel. You don't like Stephen Colbert, Kimmel or Fallon constantly shilling for Democrats, telling bad jokes, don't watch it. No one is forcing you to. You don't have to tune in. Censorship via big government, corporations is never the answer.
"Tonight, I'm calling on everyone on all these other networks, you're on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, fake news CNN, you need to denounce censorship and stop with the boycotts and stop with the feigned moral outrage and you know what? None of you are perfect either and when you make a mistake, you should get the same forgiveness if you're sincere in your apology."
~Sean Hannity, talk show host, on his 02/01/2022 broadcast of Hannity (tagged "cancel culture" on Fox News)
"You talk about cancel culture, but notice that those discussions only go one way. We don’t talk about all the people who were fired. You just kind of talk about, like, right-leaning podcast bros and more conservative figures. But, for example, Marc Lamont Hill was fired for discussing an issue with respect to Palestinians, pretty summarily."
~Alexandrio Ocasio-Cortez, U.S. Representative for New York's 14th District, interview for The New Yorker, published 02/14/2022
~Max
That is indeed an argument. And my question was, and is: would you prefer that world, or this one?
Mine’s punchier.
And my response is that proposals for government regulation of social media giants do not entail the broad denial of property rights that you hyperbolically imply. I don’t think I favor such government regulation, but I prefer to argue against real propositions than straw men.
Well, look, as long as you don’t favor such government regulation, I don’t much care whether you’re arguing against real propositions or straw men — or whether you’re confusing X Implying Stuff with Y Inferring Stuff — or whether a hyperbole is or isn’t in play. What interests me is whether you get the part that matters right.
I first noticed virtue signaling a few years back in conversations revolving around privilege, race, sexual orientation, ableism, and wealth online. Very often it would look something like: I’m a cis-hetero white dude who is aware of my privilege… and then they’d continue with whatever point they wanted to make. Some people interpret virtue signaling as self-aggrandizing statements, and there’s probably an element of truth to it, but I tend to emphasize the second part of the phrase, signaling. When someone typed out that they were a “cis-hetero white due aware of their privilege” it’s their way of telling everyone in the thread what camp they’re in. It’s their way of saying, “I’m one of you.” Virtue signaling seems rather benign to me.
Cancel culture, or call out culture, seems a little more worrisome to me and it’s a sticky wicket. At times it seems to me people are suffering from the consequences of the things they said rather than cancel culture. Gina Carano famously lost her job on The Mandalorian, likely lost an opportunity to star in a Star Wars series of her own because of comments she made that her employer Disney felt reflected poorly on them with the final straw being her comparison of hating someone for their political views to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust. Cancel or consequence? I’m going to go with consequence on this one but other times it’s not nearly so clear. And it isn’t just right win pundits who are concerned about cancel culture. You can find actual dyed-in-the-wool leftist on YouTube with videos about it.
The case against “cancel culture” is there is not a universally accepted standard for what is considered “acceptable” when it comes to creatives works. For example, most people would argue that using the “N word” is not acceptable in polite society. I personally think saying “the N word” is stupid because everyone knows what word you mean. But I digress.
So what should be the penalty for using the “N word”? Should a person lose their job or business? Be banned from all future employment as a registered racist? Should we ban the works of Quentin Tarantino, Mel Brooks, and other white artists who have used it in their works? Should any artistic work with any racial overtones be banned?
For that matter, why is “racism” considered such an unforgivable form of “being a jerk”?
You see my point.
I’m just against any group arbitrarily determining what is considered “good taste” for the entire country.
To me “virtue signaling” is a disingenuous attempt to ingratiate yourself with a more liberally-minded audience. Usually for some personal gain and requiring minimal effort.
For example:
- Using “preferred pronouns” on Linkedin. Less than 0.5% of Americans identify as “transgendered”. Statistically speaking, most people probably use the pronouns you think they would use. If you legitimately identify as a different gender than your physical appearance might indicate, sure. But what would be the point of a traditional-looking male like me to specifically call that out?
Or like companies hiring “Diversity & Inclusion” executives to host webinars and talk about social issues when 80% of the employees and 90% of leadership are of a single demographic?
To me, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee in protest and jeopardizing his lucrative NFL career is legit. 20-something hipsters sitting in coffee shops with BLM stickers on their Macbooks is “virtue signaling”.
It wouldn’t hurt to be consistent. A teenager who wears a Trump hat gets threats of violence from members of this board. A prime minister in black face? Where’s the outrage?
It’s absolutely true that at this point in time cancel culture is a bludgeon used via provoking a Pavlovian response from simple minded followers amplified by modern mass media.
That definitely wasn’t the case with boycotting the Apartheid government in South Africa in the 80s. We did want it to not exist.