1984 in 2018

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _DarkHelmet »

canpakes wrote:If only faux conservatives like Water Dog were concerned about the actual victims wrapped up in the InfoWars brouhaha ...

When radio host Alex Jones published a video in 2017 titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” the parents of a little boy killed in the Sandy Hook shooting bought security alarms for their homes, fearful that they would once again be harassed by Jones’ legion of followers convinced the shooting never happened.

Now a lawyer for Jones wants to make the parents’ home addresses public.

Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa lost 6-year-old Noah in 2012 when a gunman stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six adults. More than five years later, they still get harassed by conspiracy theorists claiming the shooting was all a hoax.

Their harassment has led to a defamation lawsuit against Jones, who has fueled the conspiracy fires for years by claiming interviews with the parents and media outlets were faked and that the shooting may have never happened. A Texas judge is currently reviewing whether Jones’ motion to dismiss the case has any merit. In the meantime, Jones’ lawyer is seeking to open the floodgates for dangerous parties to easily find the Sandy Hook parents.

In new court filings obtained by Huffington Post, Pozner and De La Rosa, who live separately, describe the steps they took in the wake of Jones reigniting the hoax theory...


That' disgusting. I can understand defending even the most vile speech on principle, but there are a surprising number of right-wingers who love Alex Jones and everything he stands for. One of them is our President.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _Gadianton »

water dog wrote:At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?


The thread has really taken off as this was from page 1. But my main point would be, I'm not too worried about censoring Alex Jones -- especially when we're talking about independent for-profit businesses censoring him, and not unequal application of law. If the protagonist in 1984 were similar to Jones, and the censorship occurring was through private enterprise, and the speaking crime was speaking as outrageously as possible and lying as much as possible, I'm thinking not many copies would have been sold.

I mean, Jones and others like him are re-writing history in the most facile way possible. Jones would be just like the government media was in the book. The difference is, that Jones is lying to an audience that openly consents to being lied too, rather than employing actual deceptive practices that are tricking people.

So the real question is, what do we think about protecting the right to lie, and the right of people to join in on the lie pretty much knowing it's a lie (and who think it's funnier and cooler because it is a lie), and for the movement to grow larger and larger and increase in power to the point it's a force to be reckoned with? It's somewhat like a pyramid scheme or tulip mania.

To seriously consider this, Water Dog, I think we must recognize that freedom is argued for in two very different ways -- as a good in itself, and as an means to an end -- an optimization principle.

Freedom as a good in itself says we should allow people to be free for the sake of being free -- so if people wish to start a religion that reveals a cosmic spaceship is hiding behind a comet and openly preach mass suicide to get there, then we should protect their right to be free. Freedom as an optimization principle -- the incentives of freedom provide the invisible hand that creates markets -- isn't so committed. In the case of market failures, the motive for freedom erodes.

Wikipedia is a pretty good example I think of a market approach to documenting human knowledge that does really well on average in increasing the quality of information on the planet.

social media -- Facebook, youtube, and whatever, is an epic example of market failure in terms of getting the best information to the surface. But who are we to say its a failure anymore than Hale Bop was a failure? If people enjoy freely expressing themselves in any way they see fit, and if other people freely appreciate the expression on terms that have nothing to do with quality of information, then who are we to say they are wrong, if we value freedom in itself?

In the case of freedom for its own sake, the only argument to curtail it is when one person's freedom takes away another's. We protect it even if it produces a massive pile of crap. However, in another view of freedom, if freedom isn't optimizing, then there's a reason to take it away.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Gadianton wrote:
water dog wrote:At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?


The thread has really taken off as this was from page 1. But my main point would be, I'm not too worried about censoring Alex Jones -- especially when we're talking about independent for-profit businesses censoring him, and not unequal application of law. If the protagonist in 1984 were similar to Jones, and the censorship occurring was through private enterprise, and the speaking crime was speaking as outrageously as possible and lying as much as possible, I'm thinking not many copies would have been sold.

I mean, Jones and others like him are re-writing history in the most facile way possible. Jones would be just like the government media was in the book. The difference is, that Jones is lying to an audience that openly consents to being lied too, rather than employing actual deceptive practices that are tricking people.

So the real question is, what do we think about protecting the right to lie, and the right of people to join in on the lie pretty much knowing it's a lie (and who think it's funnier and cooler because it is a lie), and for the movement to grow larger and larger and increase in power to the point it's a force to be reckoned with? It's somewhat like a pyramid scheme or tulip mania.

To seriously consider this, Water Dog, I think we must recognize that freedom is argued for in two very different ways -- as a good in itself, and as an means to an end -- an optimization principle.

Freedom as a good in itself says we should allow people to be free for the sake of being free -- so if people wish to start a religion that reveals a cosmic spaceship is hiding behind a comet and openly preach mass suicide to get there, then we should protect their right to be free. Freedom as an optimization principle -- the incentives of freedom provide the invisible hand that creates markets -- isn't so committed. In the case of market failures, the motive for freedom erodes.

Wikipedia is a pretty good example I think of a market approach to documenting human knowledge that does really well on average in increasing the quality of information on the planet.

social media -- Facebook, youtube, and whatever, is an epic example of market failure in terms of getting the best information to the surface. But who are we to say its a failure anymore than Hale Bop was a failure? If people enjoy freely expressing themselves in any way they see fit, and if other people freely appreciate the expression on terms that have nothing to do with quality of information, then who are we to say they are wrong, if we value freedom in itself?

In the case of freedom for its own sake, the only argument to curtail it is when one person's freedom takes away another's. We protect it even if it produces a massive pile of crap. However, in another view of freedom, if freedom isn't optimizing, then there's a reason to take it away.


This is an excellent post! Lots of points worth discussing, but I would like to highlight the last paragraph that I bolded. Alex Jones' free speech has eroded the freedoms of others. Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner have been threatened and harassed for five years, forcing them to move seven times. Other Sandy Hook parents have experienced the same thing. Is it optimizing to protect one man's right to make other people's lives a living hell?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _Water Dog »

Gadianton wrote:
water dog wrote:At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?


The thread has really taken off as this was from page 1. But my main point would be, I'm not too worried about censoring Alex Jones -- especially when we're talking about independent for-profit businesses censoring him, and not unequal application of law. If the protagonist in 1984 were similar to Jones, and the censorship occurring was through private enterprise, and the speaking crime was speaking as outrageously as possible and lying as much as possible, I'm thinking not many copies would have been sold.

I mean, Jones and others like him are re-writing history in the most facile way possible. Jones would be just like the government media was in the book. The difference is, that Jones is lying to an audience that openly consents to being lied too, rather than employing actual deceptive practices that are tricking people.

So the real question is, what do we think about protecting the right to lie, and the right of people to join in on the lie pretty much knowing it's a lie (and who think it's funnier and cooler because it is a lie), and for the movement to grow larger and larger and increase in power to the point it's a force to be reckoned with? It's somewhat like a pyramid scheme or tulip mania.

To seriously consider this, Water Dog, I think we must recognize that freedom is argued for in two very different ways -- as a good in itself, and as an means to an end -- an optimization principle.

Freedom as a good in itself says we should allow people to be free for the sake of being free -- so if people wish to start a religion that reveals a cosmic spaceship is hiding behind a comet and openly preach mass suicide to get there, then we should protect their right to be free. Freedom as an optimization principle -- the incentives of freedom provide the invisible hand that creates markets -- isn't so committed. In the case of market failures, the motive for freedom erodes.

Wikipedia is a pretty good example I think of a market approach to documenting human knowledge that does really well on average in increasing the quality of information on the planet.

social media -- Facebook, youtube, and whatever, is an epic example of market failure in terms of getting the best information to the surface. But who are we to say its a failure anymore than Hale Bop was a failure? If people enjoy freely expressing themselves in any way they see fit, and if other people freely appreciate the expression on terms that have nothing to do with quality of information, then who are we to say they are wrong, if we value freedom in itself?

In the case of freedom for its own sake, the only argument to curtail it is when one person's freedom takes away another's. We protect it even if it produces a massive pile of crap. However, in another view of freedom, if freedom isn't optimizing, then there's a reason to take it away.


In other words, the greater good? A bit of a subject change. Others here are lying and pretending the censorship isn't happening. You not only concede it's happening, but argue it's necessary to maximize freedom. A much better argument. Honest arguments, at the very least, can be engaged. I'm not really all that familiar with Alex Jones, what I know of him, certainly won't be crying any tears over his banishment. (I'm not sure he is actually banished, however. That itself is a separate subject, but censoring people like Jones often gives them even more power.) My opinion though is that he's just a pawn in a bigger game. Liberals loved Alex Jones before they hated him. This stuff with Sandy Hook is also old. The timing suggests this isn't about Jones, it's about setting the stage for broader censorship and influencing midterms, not of obvious nut jobs like Jones, but of conservative voices broadly.

The appropriate way to deal with someone like Jones is how he was already being dealt with prior to this. Sue him. Part of the move here may also be to put some distance between InfoWars and the rest of the media. This lawsuit with Jones likely will go to Supreme Court and have far-reaching implications no matter which side the court ends up on. Trump has been calling for the media to be held accountable. Here is a private citizen trying to do just that. The Jones' case is likely to be the one that answers this question, can a media outlet be sued and held liable for misreporting? If so, ROFL.

This is also separate from the matter of whether Facebook or any other social media constitute a public forum monopoly that warrants regulation. A completely fair point to consider. Folks around here reject the idea that Facebook is a monopoly (because they want it to have the freedom to censor conservatives), but can't seem to articulate any argument beyond name calling. And then immediately contradict themselves with talk of Russian meddling. Which is it? Does Facebook have notable impact on our political discourse and influence election outcomes or not? Goodness, supreme courts have ruled that even a shopping mall constitutes a public forum. A shopping mall! And that even though it is privately owned, it is a public space where the private owner cannot limit the free speech of people occupying the space. If that kind of argument can be made for a shopping mall, it can be made times a billion for Facebook. Literally.

It is the largest public forum on the planet. There are 214 million Facebook users just in the USA. And those are predominately voting-aged people. Virtually every able-bodied voter in the United States is on Facebook. It is the biggest public forum monopoly in the history of the world. If Mark Zuckerberg can unilaterally discriminate and regulate people's speech on Facebook, this gives him the power to abrogate speech that takes place in society broadly. I frankly would love to leave Facebook, but I can't. Leaving Facebook is the modern equivalent of moving out into the hills and living as a hermit. It's no different than a telephone. Or access to the internet. If Facebook were to ban me, because they don't like something I said, they would literally be cutting me off from my family. Just like denying me a car or a phone, I would literally lose my ability to participate in modern society. Which is really kind of amazing given how quickly this new society has formed. In just a decade.

EXTENDING PRUNEYARD: CITIZENS' RIGHT TO DEMAND PUBLIC ACCESS CABLE CHANNELS, NYU Law Review wrote:An appreciation of the importance of diverse viewpoints and of the commingling of those viewpoints in a democratic society animates the protection of public speech achieved by the public forum doctrine.8 This Note proposes that cable access advocates should ground a similar claim to access under the public forum doctrine as it has been interpreted in state courts. Cable television, and soon the new technologies of communication labeled the "information superhighway," will far outstrip the shopping mall in altering the terms and domain of public discourse.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _SteelHead »

Public Access channels..... Who funded those?

Bad analogy is bad.

Your apology WD is more like demanding CNN carry Wayne's World during primetime on CNN instead of the cable companies making channels available for individual or publicly funded content on a Public Access channel.

Jones has a variety of media venues that he can publish through. He does not have a right to some private forum.

If his ISP or hosting company was refusing to carry his content your analogy might be more apt.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _Water Dog »

SteelHead wrote:Public Access channels..... Who funded those?

Read the dern paper. The argument is that private cable networks have to allow public access channels. They must be provided bandwidth on the TV network. Facebook = TV Network = Phone Network. Jones being allowed to have a Facebook page, like everyone else, is being allowed to access the network and have bandwidth on it.

Liberals have argued for years that even a single radio station is a "subnetwork" where equal bandwidth must be provided. This is the Fairness Doctrine, which at one point was law. I do not find this argument persuasive in the least. People can change the radio channel. They can click "unfollow" or "unfriend." A single channel within a vast network is not a monopoly. It is the network as a whole that is a monopoly.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _Maksutov »

Yep. Fewer Alex Jones hits is exactly like Orwell's novel. :lol: :lol: :lol:

There ain't no snowflake like a triggered white "patriot" Christian snowflake. With a gun. You just know there's screaming and shooting coming. Because Big Brother. :lol: :lol: :lol:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_schreech
_Emeritus
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _schreech »

Water Dog wrote:Image


Dude, you really want to be right here and I don't have any illusion that anyone will change your mind even though reality, the law and common sense are all against you at this point. You are wrong and no amount of false equivalency is going to change that. What I find humorous at this point is watching someone who claims to be conservative (I get that trumpets are RHINO's, at best) argue that the govt should step in and regulate a private business instead of letting the free market manage the content that Facebook chooses, as a private business, to allow. Alas, self professed conservatives only seem to care about deregulation and a free and open marketplace when it doesn't negatively affect the side that they blindly choose to follow. For instance:

https://www.bustle.com/p/this-anti-trump-tax-plan-commercial-wont-be-aired-by-fox-news-but-you-can-still-watch-it-6739407 - fox news has a monopoly on conservative viewership and is the #1 primetime news network, so why arent you bitching about them not allowing this (and other left leaning commercials) to be aired? Could it be that you are a hypocrite? Fox news is a channel that actually claims to be news, not just a social media company, that refuses to allow the other side any voice but you don't seem to care because, and Im guessing here, your arbitrary use of the word "monopoly" doesn't cover this situation.

I still thinks its hilarious that you continue to act like Facebook fits the criteria of a monopoly (and that alex jones is a conservative - lol). The fact that they are dwarfed by google in ad revenues, people have and use dozens of other choices for social media, people have and use dozens of other options for connecting with their friends, Facebook is a SOCIAL media company which is free to use and, much like television, I can switch to another social media channel any time I choose. Nothing Facebook has done has limited competition, ability to do business and nothing they have done limits anyone's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Again, just because you have chosen to believe something, doesn't make it true.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _canpakes »

I frankly would love to leave Facebook, but I can't. Leaving Facebook is the modern equivalent of moving out into the hills and living as a hermit.

Lol. What a crock of crap. The last time I posted anything on Facebook was about three years ago, and the sum total of all of my activity there probably fills a single page. Yet I seem to have a fully functional work and social life and manage to interact with friends and family entirely without it. I know a lot of folks who do the same. There is something very wrong with your thinking and social strategy if you actually believe that your life will be relegated to hermit status without it.

And your dysfunctional dependence on Facebook still doesn’t compel it to make Infowars crap available to your feed. Learn to use a browser to get your daily fill of BS instead of expecting some other source to drop it off in your lap free of effort. It’s the least you can do.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: 1984 in 2018

Post by _Some Schmo »

canpakes wrote: Lol. What a crock of crap. The last time I posted anything on Facebook was about three years ago, and the sum total of all of my activity there probably fills a single page. Yet I seem to have a fully functional work and social life and manage to interact with friends and family entirely without it. I know a lot of folks who do the same. There is something very wrong with your thinking and social strategy if you actually believe that your life will be relegated to hermit status without it.

And your dysfunctional dependence on Facebook still doesn’t compel it to make Infowars crap available to your feed. Learn to use a browser to get your daily fill of BS instead of expecting some other source to drop it off in your lap free of effort. It’s the least you can do.

It's so strange to me that there are people who think their social life would end without Facebook. What the hell did people do in the 90's?

I use Facebook to say happy birthday to relatives that I don't want to call. That's the extent of my Facebook use. I wonder if my password is going to still work every time I log in, given how long it's been since the last time. My life would barely change if Facebook was wiped from the Earth, and any changes would be an improvement (I'm tired of people telling me to go like things).
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Post Reply