Facebook goes full tilt Orwellian... Bans "dangerous" commentators, including Farrakhan.

"Orwellian" as an adjective generally refers to the ideas presented in 1984.

 

Let's agree that you should answer my questions.

 

or animal farm

 

Sigh.

Or·wel·li·an
/ôrˈwelēən/
adjective
adjective: Orwellian

1. characteristic of the writings of George Orwell, especially with reference to his dystopian account of a future totalitarian state in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

 

He wrote 14 books, and a bunch of essays. In any case, Orwell was using 1984 to complain about authoritarian societies. To show how bad they can be. To be Orwellian as Orwell was Orwellian, is to criticize a propaganda led society. Orwell would have been horrified by the current rhetoric coming out of the right, as am I.

 

Russia is our ally, they have always been our ally. France is our enemy, they have always been our enemy.

Goldstein, er Obama is leading a secret plot to overthrow our dear leader.

 

Sigh

 

The common usage of the adjective "Orwellian" usually refers to the ideas presented in his most recognized work, 1984.

Or·wel·li·an
/ôrˈwelēən/
adjective

1. characteristic of the writings of George Orwell, especially with reference to his dystopian account of a future totalitarian state in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

​

I don't care how you choose to use it, but this is how I am using it.

 

Don't like dictionaries?

 

Errrm? Call us when the shuttle lands?

 

It seems to me that corporations have a long record of similar behaviors.... the ed sullivan show banned lots of acts, radio stations prohibited playing Beatles music, youtube has all sorts of rules, and for that matter, fox is not a particular exemplar in promoting free speech

If some facebook alternative wants to form a business model based upon providing an unrestricted platform for even the most vile content.... i think that business opportunity is open

Facebook obviously thinks that their business model will be more successful if they present themselves as a “ responsible” corporate citizen... as opposed to a unmoderated free speech venue

Btw... do you think your proposed facebook free speech policy should extend to things like jihadist videos, beheading videos, live streaming lynching videos, child porn, etc. i am guessing you are ok with those sort of free speech restrictions.

As you said in your post, facebook is a private corporation that can structure their services as they choose. They are not obligated to have any version of free speech. That said.... Facebook is not preventing the free speech of any people that you mentioned. They simply choose not to have these people as public representatives of their profit making product

Btw, i almost never use facebook. Generally I choose not to patronize them. However, i do use their service when it suits my needs. I presume others have similar options

 

Broadcasting is probably not the best analogy as content is heavily-regulated by the FCC as you know (in a show of authoritarian nanny statism).

Of course.

Actually FB is expressing its political beliefs, in my view, by ejecting users whose messages it disagrees with under the rubric "terms of service." And it is certainly free to do that. But it is worth noting, hence this thread.

Moving the goalposts a bit. Child porn is a criminal act -- as it should be. Beheading video =/= presentation of ideas contrary to FB management's political beliefs. None of the people FB has booted are posting gruesome videos, rather they are expressing unpopular beliefs in the estimation of FB management. And, again, I have stated unequivocally that FB has every right to control the content on its site.

Which is why I did not claim FB is "preventing free speech." Baby straw man there...

I would never use FB as a news source, or as a political discussion vehicle (that's what this place is for). I use FB to post pictures of my dogs mostly. I have a few friends who constantly post political diatribes (left and right). It is tiresome, so I ignore them.[/quote]

 

Fox news is a cable outlet and not so regulated

And they are as entitled to do so as is fox news

Yes, cp is illegal... but i am sure there is plenty of unpalatable material that is legal and which fb would ban

[/QUOTE]

 

all should force them to allow hate on their servers... or create a new server for such speech for those that want it... I say if enough people want it, someone will create it

course such a site may face legal liabilities too, if suck speech led to violence

isn't there a site like char4 that that last shooter used?

 

Yes. We should not allow monopolistic sites like twitter to censor speech any more than we should allow monopolistic ISPs to censor speech (think net neutrality).

 

The fact that it is there private property is precisely why it is completely nonsense (should I doublespeak?) to call it "Orwellian" or to characterize it as "suppressing speech."

 

No, don't like posters such as yourself.

 

For quoting a dictionary definition?

FYI, I am not the topic of this thread.

 

They are incapable of violating a citizen's free speech rights, you are correct. Only the state can do that... not that it should, and not that it doesn't routinely do so...

That said, when private organizations make moves like this (universities, social platforms, etc), it certainly violates the principle of free speech. And I think that is equally dangerous to our precious liberties and our ability to freely express, debate, and participate in the marketplace of ideas. YMMV.

 

I was specifically referencing your comments about Ed Sullivan and radio stations not playing certain songs. When I worked in college radio, there were a lot of songs we chose not to play because we refused to 'bleep' an artist's performance (we were such rebels). This was before the days of easy nonlinear digital editing which turns an 'F-bomb' into a fluffy puppy. The FCC dictates "standards and practices" and there is no getting around the iron fist of the government censors. Fox news could show hardcore pornography if it wanted to, you're right, but I'm not sure I see the relevance to the post. FB is a private enterprise that provides a public platform for people to communicate. That said, most forms of censorship are objectionable in my view. The market should decide what content it wishes to consume.

Of course. And I would not (and have not) argue otherwise.

Oh yeah, sure.

 

so you think sites like politicalforum should not be allowed to have a TOS?

they own the servers, they should not be forced to say what others want them to say, anymore then fox should have to let just anyone have a prime spot on their channel

 

not just anyone can teach a class at a university, content is censored

should Christian schools be forced to allow Muslims teachers?

can we force a Muslim business to serve pork?

it's a slippery slope when you force owners to provide content against their wishes

 

No. Little sites are OK.

It is the monopolistic sites that need government regulation. And I do endorse the"fairness doctrine." So yes, Fox should be compelled to offer equal time to the opposition, as well as CNN and MSNBC.

 

I am not suggesting forcing anyone to do anything. Please read my OP.

Would you force a bakery to bake a cake they found objectionable?

 

Oh, I see. "Little sites" are OK. Who decides what's "little"? And who decides what's considered "fair"? Who would be the "fair" counterpoint to Tucker Carlson? You might say Wolf Blitzer, while I might say, "Yeah right. Maybe Rachel Maddow", while someone else might say "Another corporate stooge? No thanks. Put on Chris Hedges."

You really want the government involved in this? That's a silly question by the way. Of course you don't.