Some will “this is fine”, others “it’s their site, so why not”
It being their site is irrelevant, the site is nothing without our engagement. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should. Period.
This censorship movement is just getting worse & worse & worse in real time before our eyes.
YouTube has the same exact issue, these sites think they have to be the Authoritarian State of righteousness at the expense of people’s fullest experience ie. being able to actually enjoy the site’s good, along with the bad. A diverse experience.
Because what’s going to happen is they’re going to keep adding more and more criteria, moving the goal post here & there until no one is going to be able to do or say anything unless it’s one narrative and one narrative only.
That’s how fascism operates, the worst decisions ever made usually begin from good intentions. Censorship on a creative platform is just asinine.
You go out of your way to protect people, you’re not helping them. Shielding people from things they don’t like is going to make them ill-prepared for the situations if they have to deal with it in real life — on an emotional level.
You’d be surprised how many people just pull out their phones to supplant a reaction in a crisis, or just freeze up or don’t know how to process it because they’re so used to being kept in a crib on social media where everything is amazing & “inclusive”.
Same with Reddit, same with YouTube, etc.
A culture like that cultivates weak people, the effects of social media on our psychology in real-time is not a joke, it’s a real phenomenon.
True Inclusiveness includes negativity, hence Inclusive. You don’t simply redefine what Inclusive means to be strictly urban dictionary because there’s a specific group or 2 that you want to feel exceptional: That’s what this is really about.
Or the usual suspect: Controlling Information
Misinformation
Conspiracy theories that are unfounded and claim that certain events or situations are carried out by covert or powerful groups, such as “the government” or a “secret society”
Moderate harm health misinformation, such as an unproven recommendation for how to treat a minor illness
Repurposed media, such as showing a crowd at a music concert and suggesting it is a political protest
Misrepresenting authoritative sources, such as selectively referencing certain scientific data to support a conclusion that is counter to the findings of the study
Unverified claims related to an emergency or unfolding event
Potential high-harm misinformation while it is undergoing a fact-checking review
Very convenient. So with that said, “misinformation” is whatever you say it is, or if a certain entity or two decides they want you to silence someone who’s talking too much, you have it in the rules that you can shut them up by just labelling their speech (factual or not) as “misinformation.”
Very VERY convenient clause there. Because as we all know, the only reliable source are the one’s controlled by the powers that be, that’s never gone south ever in human history, only the branded corporations with clear bias & political leanings: Are the one’s you should listen to.
Right.
Not Inclusiveness, exceptionality. Emotional preservation. A bubble. Control.
To exclude an aspect of an experience because you “feel” it’s harmful is admirable, but it’s not diversity.
Diversity is broad expanse of different experiences, if you’re censoring because you want people to experience what you want them to, according to your own dogma, that’s not diversity, that’s an echo chamber. A singular digest.
No comments:
Post a Comment