Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Liberal thinking is more like reality? Really?
l

No.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
There is a difference.


Arguing about a specific House Resolution (HR 109), and/or politician (AOC) is going to (deservedly) get this thread shut down.

If anyone is interested in the Green New Deal, I suggest you go to the source, House Resolution 109.
H.Res.109 ➥ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...resolution/109
Full Text ➥ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

On the issue of news sources, as was said earlier, the problem is the bleed of “opinion” into what was excluslvely the “news” sections. It used to be that these two areas of the editorial departments were slickly separated. That’s why we had the Op-Ed pages clearly delineated from the News sections. We had the front roll of news on the TV broadcast, and then some Andy Rooneyish commentator to bring up the rear.

These days the actual news is hard to find and discern from the babblers. They’re all interwoven. Drives me absolutely bonkers to see editorial, or worse “opinion” or “commentary” or “analysis,” on the front page or the top stack of news casts. And I have no interest in the stupid ‘panel discussion’ format that now dominates most “news” TV coverage. These are simple bun fights used to trigger emotional responses. They feed all of our worst tendencies.

With this growth of impervious information bubbles, along with this bleed of editorial into news, it’s no wonder more and more of us are living in our own little worlds. It’s not good. Not good for society. Not good for democracy.

Well summarized Mike...
or a bit shorter.
"The Medium is the Message"

[wolfgal]

just to say how much i appreciate reading these discussions...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

No.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
There is a difference.

I would tend to disagree, although I'm not entirely clear what you mean.

Arguing about a specific House Resolution (HR 109), and/or politician (AOC) is going to (deservedly) get this thread shut down.

I agree, and a good point. Better to try and confine discussions related to politics to non-specific, nonpartisan topics.

If anyone is interested in the Green New Deal, I suggest you go to the source, House Resolution 109.
H.Res.109 ➥ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...resolution/109
Full Text ➥ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text

Thanks for the links.

[john61ct]

Large corporations are inherently regressive, pro-capital and striving to ever-increase their hegemony over our daily lives.

There are none that put social progress and the public good ahead of their profits.

They are a **much** greater threat to real freedom and liberty than government these days, and in fact they are the driving force behind governments' becoming more war-mongering and repressive, working against the interests of their ordinary citizens.

https://www.wired.com/story/google-a...limate-change/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The only way to respond to these two... is to ask for examples. Got any examples of what's been deleted or blocked - assuming they were later unblocked or hosted elsewhere? Or articles discussing these?

There's nothing that appeals to 99.9% of Americans, btw, except for maybe aerosol cheese.

Sorry, I meant 99.9% of all American gun owners, not all Americans. I think the latter number is closer to 43%, maybe more since I last checked.

Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickok45

"In 2016, Hickok45's YouTube channel was shut down twice, allegedly for violating YouTube's terms of service, however it was ultimately reinstated.

In April 2018, Hickok45's YouTube channel was again shut down for several hours. This shut down was following YouTube's change of policy in March 2018 which would ban videos that contained content that 'intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items.'"

Retired school teacher & former deputy sheriff. 4M subscribers with a combined total of 1.1 Billion views, and some videos getting 20M hits. Shows off different types of guns, gives historical perspective on military firearms, lots of safety instruction, plugs a few of his sponsors, encourages membership in the NRA (but doesn't otherwise talk gunny politics), and not even a hunter (unless you count shooting targets of animals made out of steel). Some vids suggest he's likely not even all that conservative.

As stated, his channel was removed a couple of times by youTube, as have a number of others. There has been a lot of concern expressed about removals and demonetizations. Whatever happened there was an outcry and he was restored, but now also posts his vids on another site which doesn't find the censorship thing quite as fashionable. And before you waste a lot of time with any sort of subjective gun bias or however you've been taught to respond, there's absolutely no hint of hate speech, white supremacy, survivalist themes, Armageddon, religious bigotry, conservative hate-mongering, or any of the long list of stereotypes that could trigger you , or more importantly trigger legitimate youTube censorship. Remember, the topic we're discussing is censorship by Google, NOT GUNS!!

Here is a statement of Google's policies re: firearms channels. We're not here to debate them.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en

I've personally never seen, and it's difficult to imagine this guy would violate any such otherwise legitimate & reasonable rules. He has denied doing so.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile;2822074Here ya go: [URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickok45[/URL]

...And before you waste a lot of time with any sort of subjective gun bias or however you've been taught to respond, there's absolutely no hint of hate speech, white supremacy, survivalist themes, Armageddon, religious bigotry, conservative hate-mongering, or any of the long list of stereotypes that could trigger you , or more importantly trigger legitimate youTube censorship. Remember, the topic we're discussing is censorship by Google, NOT GUNS!!

Fair enough.

This is ONE example. There's more, right?

Can't recall specifically if this was YouTube or something else, but one filtering attempt blocked videos discussing breast cancer and self examination. I didn't immediately assume that Google was in the grips of a bunch of prudes, women-haters or cancer-deniers.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Fair enough.

This is ONE example. There's more, right?

Can't recall specifically if this was YouTube or something else, but one filtering attempt blocked videos discussing breast cancer and self examination. I didn't immediately assume that Google was in the grips of a bunch of prudes, women-haters or cancer-deniers.

Not sure you'd get such a lengthy number of hits if you did a search for censorship on that particular topic, but you might want to "look around" a bit more. Hey, how'd this one get past the Google censors?

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/prageru...censorship-row

Another gunny guy who's channel is still up but who has devoted some vids to the censorship issue: https://www.youtube.com/user/DemolitionRanch. Like Hickok45, it's all harmless, goofball vids of silly gunny antics on his own ranch. Young guy who's a veterinarian in real life. Has another channel for his vet practice. Like I said, it's a big topic in the world of firearms. Not that there isn't likely to be a few honest-to-goodness lunatics in that world, but the usual stereotyping casts a ridiculously wide net. You understand about the dangers of stereotyping, right?

Love this guy, but given your predilections on the subject of free speech, I doubt you will. Here's a short vid (1:21) where he discusses a video he made about Google censorship which got . . . wait for it . . . censored by Google. But then restored a few hours later. Btw, Mr. Condell has some advice for those who offend easily that I wholeheartedly endorse:

"Nobody’s feelings were consulted during the making of this video. Anyone who has a problem with that can drop dead."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=san10etCf-8

Enough to get you started digging, or do you need more? Don't worry, it's all for our own good, right? Good thing we can rely on one of the biggest corporations in the world, with a virtual lock on the dissemination of information, to look after us so well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEl-RfbJUEs

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not sure you'd get such a lengthy number of hits if you did a search for censorship on that particular topic, but you might want to "look around" a bit more.

I will look around a bit more.

The cases you've shown so far are all "button-pushers" - they are presenting topics that are controversial, sometimes in ways intended to push the buttons of those most likely to offend, and I'm sure you know that American gun culture is not globally shared... I guess they're the pioneers, helping to find the boundaries of this new medium.

Youtube is a private business that has provided a platform that has enabled millions to host content for free, and the opportunity for users to make an income from their uploads (and make a boatload for Youtube as well, of course). I wonder to what extent they are actually obligated in law to provide a platform to anyone.

As i said before, it's is still a growing and evolving field. Maybe the tech monoliths will get broken up at some point and then, with many services competing for content and eyeballs, there will be be a willing home for just about any sort of content.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I will look around a bit more.

The cases you've shown so far are all "button-pushers" - they are presenting topics that are controversial, sometimes in ways intended to push the buttons of those most likely to offend, and I'm sure you know that American gun culture is not globally shared... I guess they're the pioneers, helping to find the boundaries of this new medium.

Youtube is a private business that has provided a platform that has enabled millions to host content for free, and the opportunity for users to make an income from their uploads (and make a boatload for Youtube as well, of course). I wonder to what extent they are actually obligated in law to provide a platform to anyone.

As i said before, it's is still a growing and evolving field. Maybe the tech monoliths will get broken up at some point and then, with many services competing for content and eyeballs, there will be be a willing home for just about any sort of content.

Yes, I agree they are all "button-pushers." If they weren't I don't think censorship would be an issue. That's the whole point.

As a private corporation they probably don't have any legal obligation and, as the sign says, have the right to refuse service to anyone. But we've discussed and I'm sure you realize the problems with large monopolies -- especially those with a dominant role in controlling & dissemination information -- having unfettered power to regulate information by censoring content.

The problem may wind up becoming self-correcting, as the more Google/youTube censors the more new sites are created and prosper from the censorship. It was a surprise to me too, but these gunny channels have huge numbers, and it's definitely not confined to the US.

[Exile]

"Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supr...te-speech.html

Scheduled for oral argument before the Court on February 25th.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supr...te-speech.html

Scheduled for oral argument before the Court on February 25th.

I’m unfamiliar with the details of this case, but if the headline is to be believed, then it will be a very interesting ruling. As I said, I don’t think voices are being silenced based on on these platforms (Google, FB, Youtube, etc) based on political ideology. I think it’s all about money and profit.

These are for-profit corporations. Their primary mission is to generate profit for their shareholders. The decisions they are making to silence some voices is based on a calculus that says they will loose more by letting them stay, vs kicking them off.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m unfamiliar with the details of this case, but if the headline is to be believed, then it will be a very interesting ruling. As I said, I don’t think voices are being silenced based on on these platforms (Google, FB, Youtube, etc) based on political ideology. I think it’s all about money and profit.

These are for-profit corporations. Their primary mission is to generate profit for their shareholders. The decisions they are making to silence some voices is based on a calculus that says they will loose more by letting them stay, vs kicking them off.

How could they be losing money letting them stay, at least in the examples I gave? Hickok45 with 4M subscribers and over a billion views?? I read that the guy makes $350K off youTube alone, so you can imagine what youTube is making.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

How could they be losing money letting them stay, at least in the examples I gave? Hickok45 with 4M subscribers and over a billion views?? I read that the guy makes $350K off youTube alone, so you can imagine what youTube is making.

By pissing more people off, and driving them away … I would speculate.

This kind of calculus happens all the time in media. Placing severed heads in the front page of a newspaper will increase the sales to a certain demographic, but overall it’s probably a money loser. I’d guess the same calculus happens here.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

By pissing more people off, and driving them away … I would speculate.

This kind of calculus happens all the time in media. Placing severed heads in the front page of a newspaper will increase the sales to a certain demographic, but overall it’s probably a money loser. I’d guess the same calculus happens here.

It would mean more people than not offended by the content actually bagging youTube entirely, wouldn't it? There are so many, very popular gunny-related channels it's hard to imagine. But possible I suppose. Unlike the front page of the newspaper, but thanks to the algorithms, you never even have to see a gunny channel, let alone watch it. But these days taking offense at all manner of things is certainly in vogue, so maybe you're right.

The Dennis Prager lawsuit seems more troubling. You may have seen his short "PragerU" videos where conservative positions on a wide variety of topics is presented in a simplified way. Pretty mainstream conservative stuff, nothing too out there. What if a popular channel like that has lots of views but is outnumbered by people who don't like conservative views simply flagging it? They may or may not outnumber the number of people who actually approve, but the flags perhaps outnumber the number of subscribers. Sorta like policies being approved or disapproved by the number of people who happen to show up at the city council meeting during the open comment period. They don't necessarily represent the majority view but just complain the loudest.

I don't know much about the Supreme Court case either. First I heard of it actually. From the article it looks like it doesn't directly involve Facebook, Twitter, etc., but a local public tv station that fired a couple of producers allegedly for making political comments, this time of the liberal bent. It's a First Amendment case, and normally such lawsuits are only actionable against a govt entity, not a private actor. So my (limited) understanding is that the issue comes down to whether a public tv station is sufficiently in the public sphere to be treated as a "state actor" for a constitutional violation to have been committed. The US Supremes take so few cases it must mean they believe it presents a significant public policy issue worthy of review, or lower appellate courts have already decided it but are divided. Should the Court rule that the public tv station is in fact a part of the public domain and the claims are therefore actionable, then it could open the door to a lot of similar lawsuits against the big social media companies, including the Prager case. But it only takes approval of four justices to grant review, but five (a majority) to decide a case. So how it comes out is anyone's guess, and First Amendment cases often don't get decided based on the Court's ideological divides.