How is it [the president making baseless claims] dangerous for democracy? What if the opposite is true? What if censoring thoughts is the real danger for democracy?
I am not saying I have proof for any of this. But I guess, that's true for your claim, too. I think it would be wise to rephrase it so that it doesn't sound like a fact.
It's dangerous for democracy because he's using those baseless claims to support explicit calls for antidemocratic actions - he's asked multiple governors to throw out their states' election results for him.
Part of the democratic process is to defend itself against such attacks. If the defence is suppressing speech, then that might signal that democracy is not strong enough to deal with these issues. An easy win for the attacker.
It's a pity that we aren't capable of sustaining a situation like that without dismantling the very core of the democratic system: freedom of speech.
You raise an interesting point and I upvoted because of it. Our democracy should be able to withstand this attack, yes. Having to resort to censorship would very clearly fuel the attackers.
At the same time, there's an awful lot at stake here and I'm not sure we can simply trust that the good side will win. A laissez-faire approach to some of this content may very credibly lead to violence the scale of which this country hasn't witnessed in 150 years.
Of course we cannot simply trust that the good side will win. The people that want to retain the democratic system have to defend it. And I count myself among these people. It's hard for me to watch what is happening, too.
All I'm saying is that democracy is built upon free speech. Without it, it cannot work.
You cannot defend a system by destroying its foundation. It's a trap.
It's a great insight that "You cannot defend a system by destroying its foundation."
Continuing along that line of thinking: the "good side" can't possibly be the one participating in a cover-up, trying to brush aside all the evidence of fraud.
The people who want to retain our republic have to defend it.
> It's a pity that we aren't capable of sustaining a situation like that without dismantling the very core of the democratic system: freedom of speech.
Huh? Look it up again. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever you want any place you desire. Referring to the First Amendment, it protects from governmental repercussion. Google's censorship of its users presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved.
By censoring what is said on it's platform, Google is exercising it's own free speech. Google has a right to censor dangerous and shitty takes on it's platform. You have zero rights to be heard on Google's platforms.
Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.
Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience. It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.
The internet has driven the pareto distribution of attention to such extremes that we now are in this mess. There is no getting out of this by engaging in the hairsplitting of an old legal text.
> Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.
No it doesn't. Obviously you aren't grasping the concept of free speech (and its limits).
> Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience.
As is its legal right to do so.
> It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.
"Quasi government" is a meaningless word and doesn't really help your argument. Why would it have to act as a neutral platform?
Ok, I accept that you are not willing to look beyond the current state of legal affairs, regardless of whether Google/YouTube is so large it becomes an example of a de facto public space. And how to treat these kinds of platforms with regard to freedom of speech is an ongoing legal discussion — far from being over.
Let me make it simple for you: Sticking to your (in my opinion very limited) model of looking at the world, how do you make sure Google doesn't become a puppet of some government now or in the future? Do you really think the people in that organization are able to handle the amount of power they have over a reasonably long time without getting corrupted? Would it then fall into your narrow definition of freedom of speech?
Our current state of law is not equipped to deal with that kind of behemoth and needs to evolve.
Btw.: It would help your argument to avoid provocative statements like implying that I might not be grasping a concept. Your text looks like you are trying to defend a political position.
Anyone can make claims. No one is required to give them a platform if there's no reason to take anything they say seriously. Until they present well-reasoned and informed arguments, they should be and are ignored by rational people.
And we need to go back to... censorship at the government level, vs publicly traded or private companies.
The government having a huge megaphone that reaches basically everyone, and then that same government censoring (turning the volume/reach way down) on competing messages - that's a very dangerous thing. It puts an awful lot of power in the government.
When the government says lots of dishonest things, or things that completely lack evidence, it is the duty of anyone with some influence on spreading messages to counteract that problem. In fact, when the government tries to discredit all competing sources of information, that's a very dangerous thing.
The people arguing against (government) censorship should be well to do to realize that right now, President Donald Trump is the loudest voice in government, and he's trying to drown out all opposing messages, and have you only listen to him. Read about the history of censorship, and figure out what kind of message muting you want to fight!
I am not saying I have proof for any of this. But I guess, that's true for your claim, too. I think it would be wise to rephrase it so that it doesn't sound like a fact.