FabSwingers.com forum: Is censorship a threat to democracy?.

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I reckon it is, political censorship is even worse, which is preventing the public being informed of events relevant to the governance of the country. A democracy cannot function if the citizens do not have access to the information they need to make informed choices, whats your view?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

I thought with the internet and all the guises of social media, we are more informed than ever before.

Maybe it's just sorting through all the bs that's the problem?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I thought with the internet and all the guises of social media, we are more informed than ever before.

Maybe it's just sorting through all the bs that's the problem?"
That is right we are, it came after a famous political program called "granskning sverige" utube channel got removed in sweden, after the mainstream newspaper worked closely with google as they didnt agree of what they reported on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What were they saying to be taken down...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"What were they saying to be taken down..."
It was a about some telephone interviews, we dont know the whole situation yet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

you see, the trouble with censorship is _______ _____ __ _______ _ ________ !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 10/03/18 14:20:05]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong? "
It was easy to find those who have got it wrong:

1. Eritrea

2. North korea

3. Saudi arabia

4. Ethiopia

5. Azerbaijan

6. Vietnam

7. ian

8. China

9. Myanmar

10. Cuba

I cant find anyone that have it right, what about you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong? It was easy to find those who have got it wrong:

1. Eritrea

2. North korea

3. Saudi arabia

4. Ethiopia

5. Azerbaijan

6. Vietnam

7. ian

8. China

9. Myanmar

10. Cuba

I cant find anyone that have it right, what about you?

Number 7? Ian?

who the fuck is Ian?!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ilk_TreMan
over a year ago

Wherever the party is!

"OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong? It was easy to find those who have got it wrong:

1. Eritrea

2. North korea

3. Saudi arabia

4. Ethiopia

5. Azerbaijan

6. Vietnam

7. ian

8. China

9. Myanmar

10. Cuba

I cant find anyone that have it right, what about you?

You missed USA and the UK off that list!

Also, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? How do you know?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If Corbyn had his way we would be like Cuba !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If Corbyn had his way we would be like Cuba !"

Tropical sunshine and beautiful women quality rum.Where do I sign up..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong? It was easy to find those who have got it wrong:

1. Eritrea

2. North korea

3. Saudi arabia

4. Ethiopia

5. Azerbaijan

6. Vietnam

7. ian

8. China

9. Myanmar

10. Cuba

I cant find anyone that have it right, what about you?

You missed USA and the UK off that list!

Also, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? How do you know? "
Yes, those 2, not ian. I think it was iran I meant there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If Corbyn had his way we would be like Cuba !

Tropical sunshine and beautiful women quality rum.Where do I sign up..

"
You Can't !

Your in my Lefty / Righty Party !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong? It was easy to find those who have got it wrong:

1. Eritrea

2. North korea

3. Saudi arabia

4. Ethiopia

5. Azerbaijan

6. Vietnam

7. ian

8. China

9. Myanmar

10. Cuba

I cant find anyone that have it right, what about you?

You missed USA and the UK off that list!

Also, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? How do you know? Yes, those 2, not ian. I think it was iran I meant there."

I prefer blaming Ian! Tell Ian he's stacked, not allowed to work in the media anymore!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

"I reckon it is, political censorship is even worse, which is preventing the public being informed of events relevant to the governance of the country. A democracy cannot function if the citizens do not have access to the information they need to make informed choices, whats your view?

I think the far more troublesome is the more subtle censorship and directing of opinion via social (and mainstream) media. Just look at the effects from Russian meddling in the US and UK political affairs recently.

I've recently had my twitter account 'shadow banned' due to being quite an avid supporter of something that one of their algorithms took exception to. It was quite a strange experience. I didn't even know it had happened until someone pointed out. But in short, whilst everything seemed to be working normal for me, no-one could actually see my tweets. Nothing I tweeted showed up in my follower's timelines and nothing showed up in searches if you searched for the topic in question. It has now been lifted, but was quite an eye opening experience as there was no warning, no notification, no course of remediation or appeal.

It's great if this kind of thing is used to reduce hate speech and the likes online, and certainly there have been enough calls for Twitter to do something about that, but then where do you draw the line? What happens when innocent people get caught up in it?

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

More information than is currently made available should be by governments including, in the UK, the royal family's communication and influence upon laws. There is obviously some detail that can't be provided for some time, such as security information and processes but probably some of this could be made public, whilst it currently isn't.

The vast data intrusions into citizens' personal lives should be ceded to a great degree too, allowing people to have greater levels of privacy. Private organisations should also have far stricter limits upon what they can acquire and hold, as they also pose a threat to democracy and should also be made to have much greater levels of scrutiny upon their operations.

The media are certainly ripe for having restrictions placed upon them, covering intrusion and working in the public good.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

"I thought with the internet and all the guises of social media, we are more informed than ever before.

Maybe it's just sorting through all the bs that's the problem?"
I would say we are informed less because the net is full of fake news and anti establishment stuff and the true facts as some people especially the young do not listen to radio,television,read newspapers and magazines sadly

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP, please can you give some examples of countries which you think have got censorship right, and which have got it wrong? It was easy to find those who have got it wrong:

1. Eritrea

2. North korea

3. Saudi arabia

4. Ethiopia

5. Azerbaijan

6. Vietnam

7. ian

8. China

9. Myanmar

10. Cuba

I cant find anyone that have it right, what about you?

You missed USA and the UK off that list!

Also, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? How do you know? Yes, those 2, not ian. I think it was iran I meant there.

I prefer blaming Ian! Tell Ian he's stacked, not allowed to work in the media anymore! "
Yes, ian seems better there lol.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You need to ask yourself, "who is running the country"

our UK parliament?

"the media"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Censorship is a necessary evil.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"you see, the trouble with censorship is _______ _____ __ _______ _ ________ !"
That is right and it have the power to silence other views that they dont agree on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"you see, the trouble with censorship is _______ _____ __ _______ _ ________ !That is right and it have the power to silence other views that they dont agree on."

So I take it you believe that the 'Anarchists Cookbook' should be available in every library and on the shelves of every Smiths and Waterstones?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"you see, the trouble with censorship is _______ _____ __ _______ _ ________ !That is right and it have the power to silence other views that they dont agree on.

So I take it you believe that the 'Anarchists Cookbook' should be available in every library and on the shelves of every Smiths and Waterstones? "
No I dont. I guess it cant be everywhere like a normal cookbook, maibe it is more suited being online, or other shops that caters for that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"No I dont. I guess it cant be everywhere like a normal cookbook, maibe it is more suited being online, or other shops that caters for that."

Shag, do you know what the 'Anarchists Cookbook' is?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"No I dont. I guess it cant be everywhere like a normal cookbook, maibe it is more suited being online, or other shops that caters for that.

Shag, do you know what the 'Anarchists Cookbook' is? "
No I dont, but I checked it out on utube, is it the same?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"That is right we are, it came after a famous political program called "granskning sverige" utube channel got removed in sweden, after the mainstream newspaper worked closely with google as they didnt agree of what they reported on."

You are aware that the removal of a channel from YouTube is not censorship, aren’t you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

You are aware that the removal of a channel from YouTube is not censorship, aren’t you?"
I know, but it kind of is as the state decides what can be viewed, Utube allowed them being there tho, but not until the swedish papers complained to them, as that channel asked question to the establishment that the media dont dare too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

" No I dont, but I checked it out on utube, is it the same?"

That looks like it, but I expect that most of it is not available outside the dark web. By the way most people who are convicted of having terrorist handbooks are in possession of the 'anarchists cookbook'.

Now that you know that it is a terrorist and criminal DIY book that includes step by step instructions for setting up kitchen sink labs (including what to buy in your local shops and how much to buy so you do not trigger any red flags) to produce explosives, drugs and poisons as well as step by step instructions on making improvised weapons including mines booby-traps, timing devices and if I remember correctly even how to break into a safe without destroying the contents. Do you still think it should be freely available?

Or maybe you may feel like me that censorship is a necessary evil, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There has to be a level of censorship especially from the Government otherwise the world would be an even shittier place than it already is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"I know, but it kind of is as the state decides what can be viewed,"

Again, the removal of any content from YouTube is not a state deciding what can be viewed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Youtube will only remove files if they break laws through thourghly inappropriate content or copyrights, no other reasons

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I know, but it kind of is as the state decides what can be viewed,

Again, the removal of any content from YouTube is not a state deciding what can be viewed."
I know, but they have the power to censor what can be viewed if they dont like it, like with this case, hence why it got removed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"I know, but they have the power to censor what can be viewed if they dont like it, like with this case, hence why it got removed."

Again, no. Censorship is where access to something is completely removed, often backed up by making it an offence to publish or seek to view that material.

A population being to lazy or apathetic to seek material somewhere other than YouTube is not censorship.

Look, the question posed in the thread is kind of obvious. For the most part, censorship (for example the ‘video nasties’ fiasco in the UK) is not good. But the problem is that, for a few years now, we have seen a lot of UK and US citizens crying ‘censorship’ when something is removed or even just demoneytised on YouTube. It’s nonsense.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

" No I dont, but I checked it out on utube, is it the same?

Or maybe you may feel like me that censorship is a necessary evil, because the alternative is unthinkable. "
No I dont and yes, this would have to be censored as it shouldnt be out, as it is too extreme for the public to get their hands on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Britain first had its Facebook page taken down this week and they have now been banned.Facebook is apparently looking at other pages with similar content and ideology.The EDF and the knights Templar are all on thin ice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"Britain first had its Facebook page taken down this week and they have now been banned.Facebook is apparently looking at other pages with similar content and ideology.The EDF and the knights Templar are all on thin ice."

1) Good.

2) This isn’t censorship, either.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *est Wales WifeCouple
over a year ago

Near Carmarthen

The question to ask is who is doing the censoring and why?

There are 5 billionaires who run our media, and they have huge power in our (fading) democracy forcing our political parties to prioritise their wishes over the wishes of the British public. These 5 people not only own 80% of the newspapers we read every day, they also own TV stations, press agencies, book companies, cinemas, so everything we think or speak about in Britain is nearly controlled entirely by these 5 men.

These are the 5 in control : Rupert Murdoch, Jonathon Harmsworth, Richard Desmond and the Barclay’s Twins.

They dominate and monopolise our culture and that is a disaster for democracy, because it means the wishes of the super wealthy 0.1% dominates our government's actions.

The leaders of our political parties are not the leaders of our country, they are basically rent boys for the 5 billionaires who decide everything.

You are being controlled as never before, the narrative is being tightly controlled. Muslims are terrorists but white child shooters in the USA are 'madmen'. Notice how the words change?

Anyone who criticises Israel is now branded as anti Semitic and this is used as an political weapon.

Wake up, you are being led by the nose to exactly where the billionaires, the US Establishment (and the rest in the west) and Israel want you. Soon all criticism wil be censored.

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” - George Orwell 1984

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

There is a strong argument that censorship attacks the right of free speech.

If used correctly censorship is very good, however if they use it the wrong way or excessively then they are only going to be doing harm to society as a whole.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There is a strong argument that censorship attacks the right of free speech.

If used correctly censorship is very good, however if they use it the wrong way or excessively then they are only going to be doing harm to society as a whole."

Haven't you just contradicted your original post?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"There is a strong argument that censorship attacks the right of free speech.

If used correctly censorship is very good, however if they use it the wrong way or excessively then they are only going to be doing harm to society as a whole.

Haven't you just contradicted your original post?"
No, cos if you use censorship correctly it can be good, it is bad censoring that aint good.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"There is a strong argument that censorship attacks the right of free speech."

Again, this is as vague as your opening post. So vague, it’s pretty meaningless.

Freedom of speech does not mean speech without consequence. More specifically, freedom of speech is not freedom to to incite things like racial hatred without consequence.

If the government locks me up for saying, “We need to have a frank discussion about the place of religion in education,” that’s inhibiting my right to free speech. If it makes reading my leaflet about it an offence, and entirely prohibits its circulation, that’s censorship.

If YouTube, which belongs to google, a private company which exists only to make money, decides that they are not hosting my channel any more, that is not censorship. Taking my channel down does not prohibit me from, for example, hosting my own webpage.

Yes, censorship can be bad. Yes, inhibiting free speech is bad. But these are platitudes not worthy of discussion unless we’re talking about specific examples. As far as I can see, the specific examples on this page don’t qualify as either censorship or inhibiting free speech. I’m struggling to see an example that a reasonable person would be much concerned about.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"There is a strong argument that censorship attacks the right of free speech.

Again, this is as vague as your opening post. So vague, it’s pretty meaningless.

Freedom of speech does not mean speech without consequence. More specifically, freedom of speech is not freedom to to incite things like racial hatred without consequence.

"
We have to agree to disagree.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

About what?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"About what?"
Of what is censoring and whats not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

That’s going to be difficult, as what censorship is and isn’t is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"That’s going to be difficult, as what censorship is and isn’t is a matter of fact, not opinion."
That is right it is as everyone got an opinion of what it is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

Do you know the difference between opinions and facts? It is something of a barrier to continued discussion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread