Should we censor ugly truths ?

[Dezerte]

I suppose what I am wondering is if there is some good that they are trying to accomplish that I am simply not able to see.

They are trying to reduce hatred, I guess?

[Machismo]

whats information and disinformation, give me the definitions related to this topic.

then who is objective enough to decide what is what.

quite interesting

- - - Updated - - -



you counter 1 argument with another, not by shutting someones mouth completely like youtube/google do.

lel

- - - Updated - - -



and yet racist "shit" has full right to exist and be as available as other points of view.

you know, first amendment and stuff

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

[Deleted]

Are you joking or havent read the topic start

I am not joking. I tell you that lies stay lies no matter what you think about them.

And the truth still stays the truth no matter what you think about it.

If the truth is ugly, is an opinion.

[Dmitro]

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

"I do enjoy the irony of people who push misinformation complaining when others attempt to counter their misinformation."

your message

"you counter 1 argument with another, not by shutting someones mouth completely like youtube/google do."

try again

- - - Updated - - -

I am not joking. I tell you that lies stay lies no matter what you think about them.

And the truth still stays the truth no matter what you think about it.

If the truth is ugly, is an opinion.

its all great and I agree with you truly, but how is that even related to our topic I might ask.

- - - Updated - - -

They are trying to reduce hatred, I guess?

A pretty weak excuse for an obvious censorship

[Deleted]

A pretty weak excuse for an obvious censorship

Well, the topic was about the question if "ugly truths" should be censored. And i answered that they should not. But i also said that lies should be punished.

[Machismo]

"I do enjoy the irony of people who push misinformation complaining when others attempt to counter their misinformation."

your message

"you counter 1 argument with another, not by shutting someones mouth completely like youtube/google do."

try again

- - - Updated - - -



its all great and I agree with you truly, but how is that even related to our topic I might ask.

- - - Updated - - -



A pretty weak excuse for an obvious censorship

Once again, what are you actually trying to say?

[Dmitro]

Well, the topic was about the question if "ugly truths" should be censored. And i answered that they should not. But i also said that lies should be punished.

I agree, we should have equal access to all information, its not for people in Google decide whats good or bad for peoples.

"But i also said that lies should be punished"

How do you determine whats a lie or deliberate misinformation when it comes to politics and who can you trust with being 100% objective about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, what are you actually trying to say?

1) If you find your opposite side wrong you battle them with counter arguments, not censorship.

[Deleted]

I agree, we should have equal access to all information, its not for people in Google decide whats good or bad for peoples.

Actually it is up to google to decide what is being published on their services. They have the right to determine who or what shall be allowed or denied access.

It's the same with a forum like this, where Curse, owned by Twitch, owned by Amazon are the ones to decide whats being published.

[Dezerte]

A pretty weak excuse for an obvious censorship

Nothing is being censored, just a change in how results are shown.

[Lodreh]

...How do you determine whats a lie or deliberate misinformation when it comes to politics and who can you trust with being 100% objective about it...

Trust no one.

"lie or deliberate misinformation"... isn't that the same thing?

[Dmitro]

Nothing is being censored, just a change in how results are shown.

you kidding right?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it is up to google to decide what is being published on their services. They have the right to determine who or what shall be allowed or denied access.

It's the same with a forum like this, where Curse, owned by Twitch, owned by Amazon are the ones to decide whats being published.

As far as I know in US if someone has a monopoly on some area of service ( like Google on searching services/Youtube) it becomes some kind of public and thus should follow some rules and US laws, first amendment included ( not 100% sure tho again).
So wont be surprised if they gonna get sued over this.

But again, this topic is more about IS IT MORAL AND REASONABLE rather than whether its legal or not.

whats your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

Trust no one.

"lie or deliberate misinformation"... isn't that the same thing?

Fully agreed, that why we have the 1st amendment in our beautiful country.
no, not the same, you can lie accidentally.

[Deleted]

As far as I know in US if someone has a monopoly on some area of service ( like Google on searching services/Youtube) it becomes some kind of public and thus should follow some rules and US laws, first amendment included ( not 100% sure tho again).

Actually, search engine services are no monopole, but an oligopole (bing, yahoo). Youtube has competitors like vimeo and wistia, it is also an oligopole.

So wont be surprised if they gonna get sued over this.

No, they dont. As i said, it is up to them what they want to publish or priotize.

But again, this topic is more about IS IT MORAL AND REASONABLE rather than whether its legal or not.

Morale and ethics are subjective. Probably the google owners think that bashing a single religion is not leading to anything good.

whats your opinion?

On which topic? On the idea google should follow the 1st amandment, while they are no state organization? The amandments are about rights the state has to guarantee to the the people, and not about companies and their services.

[Lodreh]

... this topic is more about IS IT MORAL AND REASONABLE rather than whether its legal or not...

Irrational premise. A company at best can act Ethically... never Morally... some times they align but it's not the same thing. Now that semantics are out of the way... as to if it is Ethical to bury searches even though they may be relevant? I suppose it depends on your target audience. If the average grade school child is expected to use Google for a social studies report on the Middle East would you want a beheading video and ISIS propaganda to fill the screen or a Wikipedia page that details climate and regional differences like an Encyclopedia? In that regard they are acting Ethically nothing more than that.

[Dezerte]

you kidding right?

Is what the opinion piece is quoting. I'm not interested in the author's unfounded theories that has no evidence presented and is written in a sensationalist manner, on a website that doesn't even hide it's strong pro-Christianity bias.

[Dmitro]

Irrational premise. A company at best can act Ethically... never Morally... some times they align but it's not the same thing. Now that semantics are out of the way... as to if it is Ethical to bury searches even though they may be relevant? I suppose it depends on your target audience. If the average grade school child is expected to use Google for a social studies report on the Middle East would you want a beheading video and ISIS propaganda to fill the screen or a Wikipedia page that details climate and regional differences like an Encyclopedia? In that regard they are acting Ethically nothing more than that.

"A company at best can act Ethically... never Morally..."

agreed, my bad.

"If the average grade school child is expected to use Google for a social studies report on the Middle East would you want a beheading video and ISIS propaganda to fill the screen or a Wikipedia page that details climate and regional differences like an Encyclopedia"

1) As far as I know graphic content is being banned already and rightly so. So are the ISIS videos and websites, since we have an absolute consensus in our society about these people.
2) Nevertheless, Its anti-intellectual to ban or hide hurtful truths from public about the middle east or other topics. If the first things that pop on your google search is violence,rape, acid spray statistics then theres something wrong with the region itself and its totally wrong to try to make it look better for the sake of your ideological or political goles.

[Lodreh]

...
no, not the same, you can lie accidentally.

If you spread misinformation... you are lying. You should always verify before you do so.

[Dmitro]

Is what the opinion piece is quoting. I'm not interested in the author's unfounded theories that has no evidence presented and is written in a sensationalist manner, on a website that doesn't even hide it's strong pro-Christianity bias.

"I'm not interested" You are not, some people might be, who are you to decide.

"on a website that doesn't even hide it's strong pro-Christianity bias"

based on your logic CNN,BBC,MSNBC and lots and lots of other news outlets should be banned in google for their left-wing bias?

I dont think so, in my opinion we should have an absolute 100% freedom of speech thus freedom to access information of all political spectrum equally easy.
This is what America stands for.

- - - Updated - - -

If you spread misinformation... you are lying. You should always verify before you do so.

when it comes to social or political matters there are no such things as lies or truths imo.

Should we ban people for saying that all races are intellectually equal? Hide their material? Defund them on Youtube?
Or there are more than 2 genders?

I dont think so, its against basic liberty

[Machismo]

I agree, we should have equal access to all information, its not for people in Google decide whats good or bad for peoples.

"But i also said that lies should be punished"

How do you determine whats a lie or deliberate misinformation when it comes to politics and who can you trust with being 100% objective about it.

- - - Updated - - -



1) If you find your opposite side wrong you battle them with counter arguments, not censorship.

If you don't like misinformation, then you are under no obligation to listen to it or host it on your property.

Do you expect some site like Breitbart to host information that they don't want to? Private companies censor all the time, and it starts with literally every single news outlet on the planet. It continues with every single political site. You see it on Reddit threads. So, unless you are pissed at the admins of /The_Donald for their desire to ban people and delete comments, then you aren't being consistent.

[Dmitro]

Morale and ethics are subjective. Probably the google owners think that bashing a single religion is not leading to anything good.

Pro-freedom people believe that every idea is to be scrutinized and sieged, even if its painful or offensive, that how society operates. ( Especially when Islam that youve mentioned gives so many reasons and chances to do so)

Kinda sad that Google is on the other side.

[Machismo]

you kidding right?

- - - Updated - - -



As far as I know in US if someone has a monopoly on some area of service ( like Google on searching services/Youtube) it becomes some kind of public and thus should follow some rules and US laws, first amendment included ( not 100% sure tho again).
So wont be surprised if they gonna get sued over this.

But again, this topic is more about IS IT MORAL AND REASONABLE rather than whether its legal or not.

whats your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -



Fully agreed, that why we have the 1st amendment in our beautiful country.
no, not the same, you can lie accidentally.

Google is not a monopoly.

You are preaching authoritarianism in order to push a view onto a private entity. The very site that published the article practices censorship on what it publishes.