Canada Goes After Online Content

[Philip]

Canada plans to join Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet’s Google in their war against online "extremist" content.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... SKCN1TR2WT

But the obvious question - who defines what is "extremist" and what is merely politically, religiously or philosophically in opposition to the umbrella organizations' collective sensibilities?

[1over137]

Christians are extremists

[edwardmurphy]

A vexing conundrum.

On the one hand, unfettered free speech is kind of the American way. On the other hand, hate groups are actively trying to use our free speech rights to gain enough power to take control of the country, and they've been very upfront about their plans to strip the untermenschen of their rights as soon as they can. Do we allow our enemies to use our freedom as a weapon to destroy us, or do we clamp down on them and risk becoming what we've defeated?

Hmmm...

[Philip]

One approach might be to not allow just a handful of tech companies to have such wide control - make sure a large number of search engines, media are available for all. Course, that presents some serious challenges.

[edwardmurphy]

One approach might be to not allow just a handful of tech companies to have such wide control - make sure a large number of search engines, media are available for all. Course, that presents some serious challenges.

I don't buy that complaint. It's just conservative pundits trying to work the ref.

All the Google and Facebook algorithms do is try to give you the content you seem to want. If you want a wider variety of stories in your Google news feed or a more varied selection of search results then start posting at some liberal atheist forum. Read the articles they post there. Research the claims they make. Engage them in spirited, fact-based debates. Google will notice your wider interests and adjust your feed and search results accordingly. My news feed always includes stuff from the Hill, the Blaze, the National Review, the Federalist, Fox News, and the like.

Or if that's too much work just use a different search engine. Google isn't the only game in town.

Facebook is something else entirely. Facebook is toxic garbage. Just stay away.

[Philip]

All the Google and Facebook algorithms do is try to give you the content you seem to want.

Not a shred of credibility in that dodge of a comment. Sorry, as what they are doing and their motives are far more conniving than that!

Plus, I'm not arguing this as a conservative vs. liberal issue. It's just not good to have tech a huge percentage of the population uses, with algorithms designed to hide or make certain content not nearly as visible or likely to be seen. Perhaps there could be mandated standards for how their algorithms can work - unbiased or unlimiting to anyone.

[PaulSacramento]

Canada does NOT have free speech and free speech is not a protected right.
We have LIMITED free speech.

[edwardmurphy]

Not a shred of credibility in that dodge of a comment. Sorry, as what they are doing and their motives are far more conniving than that!

It wasn't a dodge. I think that their motives are pretty straightforward. Both companies want to make money. They do that by using algorithms that zero in o what you want to see and wish to avoid. Then they collect that very specific data and sell it to advertisers, who hit you with targeted ads, which are more effective than screaming "Buy my stuff" into the void.

I'm not a fan if Google scraping my emails for keywords, and I don't love that corporate salesmen seem to know me as well as I know myself, but there it is. That's the world we live in.

Plus, I'm not arguing this as a conservative vs. liberal issue. It's just not good to have tech a huge percentage of the population uses, with algorithms designed to hide or make certain content not nearly as visible or likely to be seen. Perhaps there could be mandated standards for how their algorithms can work - unbiased or unlimiting to anyone.

I'd be fine with some limitations being placed on their algorithms, provided it comes alongside the reestablishment of the fairness doctrine. It's hard to imagine that happening with an extremely conservative Supreme Court, though. The rights of corporations aren't superseded by the common good, you ridiculous hippy.

Personally, I think Canada does it better than we do. We in the States are so proud of our unfettered right to speak our minds that we've never taken the time to really think about whether or not that's entirely a good thing. Is allowing neo-Nazis to publicly preach hate and spread their poison on social media a good thing? Is the country better or worse since crackpots like Alex Jones gained the ability to spread insane, toxic, dangerous conspiracy theories to the far corners of the globe? Is it good to have half the nation getting their news from the lying propagandists at Fox News (or the milquetoast copycats at MSNBC)? Unfortunately that's not a conversation that we're capable of having. Somebody tried and they get shouted down with slippery slope arguments and comparisons to Hitler.

[Philip]

Ed: Is allowing neo-Nazis to publicly preach hate and spread their poison on social media a good thing? Is the country better or worse since crackpots like Alex Jones gained the ability to spread insane, toxic, dangerous conspiracy theories to the far corners of the globe? Is it good to have half the nation getting their news from the lying propagandists at Fox News (or the milquetoast copycats at MSNBC)? Unfortunately that's not a conversation that we're capable of having. Somebody tried and they get shouted down with slippery slope arguments and comparisons to Hitler.

Ed, your bias is so blatant as to be astounding! You launch right into connecting this issue to conservative / right-influenced lies ONLY. Please, there is plenty of untruth being spewed across the political spectrum - don't be so disingenuous to pretend that's not the case! You give your views little credibility when you show such selective bias.

The huge question / dilemma: For those few incredibly powerful entities that have such massively extensive reach and entrenched public usage, who gets to decide what is hate speech??? THEM - the "totally unbiased" ( ) leaders and officials in these companies - or is there not some kind of control of very strict standards - that protects certain kinds of free speech that is deemed offensive by many, but also agreed upon by millions of others? Will religious beliefs and sensibilities that are offensive to many still be protected? Because certain entities are virtual monopolies due to how they can technically control what so many use. And that is FAR too much power to allow a small group at the top of such companies to control. So, how do you protect such religious speech? Can a discussion or blogs question the morality of homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. - or can they be prohibited or can algorithms flag them / delete them. Now, of course this is a two way street. But I think standards can be in place that allow both - that prohibit encouragements of violence, harm, etc. But here again, there would need to be standards to police that - and those standards need not be in the hands of the few at the top of tech companies or other types of monopolists!

[PaulSacramento]

Personally, I think Canada does it better than we do. We in the States are so proud of our unfettered right to speak our minds that we've never taken the time to really think about whether or not that's entirely a good thing. Is allowing neo-Nazis to publicly preach hate and spread their poison on social media a good thing? Is the country better or worse since crackpots like Alex Jones gained the ability to spread insane, toxic, dangerous conspiracy theories to the far corners of the globe? Is it good to have half the nation getting their news from the lying propagandists at Fox News (or the milquetoast copycats at MSNBC)? Unfortunately that's not a conversation that we're capable of having. Somebody tried and they get shouted down with slippery slope arguments and comparisons to Hitler

I would disagree on the simple basis that either speech is free or it isn't.
Limited free speech is a joke.

Let me ask you this:
Would you be ok with limits on free speech IF those limited we imposed by the "other side" ?

[Byblos]

Personally, I think Canada does it better than we do. We in the States are so proud of our unfettered right to speak our minds that we've never taken the time to really think about whether or not that's entirely a good thing. Is allowing neo-Nazis to publicly preach hate and spread their poison on social media a good thing? Is the country better or worse since crackpots like Alex Jones gained the ability to spread insane, toxic, dangerous conspiracy theories to the far corners of the globe? Is it good to have half the nation getting their news from the lying propagandists at Fox News (or the milquetoast copycats at MSNBC)? Unfortunately that's not a conversation that we're capable of having. Somebody tried and they get shouted down with slippery slope arguments and comparisons to Hitler

I would disagree on the simple basis that either speech is free or it isn't.
Limited free speech is a joke.

Let me ask you this:
Would you be ok with limits on free speech IF those limited we imposed by the "other side" ?

Look no further than bill C-16 to see that not only is free speech not so free, but compelled speech is the law of the land. This joke ain't even funny.

[PaulSacramento]

Sad, very sad and self-defeating of course.
It's just that "progressives" are to myopic to see it, just as they were too myopic to see the transgender issues.

[Philip]

Paul: Sad, very sad and self-defeating of course.
It's just that "progressives" are to myopic to see it, just as they were too myopic to see the transgender issues.

Yes they are myopic! Which is because they want whatever it is that will immediately accomplish their own desires and policies, without taking into account the greater impact and dangers. Pragmatism of the moment can really cause serious problems.