How certain elements of contemporary media/public platforms are killing public discussion spaces and killing democracy

Briefly state the conclusion first: Talking about problems out of reality is a hooligan!

First of all, the left people, @Vikingtog ( the notorious Matt City clown) and his friends @red flags are planted all over the world @AOC, etc., no one will use their ideology, political orientation as a point of venting their emotions, Including the administrator of the website will not. But if these people say one thing and do another, and think others are wrong, that's a serious cognitive disconnect.

We often say, don't look at what he says, look at what he does.

If it all follows the inexplicable logic of @Vikingtog, it is obvious that society is going to mess up. Readers and friends, please pay attention to a few key words, the first is called "media", the second is called "public space", and the third is called "stifle".

In the Internet era, not only is the American society troubled by judicial morality, but also technically, national defense and national security considerations. For example, we often hear "speech censorship".

First of all, no matter which school it is, it only raises questions, but the ultimate problem-solving ability is not necessarily in academia. As we all know, the ideological indoctrination involving the judiciary, publishing, media, and even textbooks (education), including the public and private nature of the Internet, cannot be explained clearly in a few words.

I believe that even university professors in Germany and the United States cannot guide everything from theory alone, which is an unrealistic daydream.

For example, in the discussion of media, how to divide "public space" (public domain) and "private space" (private domain), and how to divide private media companies and public consortium media companies. How should streaming media, emerging media and traditional media be divided and regulated. Not to mention that this is facing technical problems (Internet algorithms) but also the cultural differences, customs and other issues faced by multinational companies like YouTube.

In fact, these pseudo-academics will not consider it at all, and will only endorse them with a statement that is favorable to them.

Take a realistic example, such as @Vikingtog this person has a large number of trumpets, such as @burger king mayor, @sodoma female boxing, etc. , not only produce a large number of junk files, but also cause the actual website To manage the harm of other users, we see that he keeps saying that he wants to "correct democracy", so why does he use this to destroy the power of other people's speech and democracy? Therefore, without the cause and effect, as well as specific matters, generalizing a problem is irresponsible, not in line with the spirit of justice, and there is no room for manipulation.

utopian left

Just like the Internet environment inside and outside the wall, the inside of the wall specifically refers to the area where mainland China is located. We all know how strict internet censorship is in mainland China. On February 8, 2022, an auditor of the well-known two-dimensional website Bilibili died suddenly due to excessive stress.

The reason is that the continuous high-pressure public opinion environment in mainland China and the dissatisfaction of the people have led to an increase in the workload of "Internet commentators and auditors". Due to the uniqueness of Chinese, a large number of new words are created, such as "three years to eat, ten years to exercise" (corresponding to three years of man-made disasters and ten years of Cultural Revolution), so that neither algorithm nor BOT program can eliminate the bad speech that the Communist Party thinks. So manual review is still at full capacity.

As a listed company, Bilibili is a public offering company. It is impossible for its funds and business to be infinitely invested in manual review. We have seen that even though many university professors in China, such as Xu Zhiyong of Tsinghua University (one of the founders of China's New Citizens Movement), called for the liberalization of speech censorship, they were still physically tortured by the CCP authorities. Well, discussing these topics overseas today will inevitably overturn a boatload of people.

For example, the degree of freedom of speech inside and outside the wall, such as the technical level and political orientation between different websites. These are not fanciful words. Just as people cannot criticize the Communist Party under the various media accounts of the People's Daily, public power acts recklessly and tramples on the Constitution and human rights (talk freedom), so it is obviously inappropriate to use the free world to promote the dictator.

Second, the principle of survivorship bias, every website has sticky users and non-sticky users. There are for-profit authors and non-profit authors. Why is the censorship of "Zhihu" so high, that speech is often banned for 30-50 days, and there are still a large number of authors of political commentary that continue to update? All because of high user stickiness (there are not many similar alternative software) fans and discussions are heated. However, this has also led them to constantly invent "new speak" (which is different from the new language invented by the Communist Party, only literally) to avoid censorship, resulting in a large number of overseas users unable to understand the meaning of the language.

This also brings out the focus of the entire article, the issue of the right to speak. In a country where there is no right to speak and the media has no power to censor, just like the #XuzhouFengxian incident, it is precisely the reports from various overseas media that the Chinese government is forced to pay attention.

Just like @Vikingtog while shouting for freedom of speech, while swiping the screen to insult users. Meet people or organizations with different opinions and double standards. How can ordinary readers protect their freedom of speech? How to deal with making rules while breaking them?

This is what we often say "not only depends on what he said. It also depends on what he does". If you blindly bring theory into practice, you are likely to be deceived and deceived by these people with ulterior motives!

1. I have the absolute right to judge whether your speech is in line with my (subjective definition) " freedom " value

It is very simple, it is impossible to ban or even cancel accounts between simple users, just like the mayor's behavior and language are seriously inconsistent. Unless the city administrator of Matt takes action, it is difficult for users to maintain their rights. Therefore, this proposition is a false proposition, simply discussing the subjective and objective, which is even more difficult to understand philosophical thinking.

2. I have the absolute right to judge speech that " does not conform to ' free ' values " and the whereabouts of the speaker

People usually use simple and effective values to judge whether it is "democratic freedom", that is, the conflict between public power and private interests. Between simple citizens, there is a legal responsibility to explain according to judicial procedures, and there is a third party to communicate with a third party. Just like the definition of democracy and freedom, different people naturally have different definitions. For example, the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda that democracy is not "Coca-Cola" has only one taste. Since the Chinese Communist Party promotes the democracy and freedom of the Internet in mainland China, it is not necessarily a sarcasm for overseas netizens to say "return to the wall".

If you believe that the mainland Internet is not free, then the focus of the discussion should be on the mainland, not other users. After all, users are not the first responsible person. This question is a typical causality.

3. People who do not accept my value should be censored, or punished in a heavily censored environment.

In fact, among ordinary users, only Matt City is used as an example. There are practical problems in how to review, how to cost, and how to implement. Assuming that there is hacking technology, it obviously constitutes malicious harm, legal responsibility, and moral responsibility. However, in more contexts and specific situations, further research is needed.

How do leftists convince groups that disagree with them? Standards are not biased towards one side. Even democracy is a balance and compromise of various forces, and it is impossible to achieve 100% satisfaction.

The mayor's Wei Xiongwen overlooked the most crucial point, that is, the difference between self-media and social platforms. Not irreplaceable for a niche site like Matt City. Just like the real problems of not using WeChat, Dingding and other social tools in the mainland. WeChat is bound to a bank card for payment, and the balance cannot be transferred out after the account is blocked. Against such a background, the risks behind being able to publish political remarks that do not conform to the CPC's review on the WeChat platform are very great (real-name ID card registration plus mainland China mobile phone number)

Matt City, on the other hand, can do anonymous submissions in most cases, and has not seen specific circumstances such as copyright. Therefore, for most users, there are strong political leanings, or other remarks here. The motives and psychological behaviors behind it all need to be verified. How to block users just because of a few words of a user. It is this complex culture, psychology, usage habits, internal review and other characteristics of reality and the Internet that make simple dogmatism so pale and childish.

Even the product manager of Matt City can't be 100% satisfied with the user, and the developer is still so, not to mention the political point of view? But to judge based on just a few words is obviously stupid or bad!

🙂