Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

. . . Wow, this happened REALLY fast after the story broke and it only had gotten some limited exposure in the Conservative media networks. The fact Microsoft broke ties THAT QUICKLY indicates to me that they likely didn't know that GDI was that biased and that they have some sort of internal policy where they are trying to actually pursue fairness.

Seriously, Microsoft had NO REASON to cut ties with GDI when you think about it. What are conservatives going to do? Not use Windows? Not use MS Office and all the rest of the literally industrial standard software? Further, it's not like the present Federal government administration would punish them for having ties to a group that seeks to harm their political opponents... in fact, they're MORE LIKELY to try and go after them now that they have cut ties.

Seriously, good on Microsoft. The least evil of the Big Tech companies... (faint praise I know, but compared to Google and Facebook...)

Reading between the lines it seems the issue was that MS bought into the service hilariously expecting it to be actually neutral. Also comes across as not wanting to deal with both the bad press and possible lawsuits over the fact the thing was being bundled with Edge.

Also comes across as the people in MS PR having a bit more tact than usual which is surprising I agree.
 
Seriously, good on Microsoft. The least evil of the Big Tech companies... (faint praise I know, but compared to Google and Facebook...)
I think Microsoft realized they were going to lose ad money if they didn't. If I pay you for adverts, and you actively throttle my target audience...I'm ditching your ass.
 
I think Microsoft realized they were going to lose ad money if they didn't. If I pay you for adverts, and you actively throttle my target audience...I'm ditching your ass.

I think they realize that conservative america is actually slowly waking up really pissed and that conquences are coming fast.
 
That's the ultimate conclusion to people worshipping golden calves.

I would say a more accurate criticism is that this is the logical conclusion to moral systems which hold that ethical values are absolute and thus not subject to any change or exception based on circumstance. When morals are held to be absolute, the logical consequence is, "Even the most extreme circumstance does not justify violating even the most minor moral duty." This is also arguably a flaw in systems of ethics that hold people accountable solely for their own actions and not the actual outcome; by those moral rules, the person making the decision should not even consider the lives at stake because they are not his moral responsibility, his sole moral duty is to act virtuously regardless of consequence.

On the other hand, the actual moral question here is basically the trolley problem, only 'slanted' by making the moral action required to save lives a comparatively trivial one. From a moral philosophy point of view, however, it is exactly the same question: is it morally permissible to commit an immoral act in order to prevent a 'worse outcome'? Classical virtue ethics would in fact say no, it is not morally permissible, while utilitarian and consequentialist ethics are generally ways of creating moral rule sets that say yes, it is morally permissible.
 
The people who are looking to turn a profit at least. Sadly, the business world is infested with those who would burn it all to the ground just to avoid admitting they were wrong about something.

problem with that is you never know when you will burn with it.
 
I would say a more accurate criticism is that this is the logical conclusion to moral systems which hold that ethical values are absolute and thus not subject to any change or exception based on circumstance. When morals are held to be absolute, the logical consequence is, "Even the most extreme circumstance does not justify violating even the most minor moral duty." This is also arguably a flaw in systems of ethics that hold people accountable solely for their own actions and not the actual outcome; by those moral rules, the person making the decision should not even consider the lives at stake because they are not his moral responsibility, his sole moral duty is to act virtuously regardless of consequence.

On the other hand, the actual moral question here is basically the trolley problem, only 'slanted' by making the moral action required to save lives a comparatively trivial one. From a moral philosophy point of view, however, it is exactly the same question: is it morally permissible to commit an immoral act in order to prevent a 'worse outcome'? Classical virtue ethics would in fact say no, it is not morally permissible, while utilitarian and consequentialist ethics are generally ways of creating moral rule sets that say yes, it is morally permissible.
You're not entirely wrong, but most classical Virtue ethics allow exceptions for a lesser evil to prevent a larger one. I mean, the biggest classical Western Virtue Ethics system is Christian Morality, and due to it being the dominate moral framework for Europe for over 1000 years it's been heavily philosophically explored. The entire concept of, for instance, "Just War" is an exercise in this idea and how Virtue Ethics should approach those problems.

Which is why even those of us steeped in traditional Christian morality look at this so weirdly. "Saving another's life" has long been an accepted Virtue Ethic exception to all kinds of rules, up to and including "thou shalt not kill". It doesn't inherently negate that an action violates the general rule, but it is the reason for the phrase "the lesser of two evils", as in, within Virtue Ethics, when faced with a situation where evil is the only result, you should choose the lesser of the two, and let God sort it out.
 
. . . Wow, this happened REALLY fast after the story broke and it only had gotten some limited exposure in the Conservative media networks. The fact Microsoft broke ties THAT QUICKLY indicates to me that they likely didn't know that GDI was that biased and that they have some sort of internal policy where they are trying to actually pursue fairness.

Seriously, Microsoft had NO REASON to cut ties with GDI when you think about it. What are conservatives going to do? Not use Windows? Not use MS Office and all the rest of the literally industrial standard software? Further, it's not like the present Federal government administration would punish them for having ties to a group that seeks to harm their political opponents... in fact, they're MORE LIKELY to try and go after them now that they have cut ties.

Seriously, good on Microsoft. The least evil of the Big Tech companies... (faint praise I know, but compared to Google and Facebook...)
Microsoft knows that remaining neutral os the best option for them
 
You're not entirely wrong, but most classical Virtue ethics allow exceptions for a lesser evil to prevent a larger one. I mean, the biggest classical Western Virtue Ethics system is Christian Morality, and due to it being the dominate moral framework for Europe for over 1000 years it's been heavily philosophically explored. The entire concept of, for instance, "Just War" is an exercise in this idea and how Virtue Ethics should approach those problems.

Which is why even those of us steeped in traditional Christian morality look at this so weirdly. "Saving another's life" has long been an accepted Virtue Ethic exception to all kinds of rules, up to and including "thou shalt not kill". It doesn't inherently negate that an action violates the general rule, but it is the reason for the phrase "the lesser of two evils", as in, within Virtue Ethics, when faced with a situation where evil is the only result, you should choose the lesser of the two, and let God sort it out.
That's why I specifically pointed this out as a shortcoming of absolutist systems of ethics, which specifically disallow the sort of fuzzy-logic exceptions that are provided in either virtue ethics or consequentialism.

I would argue that in practice, traditional Christian morality tends to straddle the line between absolute and virtue ethics, mostly because most of the people who practice it do so as a matter of religious dogma and belief and don't really analyze it as a philosophy or system of ethics.
 
That's why I specifically pointed this out as a shortcoming of absolutist systems of ethics, which specifically disallow the sort of fuzzy-logic exceptions that are provided in either virtue ethics or consequentialism.

I would argue that in practice, traditional Christian morality tends to straddle the line between absolute and virtue ethics, mostly because most of the people who practice it do so as a matter of religious dogma and belief and don't really analyze it as a philosophy or system of ethics.
I could sort of agree, except that while most who follow it do not, the entire system was extensively thought about by philosophers for thousands of years, and worked through most of the issues that being a Virtue ethics system has. Thus while they're following it as more dogma, that dogma has been heavily analyzed as a philosophy and system of ethics by others who were much more qualified to do so than random Joe Shmoe.

Another aspect of the difference between Christian virtue ethics and what the AI is dealing with is by the fact that it's not a purely materialist system meant to be enforced solely by humans and in this world. While some of Christian ethics are obviously meant to be enforced by State Power or Social Standards (IE "No murder, no stealing" for State and, say, "Dress modestly" for social), those thorny issues where things get fuzzy, when someone is forced into the choice of the "lesser of two evils", well, those are ultimately left for God to sort out. This specific out is the pressure valve that the AI and those programming it are lacking, because it is working under a purely materialistic virtue ethics without an outside judge like Christian virtue ethics has, it must always adhere to those rules at all times. Meanwhile, the religious virtue ethics systems (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zorastrianism, etc.) all have that safety valve that allows more flexibility. Of course, that's not ALWAYS a good thing, some of the worst excesses of religious virtue morality come when people lean to heavily on it (IE "Shoot them all and let God sort it out."); however, those more frequently are the exception, rather than the rule of religious virtue ethics.
 
Of course, that's not ALWAYS a good thing, some of the worst excesses of religious virtue morality come when people lean to heavily on it (IE "Shoot them all and let God sort it out."); however, those more frequently are the exception, rather than the rule of religious virtue ethics.

Yes. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." This phrase is commonly attributed to the infamously ruthless Cardinal Richelieu, but it actually comems from the massacre at Beziers during the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, and is attributed to the Papal legate in command of the Crusade, Arnaud Amalric.

The contemporary historian Caesarius of Heisterbach stated that Amalric was "said to have said" those exact words; while it is doubtful that those were his actual words, Amalric's own account of the battle explicitly confirms that his men mercilessly slaughtered every single inhabitant of the city. Note that Caesarius actually thought very highly of Amalric and mentioned the incident because he believed the massacre to be a righteous and pious act. While it was known that the overwhelming majority of the city's population were in fact fellow Catholics who were guilty of no wrongdoing, the indiscriminate slaughter of nearly twenty thousand people was "necessary" in order to guarantee the extermination of several hundred Cathar heretics.
 
Yes. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." This phrase is commonly attributed to the infamously ruthless Cardinal Richelieu, but it actually comems from the massacre at Beziers during the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, and is attributed to the Papal legate in command of the Crusade, Arnaud Amalric.

The contemporary historian Caesarius of Heisterbach stated that Amalric was "said to have said" those exact words; while it is doubtful that those were his actual words, Amalric's own account of the battle explicitly confirms that his men mercilessly slaughtered every single inhabitant of the city. Note that Caesarius actually thought very highly of Amalric and mentioned the incident because he believed the massacre to be a righteous and pious act. While it was known that the overwhelming majority of the city's population were in fact fellow Catholics who were guilty of no wrongdoing, the indiscriminate slaughter of nearly twenty thousand people was "necessary" in order to guarantee the extermination of several hundred Cathar heretics.
That,unfortunatelly bullshit.Bezier was massacred,becouse:
1.their ruler abadonned his people,take all jews from city and run to Carcassone.
2.Crusaders ,seeing walls,start making camp and prepare siege machines.
3.Townpeople opened gate and send small unit waving banners.
4.Mob who was with crusaders attacked them,take gate and start sacking.
5.Crusaders come and try stop it
6.Mob started fire and run.
7.Crusaders also run
8.City burned.

Basically,Papal legate could not say anything like that,becouse he was not aware that city was taken.And when it happened,mob act without orders.
 
Unfortunately they will probably win this court battle.
They'd need to put it to public record that they own everything posted in all regards not previously filed as intellectual property of another entity, which immediately annihilates the Section 230 protections because those rest on the speech not being "theirs", which is obviously impossible if they specifically claim ownership of it.

Because the "All Your Content Are Belong To Us" is the only thing anywhere in the legally-binding User Agreement for them to work with, and to make it worse on their image there's not a single thing about monetization of content in there so they have to resort to the blank check to delete whoever they please to justify the ban by the terms of the contract.

If they do win this court battle, then there is a very real chance of the media-producing companies launching Lawfare on content-claiming platforms to force them to properly define things in a way that does not allow for stealing the rights to particular videos initially posted on them. To say nothing of what all the networks that picked up series with YouTube pilots will want.

Edit: Actually, since Reddit is claiming pre-emptive trademark rights on all content posted there, it's even worse! To uphold this reading is to make it totally impossible to retain any rights to something you initially post on a "platform" with terms like this, with no need for them to file anything on it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top