________________________________________________________________________________
_“I think the trend is clear that you almost always censor—meaning block content, fact check or label content or demonetize websites—of conservative, Republican or pro-life individuals or groups or companies..._
Have we really arrived at a point where fact-checking and providing context to a claim is considered censorship?
If you fact check a single side with additional rigor while permit others to post freely, then it's just censorship with extra steps.
Lots of content would pass a fact check, transparently to the end user. How do we know both sides fail fact checks at equal rates?
I argue no. The people claiming they are being censored are being disingenuous.
I don't think they're being disingenuous, I think they really just have no idea what they're talking about. The people who know how tech works don't go work for the govt, they work for tech.
Censorship is a concept broader than government.
> Have we really arrived at a point where fact-checking and providing context to a claim is considered censorship?
Because it's censorship. You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right?
You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda. But on most controversial issues, it's very hard to "fact-check".
Take abortion. It's clearly the killing of a human life, but it's not murder since the fetus isn't a person. There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change.
Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda.
People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw.
> _Because it's censorship._
It's not censorship because nothing is being censored. You can read any trump tweet and watch any conspiracy video you like, no one is keeping you from it - not the platforms and not the state. The only thing that is being done is putting a notice _beside_ the tweets and videos.
> _You do realize that the right-wing, muslims, chinese, russians, etc also have "fact-checkers" right?
You just think that "fact-checkers" are correct because you agree with their politics/agenda._
So you're saying there is no objective truth and every opinion has equal authority? If I say the moon is made out of cheese and you say, no it isn't, we have proof, can I accuse you of censorship?
> _There are lots of ways to "fact-check" and spin the issue on both sides. This is true for every controversial issue from lgbt to climate change._
This is extremely vague. Please give a concrete example.
> _Fact checking, just like news, is great for uncontroversial subjects. But for important controversial topics, it's pretty much propaganda._
So what should we do instead then? How should we then reach a conclusion on controversial issues if fact checking is not an option?
> _People like you are proof of why censorship is terrible and why we need free speech. Your bias clouds your judgment on facts/reality. I'm pro-choice btw. _
Which bias exactly?
Just because you use the word "fact check", "misinformation", and "disinformation" doesn't mean it's not censorship.
It implies you are removing something based on a criteria which is censorship by definition regardless of your views. We can argue whether it's okay or not but you cannot argue that it's not censorship. You do not have the authority to redefine censorship.
Did Sundar actually say this? It seems very unlike a CEO to directly name someone his business treated unfairly...
It seems to me that this website was deliberately targeted so Google could stand up in the future and say that they also censor the left. Reddit did a similar thing in a recent ban wave where they picked off a few fairly tame left-wing subs as well as the usual alt-right suspects.
But it's also worth noting that in the incident that caused this, WSWS fell on the same 'side' as the alt-right in that they were critical of the 1619 project.
Isn't there a huge difference between Google de-ranking a website in search, vs. Twitter etc. literally banning a link from being posted?
When you search, you are literally asking Google for their opinion on which sites to see. _Any_ results page is a result of various decisions, it's hard to call it "censorship". But when someone posts on Twitter, and the platform _literally doesn't let them post_ the link they want to, that seems to me to be far more egregious - and can definitely be called censorship.
So that which Google could come up with a left-wing site they de-ranked, and Twitter and Facebook couldn't, becomes even more damning for them. _Their_ censorship is far more real.