Men's rights Censorship by social media

Maxwell1138 · 2021-11-29T10:56:46+00:00

I think the problem is not protocol but personnel. People that hate Men's Rights and the positions they stand for seem to be highly placed in many of these organizations. And they are taking personal liberties with how they enforce the rules. There is also a societal standard not to oppose these people. It reminds me a great deal of how bullies used to (and might still) operate in schoolyards. Most normal people see whats happening and don't agree with it. But they remain silent and continue to let it happen. And this gives the bullies the confidence to continue. With many of these people assuming silence from the public means agreement and encouragement. So they make personal campaigns against Men's Rights and other related content. Even so far as breaking the rules to suppress them.

Brokepapa321 · 2021-11-29T10:12:57+00:00

When they control the information they can bend it all they want.

lozinski · 2021-11-29T13:29:04+00:00

This is why I createdHttps://Rights.Men

It imports blog postings from MRA friendly sites, sorts them into categories and recommends the best articles.Now it just needs the list of MRA web sites, and some volunteer editors.

You can read more about censorship at https://uncensorednews.us/censorship
Typo fixed. Thank you for that.

Glum-One816 · 2021-11-29T12:49:09+00:00

Youtube deleted my comments by showing the stats.

0nn0 · 2021-11-29T16:36:02+00:00

Don't try to post or comment any content which is critical of women's rights or attitudes to any of the dating subs. It will get you deleted, muted and eventually banned. It's a woke heaven over there.

DekajaSukunda · 2021-11-29T16:17:09+00:00

On one hand I think it's fair and logical that private companies, such as social media sites, can get to choose and pick which speech they'd like to host and not.

On the other hand, I think people are being willfully obtuse if they choose to pretend that social media doesn't have massive political power and is a huge platform to change people's views. I don't think all this political power should be left in the hands of only the party you agree with.

And I must say... I think it's so funny people act like "this fringe subs and hateful sites are radicalizing people!" it's like... bitch we came to be in this place because everywhere else you say this shit you get shat on, censored, insulted or threatened lmao. Perhaps these sites would be less extreme in their views (which I agree can be very over the top) if these discussions were allowed to happen elsewhere?

Indigostorm27 · 2021-11-29T15:32:34+00:00

Op doesn't know about FDS and how it's ok for women to have it but when it comes to men it's abhorrent

elebrin · 2021-11-29T14:59:34+00:00

The thing is, I don't really want A or B.

On the one hand, I don't really want any of the major social media platforms to have full editorial control over all their content. If that happens, then there will be very little content on those platforms. Rather than the millions of articles/videos/discussions on every topic that Reddit, Youtube, or Facebook host we will have a few dozen things, and the content will look more like Netflix where they are trying to get the "Moms with kids" audience rather than the adult audience, and there will be zero content for adult men, and even in shows with an all-male primary cast and production crew, a woman's name will be listed first on the show's blurb and a woman will feature upfront on the cover picture.

On the other hand, if the platforms have no power whatsoever to regulate their content, it will be all porn and profanity all the time and we will go back to the race-to-the-bottom for the most edgy bullshit like how the unregulated bits of the internet were in the late 90's and early 2000's.

I don't want a fully curated system, but I also don't want every third thing I open on my work computer to be a shock image, either.

DouglasWallace · 2021-11-29T16:58:28+00:00

I'm lost at paragraph 2. What sections of what are you talking about, please?

The issue of whether a media platform should be compelled to carry information is a difficult one, as is the matter of whether they are a media publisher (liable for content) or platform enabler (the content is down to whomever posts using it). Currently, they are are dodging around between these two concepts, which is an issue. If they are not liable, then they should not be censoring, since that determines content.

I suspect the only way around this is for media to split one of two ways: either be a free platform, in which case it should be required that they have reasonable proof of an individual's identity (whether or not that identity is published) so that the person can be held liable, or they are a publisher of content provided (free) by anonymous people for them to use as they want and be fully liable for what they decide to publish.

ApprehensiveMail8 · 2021-11-29T16:38:22+00:00

This is a very good point. Platforms that claim to have a legal shield for expressed opinions due to being a platform should not be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of the user's opinion.

When you pick and choose which messages can be posted or will be shown, the messages become your own opinion.

badab00mbadabing_- · 2021-11-29T18:54:44+00:00

This post should be cancelled!now!;-)

g1455ofwater · 2021-11-29T21:48:09+00:00

Sadly society in general don't seem to care about free speech. It was something I grew up thinking everyone knew was the right thing and people would always believe that, but it's become apparent people are perfectly happy watching massive private entities working in collaboration with governments just crush the public for unapproved speech.

sneedchuckfuck · 2021-11-29T17:20:11+00:00

I think the problem with the free speech debate is that people tend to limit themselves to the 1st Amendment. Some countries don't even have a first amendment, so does it make it right to censor speech there? Ultimately it comes down to whether you value free speech or not. That is something that goes beyond a law or a piece of paper. If you believe it's a natural right, then you know there is something wrong in the world today concerning this issue. If you only limit yourself to the way it is written in a law, then you can explain away every incident of censorship.

Legitimate_Ad_2422 · 2021-11-30T00:00:30+00:00

and programmers on here?

maxcorrice · 2021-11-29T14:54:45+00:00

[permanently deleted]

DocRocksPhDont · 2021-11-29T16:00:39+00:00

No social media company ever claimed to allow free speech. Every subreddit has rules about what you can and can't say

mattgk39 · 2021-11-29T13:52:13+00:00

No. Free speech means the freedom to speak and to not speak. It also means the freedom to not have to host speech you don’t like, whether that speech is correct or not. Social media companies are private entities and can police their platforms however they want. If you don’t like it you don’t have to use their platforms.

Bittersweet_Iceberg · 2021-11-29T21:47:58+00:00

Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, dont curate posts, or provide their own content. They aren't really responsible for what's said on their website. Their moderation is a subtractive practice Holding them responsible for someone else's actions is tyrannical.

I support free speech, and taking speech away for the sake of others is still wrong, even if you're doing it righteously.

Legitimate_Ad_2422 · 2021-11-29T23:59:43+00:00

nope, we just need to make a site for mens rights and discussion

Title	Men's rights Censorship by social media
Author	j0k3ricu
Upvotes	641
Comments	72
Date	November 29, 2021 9:33 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r4s7g9/mens_rights_censorship_by_social_media/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mens-rights-censorship-by-social-media.1085968 https://theredarchive.com/post/1085968

Comments