Thank you for visualizing all this data! I got linked to this analysis, so I want to add some things that came to mind in the course of reading it since it's an ongoing discussion.
1. Closed Data is Not Great
The data suggesting that ~40% of moderates believe flag burning should result in content removal and bans seems questionable. Without transparency regarding the methodology, it's difficult to assess the validity of these findings. Robust conclusions require a clear understanding of how variables were controlled. This lack of transparency undermines the reliability of the analysis.
2. Who is Doing The Censoring Matters
Referencing this XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/1357/, it's important to remember that censorship by the government is widely seen as dangerous, irrespective of political beliefs. The data in this article focuses on social media platforms, which many view as private entities with the right to moderate content, akin to deciding what's permissible in one's own home. While it can be argued that social media is a public space, not everyone understands the distinction and thus something to keep in mind.
3. Many of The Questions Seem Weighted
I love some of the baseline questions, such as those on flag burning or defunding the police, where the answer should heavily lean towards "do not censor". It would be interesting to see even more universally agreeable topics so we can use them as a litmus test to make sure respondents' understand their own thought processes. However, the current questions seem skewed towards challenging liberal viewpoints, which raises three concerns.
First, when categorizing the questions, most seem to target issues of disinformation or discrimination. This raises the question: are we measuring a general tendency to support censorship, or simply highlighting that liberals oppose these issues? It's essential to recognize that society already accepts certain forms of censorship, such as cursing on TV, slander, incitement (e.g. mass shooters, specific calls to action), copyright violations, gore, nudity, and so forth. Even stuff like laws and things like the 13th amendment shape what you can and cannot say and do without repercussion. While it’s a slippery slope, a few carve-outs don't necessarily lead to authoritarianism.
Second, grouping questions by potential emotional impact reveals an imbalance, favoring issues more likely to upset liberals. Including topics that resonate more with conservative concerns, such as religion, gun rights, and “traditional topics” (e.g. national security), might produce more balanced responses and reveal different censorship tendencies.
Third, it's understandable that people react more strongly to immediate threats like COVID-19 vaccine misinformation compared to symbolic acts like flag burning. The potential loss of a loved one due to misinformation (natural selection, IMO) is far more tangible and distressing than abstract concerns about national symbols, highlighting the varying degrees of investment in different censorship issues.
In conclusion, we should consider these issues in a broader context. While the article presents valid points, the reality is likely more nuanced. People will always attempt to twist narratives to suit their interests, regardless of the group. Understanding those behaviors and educating one another is more valuable in navigating censorship discussions than pointing fingers.
I acknowledge the article covers various aspects, but I wanted to address specific points that seemed problematic and explore the underlying reasons.
Well done. Very thorough! I also had graph fatigue by the time I reached the point of you commenting about it.
But is this really good, unbiased data? Because if it is, then holy $%* $?#* what happened to the political left? Remember the ACLU? The Berkely Free Speech Movement? Remember stoned dudes with long hair who just wandered around telling you random stuff? Remember? Anybody?
People want to censor where they have power. See recent spate of red state laws and book bannings (And cue outraged responses about how when our side does it, it ain't censorship)
Thank you for visualizing all this data! I got linked to this analysis, so I want to add some things that came to mind in the course of reading it since it's an ongoing discussion.
1. Closed Data is Not Great
The data suggesting that ~40% of moderates believe flag burning should result in content removal and bans seems questionable. Without transparency regarding the methodology, it's difficult to assess the validity of these findings. Robust conclusions require a clear understanding of how variables were controlled. This lack of transparency undermines the reliability of the analysis.
2. Who is Doing The Censoring Matters
Referencing this XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/1357/, it's important to remember that censorship by the government is widely seen as dangerous, irrespective of political beliefs. The data in this article focuses on social media platforms, which many view as private entities with the right to moderate content, akin to deciding what's permissible in one's own home. While it can be argued that social media is a public space, not everyone understands the distinction and thus something to keep in mind.
3. Many of The Questions Seem Weighted
I love some of the baseline questions, such as those on flag burning or defunding the police, where the answer should heavily lean towards "do not censor". It would be interesting to see even more universally agreeable topics so we can use them as a litmus test to make sure respondents' understand their own thought processes. However, the current questions seem skewed towards challenging liberal viewpoints, which raises three concerns.
First, when categorizing the questions, most seem to target issues of disinformation or discrimination. This raises the question: are we measuring a general tendency to support censorship, or simply highlighting that liberals oppose these issues? It's essential to recognize that society already accepts certain forms of censorship, such as cursing on TV, slander, incitement (e.g. mass shooters, specific calls to action), copyright violations, gore, nudity, and so forth. Even stuff like laws and things like the 13th amendment shape what you can and cannot say and do without repercussion. While it’s a slippery slope, a few carve-outs don't necessarily lead to authoritarianism.
Second, grouping questions by potential emotional impact reveals an imbalance, favoring issues more likely to upset liberals. Including topics that resonate more with conservative concerns, such as religion, gun rights, and “traditional topics” (e.g. national security), might produce more balanced responses and reveal different censorship tendencies.
Third, it's understandable that people react more strongly to immediate threats like COVID-19 vaccine misinformation compared to symbolic acts like flag burning. The potential loss of a loved one due to misinformation (natural selection, IMO) is far more tangible and distressing than abstract concerns about national symbols, highlighting the varying degrees of investment in different censorship issues.
In conclusion, we should consider these issues in a broader context. While the article presents valid points, the reality is likely more nuanced. People will always attempt to twist narratives to suit their interests, regardless of the group. Understanding those behaviors and educating one another is more valuable in navigating censorship discussions than pointing fingers.
I acknowledge the article covers various aspects, but I wanted to address specific points that seemed problematic and explore the underlying reasons.
Well done. Very thorough! I also had graph fatigue by the time I reached the point of you commenting about it.
But is this really good, unbiased data? Because if it is, then holy $%* $?#* what happened to the political left? Remember the ACLU? The Berkely Free Speech Movement? Remember stoned dudes with long hair who just wandered around telling you random stuff? Remember? Anybody?
People want to censor where they have power. See recent spate of red state laws and book bannings (And cue outraged responses about how when our side does it, it ain't censorship)
Just FYI it seems the URL of this post is being blocked by Safari’s common content-blockers.
Not for me.