No, the analogy is that censorship is criminal. We have one set of criminals (people complaining about Facebook) wanting to turn in another set of criminals (crackdown on Facebook censorship) so that they're the only criminals around (they want to be in control of the censorship). They don't actually want to stop crime (they don't actually want to stop censorship).
No, that's not right. Above, you likened cops to Facebook and groups of users to Mafia families who tattle on the crime of other families in order to stymie them. The Mafia does crime, while groups of users do speech; the cops catch and punish crime, while Facebook censors speech. The "only criminals around" won't be in control of the censorship unless you're suggesting that a group of users is going to unilaterally take over Facebook.
The "other families" is Facebook. The crime of the "other families" is censorship. "Turning other families in to the police" is cracking down on Facebook censorship. "Turning other families into the police so they can be the only criminals around" is cracking down on Facebook censorship so they can be censors instead.
> The "other families" is Facebook. The crime of the "other families" is censorship. "Turning other families in to the police" is cracking down on Facebook censorship. "Turning other families into the police so they can be the only criminals around" is cracking down on Facebook censorship so they can be censors instead.
So, let's see:
>>>>>When one Mafia family turns another one in,
When Facebook censorship is cracked down upon,
>>>>>they're doing it to get back at the other family
it's happening in order to get back at Facebook.
...what? What's "crime" again? What's "speech"? The "crime of the other families" being "censorship" elides the reality that Facebook is doing the censorship. I don't think you've really thought this through.
>The "crime of the other families" being "censorship" elides the reality that Facebook is doing the censorship. I
The whole point of having a media blitz about Facebook censorship is to force a crackdown on Facebook censorship, to ensure that censorship is done as per the wishes of the complainers, rather than as per the wishes of current Facebook.
There is no contradiction between "Facebook is doing the censorship" and "someone else wants to censor Facebook instead".
>The whole point of having a media blitz about Facebook censorship is to force a crackdown on Facebook censorship, to ensure that censorship is done as per the wishes of the complainers, rather than as per the wishes of current Facebook.
It's clear that you think that, but you're ignoring what's been written, by me, yourself, and TFA.
"The police", which you've failed to define, seem to me in this flawed analogy to be a sort of avatar of active censorship, called down by various Mafia families. Except in real life, the only reason the police aren't arresting all members of all Mafia families is that they don't know the evidentiary extent of illegal Mafia activities. It is not, as you suggest, that the Mafia can call down the cops upon other Mafia families for whatever reason -- there's got to be some illegal activity that'll hold up in court. Facebook doesn't cave to pressure from groups, or some abstract list of rules, they do whatever they think will look best to observers and... and to a certain group of people.
You suggest that all Mafia families are equally powerful, and push Facebook around. But is there a group from the list that you provided in the root comment, "the right [...] black people and LGBTQ", that is treated differently? One Mafia family has functionally unlimited power, and verifiably censors the two other groups worldwide. Which group is it? In fact, the worldwide censure of one of the "Mafia families", the LGBTQ+ Family, is plainly stated in the article. Can't be them!
"The police" would consist of government bureaucrats and cancel mobs. Facebook can be and is being reported to them with the full expectation that they will ultimately be able to force Facebook to censor in different ways.
> One Mafia family has functionally unlimited power, and verifiably censors the two other groups worldwide.
There's a media blitz about Facebook precisely because Facebook doesn't have unlimited power, and the media blitz is part of the attempt to smack them down. The media, the government, and the mob can fight Facebook on terms that give them a meaningful chance of winning.
>>One Mafia family has functionally unlimited power, and verifiably censors the two other groups worldwide.
>There's a media blitz about Facebook precisely because Facebook doesn't have unlimited power,
B-b-but I thought Facebook wasn't one of the Mafia families? I think you're just saying words for funsies.
>The media, the government, and the mob can fight Facebook on terms that give them a meaningful chance of winning.
Talk about willful blindless. The global right-wing induces Facebook to censor LGBTQ+ stuff in much of the world. They are not a Mafia family, competing on an even footing with others. They accomplish their deplatforming in ways that black people and LGBTQ+ people simply cannot. Read the article. Facebook can, and does, do whatever it wants -- it just so happens that that coincides with what one of the Mafia families wants. But not the others.
Your fantasy about mob justice being a credible threat to a poor shivering multibillion dollar corporation doesn't actually accord with the facts. Why not stop wasting time moving your goalposts around and answer some of the quite reasonable questions elsewhere in this subthread? What about the New Zealand shooter? Freedom of expression, right?
Whatever you say. Facebook, the right, black people, and the LGBTQ+ are all on a level playing field, and everybody's bullying Facebook. It's a terrible, incoherent analogy, entirely unable to comport with the actual relative power of these groups. Which is why you're here shuffling goalposts into entirely new sports fields with me instead of engaging with others elsewhere who brought up inconvenient factual information about what's actually going on; you're unwilling or unable to answer any questions about the New Zealand shooter, for instance, because that sort of real-world example exposes the inanity and indefensibility of your position. You're unable to acknowledge that one of the groups provably, successfully censures the others, continuously, worldwide.
