Survey about censorship on social media

[Connie]

Hello, forum friends. I’m popping in because I need your help. I am continuing my education and taking a writing class this term. My big assignment is to write an argumentative essay, and my chosen topic is censorship on social media.

I wanted to collect some opinions and experiences of regular social media users, so I created a short survey. If you have a minute or two to spare, I would appreciate if you’d take the survey. I am particularly interested in users of Facebook, Twitter (X, if you prefer), and YouTube, but any social media is fine. At this time, I am not counting forums in my definition of social media. If you or anyone you know has experienced censorship on social media, I would be particularly interested in how you would answer these survey questions. Feel free to share the link to this survey with others. Answers remain anonymous.

Let me know if you have any questions. I would also appreciate any feedback you have on my survey questions or about the topic in general.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd6XHvPqW_0UuZrGj0LoKXDZQSWdN7vPpAAfdBSDt5SbMHDhQ/viewform?usp=sf_link 

[Vort]

Hi, Connie! You are remembered fondly here. Hope you come back some time. Good luck, in any case.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Connie said:

Hello, forum friends. I’m popping in because I need your help. I am continuing my education and taking a writing class this term. My big assignment is to write an argumentative essay, and my chosen topic is censorship on social media.

I wanted to collect some opinions and experiences of regular social media users, so I created a short survey. If you have a minute or two to spare, I would appreciate if you’d take the survey. I am particularly interested in users of Facebook, Twitter (X, if you prefer), and YouTube, but any social media is fine. At this time, I am not counting forums in my definition of social media. If you or anyone you know has experienced censorship on social media, I would be particularly interested in how you would answer these survey questions. Feel free to share the link to this survey with others. Answers remain anonymous.

Let me know if you have any questions. I would also appreciate any feedback you have on my survey questions or about the topic in general.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd6XHvPqW_0UuZrGj0LoKXDZQSWdN7vPpAAfdBSDt5SbMHDhQ/viewform?usp=sf_link 

I'm afraid that the only significant social media presence I have is on this forum.  Yeah, I'm pathetic.  So, since that doesn't count... 

I wish I could help.

[mirkwood]

I answered and yes I have been censored.

[Connie]

20 hours ago, Vort said:

Hi, Connie! You are remembered fondly here. Hope you come back some time. Good luck, in any case.

Thank you, Vort! I really appreciate that. I think of you all often. And, even though I don't participate, I do occasionally hop on and read a little of what you all are discussing.

[Connie]

Bump.

Even if you’ve never experience censorship yourself, you likely have an opinion about it. Please consider sharing your opinion on this brief survey. Answers are anonymous.

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, Connie said:

Bump.

Even if you’ve never experience censorship yourself, you likely have an opinion about it. Please consider sharing your opinion on this brief survey. Answers are anonymous.

I enjoyed the survey.
 

I practice self censorship but it’s more in regards to my sense of humor than politics. I like dark and gallows humor (everyone says they do until they meet someone who uses….dark humor) and if it was up to me I’d post some very grim jokes. But not everyone will get it so I just skip it to avoid a headache. 

[LDSGator]

I do think social media censors people but a lot of it has to do with the posters terrible attitude and communication abilities more than FB hating conservatives/liberals. 

[NeuroTypical]

Ah yes - that time Facebook gave me an account ding for sharing a New York Post article about how the head of BLM was buying multiple homes.

 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Connie said:

Bump.

Even if you’ve never experience censorship yourself, you likely have an opinion about it. Please consider sharing your opinion on this brief survey. Answers are anonymous.

This is a double-edged sword.

The likely takeaway from such would be,"If you've never experienced it yourself, how can you know if it happens?"

With so many people who simply self-censor, realizing they would be cancelled if they didn't do so, we're left with acknowledging the famous people who were cancelled.  But the survey doesn't ask about that.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The likely takeaway from such would be,"If you've never experienced it yourself, how can you know if it happens?"

Because of friends and family we all know who don't self-censor and report it when they are.

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Because of friends and family we all know who don't self-censor and report it when they are.

The point I was making was last sentence of my previous post. 

• They lure you in with one question, then they draw a pre-designed conclusion. 
• And they NEVER ASK the respondents the important question about "how do you know?" 
• They simply pose that question when criticizing the responses. 

They don't dare actually allow a response to the question.  That would destroy the narrative.

NOTE: I'm not accusing Connie of such subterfuge.  But surveys like this are used specifically to make such points and paint respondents in a bad light.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Carborendum

[Connie]

@Carborendum Sorry my survey is offensive. I'd love to hear what you think about the topic. What questions should I have asked and how would you answer them?

[NeuroTypical]

37 minutes ago, Connie said:

What questions should I have asked and how would you answer them?

I found one question impossible to answer.  "Which worldviews do you think social media sites favor?"  There are at least hundreds of social media sites, and you can easily find several that favor any particular worldview.  Plus, even with the large sites like Facebook and Twitter and TikTok, you can find endless, endless spaces that favor one or the other, or neither.  For every TruthSocial, there's a Mastodon.  For every Rumble, a Reddit.  For every Parler, a Bluesky.  DeviantArt.  Threads.  Bookwyrm.  Funkwhale.  Mobizillion.  Snapchat.  Many of these don't really have any political bend in either direction.  And most of them have some sort of banning and censorship process.

Also, there are endless people out there who do not paint the world into "conservative" or "liberal" political views, and who would disagree that political opinions = worldview.  There are progressives and hard right and centrist and humanist and universalist and environmentalist and anachro-syndicalist and endless words people apply to themselves that fit more than plain old conservative or liberal. 

So I left that question blank, and answered the rest.

Perhaps one input: Our very own Thirdhour has this as site rule #1:

Quote

Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

We absolutely censor stories, information, and opinions we don't want here.  We are social media, but we are not a free speech platform. 

Mormondialogue.org, on the other hand, welcomes debate and arguing.  Their site rules are more along the lines of "We don't care what your opinion is, just be civil."  

 

Good luck with your writing assignment! 

Edited October 17, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Mormondialogue.org, on the other hand, welcomes debate and arguing.  Their site rules are more along the lines of "We don't care what your opinion is, just be civil."

From my extremely limited interaction with mormondialogue.org, it seems they don't care too much about enforcing their site rules.

[LDSGator]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

From my extremely limited interaction with mormondialogue.org, it seems they don't care too much about enforcing their site rules.

To be fair, I haven’t gone there in a very long time but I was surprised by how much they allow as well. 

[NeuroTypical]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

From my extremely limited interaction with mormondialogue.org, it seems they don't care too much about enforcing their site rules.

I come here to practice loving my LDS neighbor, I go there to practice loving my non-LDS neighbor.   

It's absolutely a more spicy version of LDS content than you get here.  Full of people engaging in mutually consensual online combat.

Edited October 17, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The point I was making was last sentence of my previous post. 

• They lure you in with one question, then they draw a pre-designed conclusion. 
• And they NEVER ASK the respondents the important question about "how do you know?" 
• They simply pose that question when criticizing the responses. 

They don't dare actually allow a response to the question.  That would destroy the narrative.

NOTE: I'm not accusing Connie of such subterfuge.  But surveys like this are used specifically to make such points and paint respondents in a bad light.

I gotchya. So the fact that I answered that I've never been censored (yet), but only self-censor will probably be interpreted as my opinion doesn't count. Yeah.

[Traveler]

My opinion.  For the most part internet sites ought to be able to control their content.  I believe this to be part of the first amendment (free speech).  I do not believe that the government or governments officials have the right to influence (obstruct free speech) what is posted on internet sites – unless the information violets the law.  I do recognize that this can be somewhat ambiguous, but I also believe that government officials ought to be subject to the law themselves and if they violate free speech that it is grounds for impeachment.   This includes those officials that knew of violations and allowed it. 

I believe the most critical government agency is the Justice Department.  Congress should have the power to impeach the officials within the Justice Department that misrepresent or withhold information related to influence of free speech on internet platforms.

I also believe that personal information in individuals using the internet should be turned over to government officials when information on the internet indicates that the law was broken.  This would include elected officials that leak classified or misleading (partial) information to the press.  Of course, all accused individuals have the right to open public trials.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

My opinion.  For the most part internet sites ought to be able to control their content.  I believe this to be part of the first amendment (free speech).  I do not believe that the government or governments officials have the right to influence (obstruct free speech) what is posted on internet sites – unless the information violets the law.  I do recognize that this can be somewhat ambiguous, but I also believe that government officials ought to be subject to the law themselves and if they violate free speech that it is grounds for impeachment.   This includes those officials that knew of violations and allowed it. 

I believe the notion of the "public square", which extended to telephones many decades ago, have also extended to social media.   There should be legal protections in place for social media platforms that wish to be public forums.  You don't arrest the phone company people when two people plan a bank heist over the phone.  You shouldn't fine the facebook people if someone cyberbullies a teen.   Sure, both phone company and facebook should make records public in various ways, both because of warrants, and just plain old making public stuff public and searchable.

The spirit and the letter of the 1st amendment is pretty clear: Zero laws abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.  The FBI using Facebook to influence the 2020 election was a gross injustice, and people should be held accountable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-and-hunter-bidens-laptop-joe-rogan-russian-disinformation-fbi-11661544602

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

probably be interpreted as my opinion doesn't count.

I think it’s important to remember that your opinion (and mine) doesn’t matter at all except to our family-and maybe our friends. Other than that, no one cares. 

[LDSGator]

Just to add something-our professional opinions certainly matter. You are absolutely qualified to tell me my singing voice is terrible.
 

And if you tried to spar me in TKD but lack the ability to kick properly, I’m “allowed” to tell you how to fix it. 
 

But once you and I start talking about abortion, tax policy and religion-people probably won’t listen. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

I think it’s important to remember that your opinion (and mine) doesn’t matter at all except to our family-and maybe our friends. Other than that, no one cares. 

What's the point of a freaking survey then?  

That being said... I'm not sure it's really a matter of opinion (though it gets pretty blurred, obviously). So perhaps that word was poorly chosen.

The fact is that I have had several people I know censored on social media. That's not my opinion. And I have not been censored on social media, but I have self censored out of fear. That's not my opinion either. It might be my opinion that social media tends to censor conservative views more...but that's because I'm not armed with the data to prove it more than an opinion. I suspect that opinion is correct...but yeah...that one's just my opinion....

And finally... that no one cares....that's not true. Some people care very much about the opinions of random strangers. They probably all shouldn't. But to suggest that no one cares is factually inaccurate. A LOT of people care way more than they should. And some people care and SHOULD care. For example, businesses should definitely care about the collective opinions of their customers. Obviously a single opinion shouldn't be their concern. But that's the point of surveys and the like. If the consensus of opinions is that your product, service, or elsewise sucks, then they very well should care. And some companies actually do.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Just to add something-our professional opinions certainly matter. You are absolutely qualified to tell me my singing voice is terrible.

Disagree. (Putting aside that I'm not "professional" when it comes to music (I only wish I was)), I despise certain forms of art as a matter of taste. Some of those forms are art are very beloved by an awful lot of people. Me having the view that Taylor Swift is incredibly overrated, or that no one should have been interested in the Barbie movie isn't meaningful. It's just my personal opinions. And if I think your singing voice is terrible but a billion people love it and pay to hear it then what's the point being theoretically "qualified" for that view? 

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

But once you and I start talking about abortion, tax policy and religion-people probably won’t listen. 

Also....not really true. An awful lot of people listen to an awful lot of other people on their views about abortion, tax policy and religion. I mean all I do all day while I work is listen to people talking about that stuff. Yes, it sometimes has more to do with confirmation bias and entertainment than it does respect for the individuals or trusting them as qualified in any way. But either way, it's not accurate to say that no one cares about other people's opinions.

I think, in fact, that this very forum proves that idea wrong. If no one cared about anyone else's opinions then what are any of us doing here? At least I would hope we'd have some level of interest in what others have to say on any given matter rather than just being 100% narcissistic. I know I'm one to talk more than listen, and maybe a bigger offender in that regard than many...and yet I STILL care about other's views and want to hear what others think on various matters.

And...even more important..... I almost care MORE about their opinions if I don't agree with them. Disagreeing with others views is not the same as not caring about those views.

I mean the very idea that someone is pro abortion and the other is anti abortion means they don't care about each others opinion.... well that would just solve all the problems. But we DEEPLY care about those issues. And the more people who are into baby slaughter, high taxes, and anti-religion, the more I worry about the world, and the more I actually do care about their opinions.  Because their opinions, when they gain enough popularity and power, effect the world.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Disagree. (Putting aside that I'm not "professional" when it comes to music (I only wish I was)), I despise certain forms of art as a matter of taste. Some of those forms are art are very beloved by an awful lot of people. Me having the view that Taylor Swift is incredibly overrated, or that no one should have been interested in the Barbie movie isn't meaningful. It's just my personal opinions. And if I think your singing voice is terrible but a billion people love it and pay to hear it then what's the point being theoretically "qualified" for that view? 

Your response is fascinating, and it makes me think. I do see it differently though. In particular if you are producing/writing a musical and looking for actors. In those situations, your opinions matter. 

 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Also....not really true. An awful lot of people listen to an awful lot of other people on their views about abortion, tax policy and religion.

It’s actually quite true, especially about the forums. We’re here for discussions and friendships, and certainly to express ourselves. Do people care about our opinions? Maybe. But if @LDSGator and @The Folk Prophet were that influential, we should go into politics or spend more time converting others to the LDS faith. I also highly highly doubt anyone has been significantly swayed by the opinions of any of us here. People have either doubled down on what they believe or forgotten what we (everyone here) said. 
 

 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

being 100% narcissistic

I freely admit to being the most narcissistic, self absorbed personal alive, but I’m not stupid. I know I’m really not that influential. 
 

Now, with all that said, I think you make excellent points. And I did pay attention. So you might be right.