Question

...
Jason Mathias

Any fallacies here?

President Trump gets deplatformed from Twitter. 

Meme in response: "Just remember, Dictators don't get censored. They do the censoring. 

asked on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021 10:25:47 AM by Jason Mathias

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
2
mchasewalker writes:

I'm going to address the charge of censorship rather than that of dictatorship which Dr. Bo has more than adequately debunked.

It's hard to ignore the underlying Tu Quoque (ad hominem) "Whataboutism" implied in the claim. What to speak of a glaring false equivalence that deceptively conflates Trump's openly and well-established effort to suppress information, nullify The Media's influence, and punish anyone who contradicts his barrage of lies, subterfuge, and disinformation.  All forms of censorship in its bald attempt to claim the truth exclusively for himself and his propagandists. All tax-payer funded employees with very different legal and constitutional restraints.   ( The Logan Act, Abuse of Power, etc.)

The possible equivocation problem is that it shifts the charge of censorship from a publicly elected government official to that of a private organization. This is a false equivalence. Twitter is not a publicly tax-funded organization, but a private organization with its own standards of community rules and legally sanctioned discretionary by-laws. 

If a private establishment imposes a  No shirt, No shoes, No Service policy it is not an infringement of First Amendment Rights, whereas if the federal government imposed such a rule on the citizenry it would be on very shaky constitutional grounds.

posted on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021 11:57:30 AM
...
0
Jason Mathias writes:

[To mchasewalker]

Now I see a follow up meme: 

"If Twitter can do whatever they want, since they are a private company, then ever single business in America should be open right now" 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021 04:39:04 PM
...
0
Arlo writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

There are some logical gaps in the logic string here.  Accepting what's presented in the post as fact, we have:

A private organization has fewer limits than governments do on restricting posted content.

Twitter is a private organization.

Therefore, Twitter has fewer limits on its ability to restrict posted content than a government would have.

(OK so far ...)

( here's the gap )

Therefore, Twitter can do whatever it wants, ( presumably in terms of censoring content, but the actual statement didn't limit the discussion to posted material ).

( and another gap )

If Twitter can do whatever it wants ( in terms of restricting posted content ), then any private organization can do whatever it wants in terms of any activity ... including those prohibited by law.

We have too many logical gaps to take us from private organizations having different censorship restrictions to every business can violate local laws.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 04:29:45 PM
...
0
mchasewalker writes:

Oh, good god, no. Private businesses are subject to municipal and state law, and therefore subject to their laws. In a global pandemic, these laws can be changed and legally enforced. Twitter may be a privately-owned social media site, but there is zero person-to-person contact. They are entitled to restrict or even expel those who do not comply with their community standards. Private clubs are permitted to require dress codes, etc. In some instances, they are even allowed to restrict membership with the proviso they do not discriminate against creed, color, religion, or gender. Some do, but they can be legally sued. Then, it's a matter of law, not logic.

posted on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021 04:56:37 PM
...
0
GoblinCookie writes:
[To mchasewalker]

Oh, good god, no. Private businesses are subject to municipal and state law, and therefore subject to their laws. In a global pandemic, these laws can be changed and legally enforced. Twitter may be a privately-owned social media site, but there is zero person-to-person contact. They are entitled to restrict or even expel those who do not comply with their community standards. Private clubs are permitted to require dress codes, etc. In some instances, they are even allowed to restrict membership with the proviso they do not discriminate against creed, color, religion, or gender. Some do, but they can be legally sued. Then, it's a matter of law, not logic. 

It is a matter of legal idiocy.  Private entities censoring things is identical in social effect to public entities doing so.  What is more private entities censor people in order to curry favor with the public authorities, which is increasingly what is going on in the age of Covid-19.  Not that removing Coronavirus misinformation isn't something I support, it is just that it is crystal clear the government is using private companies to circumvent their own legal constraints on censorship.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 09:33:36 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

Loaded language. People have claimed that Trump has dictator-like behaviors, but this doesn't make him a dictator, meaning he doesn't have control over our media and can't censor. The term "censoring" is also loaded. There is a legitimate debate to be had between what is moderating vs. censoring, and valid reasons for doing both.

The clearly implied claim here is that Twitter is a dictator. Let's set aside the claim that a social media platform can be a "dictator."

The fallacy, however, is one of logical form

Some X do Some Y.
Z did Y.
Therefore, Z is an X.

Some X (dictators) do Some [of the] Y (censoring).
Z (Twitter) did Y (censoring).
Therefore, Z (Twitter) is an X (dictator).

This doesn't follow. Here is another example:

Some X (kids) do Some [of the] Y (bullying).
Z (Coach) did Y (bullying).
Therefore, Z (Coach) is an X (kid).

No, Coach is an adult who also bullies. Just like Twitter is a social media platform that also censors.

answered on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021 10:40:27 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Jason Mathias writes:

Now I see a follow up meme: 

"If Twitter can do whatever they want, since they are a private company, then every single business in America should be open right now" 

I am not sure what the fallacy is here. Is it a strawman since no one said Twitter can do whatever they want? Is it a false equivalence since Twitter is an online business that poses no risk to infectious disease like like in person businesses do?

posted on Sunday, Jan 10, 2021 04:58:46 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

That is the problem; Twitter can only do "whatever they want" as long as what they want to do is legal.

I think the strawman fallacy is the most applicable here.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 08:12:21 AM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

"Some X do Some Y.
 Z did Y.
Therefore, Z is an X"

Is it "Guilt by Association" or is there another more specific name for it, since it is used so often and not only for negative but also for positive traits (to give an overall goodness instead of guilt)? I think it is so common that this logical form would deserve to have its own name. 

posted on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 12:34:44 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

I guess it is similar, but I think a general non sequitur would be less arguable. There is probably a name for this, but I can't think of it and did not find something that jumped right out.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 03:13:42 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thank you for your reply.
 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 06:23:09 PM
...
Kostas Oikonomou
1

I think the argument about Trump was:
'Dictators censor.
 Twitter censored.
 Twitter is a dictator.'
which is affirming the consequent, because there are also other cases where someone may censor without being a dictator. 

 

answered on Monday, Jan 11, 2021 06:17:24 PM by Kostas Oikonomou

Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

That works!

posted on Tuesday, Jan 12, 2021 08:14:12 AM