Media Influence, Stereotypes, And RL/SL Comparisons

[Luna Bliss]

Trying to keep another thread from going off-topic via starting an interesting discussion here that deserves a thread of its own.

*Let's stick to the topic and not politicize the issues.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

I think it's good they removed smoking ads in the U.S.  How harmful does something have to be, or what factors should influence decisions, before society sanctions removal of ads and depictions?  For example, in SL we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas (at least I don't think we can depict the latter).  What makes the difference?

Edited September 30, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Quistess Alpha]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas

Maybe someone else has a better grasp of the TOS than I, but I'm pretty sure swastikas are allowed. Especially on Adult land.

Unless you argue they violate:

Quote

Cruel or hateful content that could harm, harass, promote or condone violence against, or that is primarily intended to incite hatred of, animals, or individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, nationality, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.

https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/content-guidelines

Edited September 30, 2021 by Quistess Alpha

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

Maybe someone else has a better grasp of the TOS than I, but I'm pretty sure swastikas are allowed. Especially on Adult land.

I don't think there used to be an issue with swastikas, but the times have changed, even in SL.  I think now, if reported, they get removed under the 'hate speech / intolerance / discrimination" clauses.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I think it's good they removed smoking ads in the U.S.  How harmful does something have to be, or what factors should influence decisions, before society sanctions removal of ads and depictions?  For example, in SL we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas (at least I don't think we can depict the latter).  What makes the difference?

That is because Swastikas promote hate speech and therefore violates TOS. Whereas smoking does not, do either. 

[Chris Corvinus]

8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

*Let's stick to the topic and not politicize the issues.

Its always amusing when one starts a discussion thats ripe for politicizing but says not to politicize it.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Chris Nova said:

8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

*Let's stick to the topic and not politicize the issues.

Its always amusing when one starts a discussion thats ripe for politicizing but says not to politicize it.

Everything is political...haven't you heard that?

When I say not to politicize the issue I mean hard politics...like one political side trashing the other...making it a war between political party views.  No need to do that.

[Chris Corvinus]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Everything is political...haven't you heard that?

When I say not to politicize the issue I mean hard politics...like one political side trashing the other...making it a war between political party views.  No need to do that.

Its gonna happen whether you want it to or not. Thats what happens with issues like this. Issues like this are ripe for it. And you can't control that.

[Istelathis]

8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

For example, in SL we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas (at least I don't think we can depict the latter).  What makes the difference?

My own view is that smoking is not usually done with the intention of harassing others, it is not a methodology of spreading hate and fear.  For me, it is the intent behind the imagery, if the intent is meant to cause harm to others I am not opposed to censorship.  

This all dwells in one's sense of ethics though, and I rarely argue from the point of ethics considering I am nearly nihilistic and consider them to be based upon one's own subjective views rather than objective fact.  

Edited September 30, 2021 by Istelathis

[Luna Bliss]

23 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:

Its gonna happen whether you want it to or not. Thats what happens with issues like this. Issues like this are ripe for it. And you can't control that.

I disagree. It can be controlled to a degree via people on the thread requesting that we not make this into a party argument.

[Chris Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I disagree. It can be controlled to a degree via people on the thread requesting that we not make this into a party argument.

LOL! Requesting people not respond a certain way is...futile. This is a public forum and you cannot control what another person says.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Chris Nova said:

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I disagree. It can be controlled to a degree via people on the thread requesting that we not make this into a party argument.

LOL! Requesting people not respond a certain way is...futile. This is a public forum and you cannot control what another person says.

Naww...I've seen people back down with a little encouragement.

[Chris Corvinus]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Naww...I've seen people back down with a little encouragement.

Thats nice. What would you do when someone doesn't back down? Nothing.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Chris Nova

[Jordyn McGregor]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Naww...I've seen people back down with a little encouragement.

I think you mean bullying, belittling and harrassing.  

It's not backing down, its censorship.  You shout louder and longer than everyone else to drown out opinions and ideas so people give up.  I have not seen ONE PERSON turn around, give up their beliefs, opinions and viewpoints and agree with yours!

Edited October 1, 2021 by Jordan Whitt

[Vicious Hollow]

...sorry couldn't resist...😛

[roseelvira]

7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Naww...I've seen people back down with a little encouragement.

 

               

                                                                                

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by roseelvira

[Jordyn McGregor]

1 hour ago, Vicious Hollow said:

...sorry couldn't resist...😛

SHARE!!!

[Annie Nova]

Just so everyone knows...I am Annie LOL. I now return you to your regularly scheduled show. Party on and this is the last comment I'll post in this thread. Just say'in'

[JoJo Aurelia]

Remove all rape ads, products on Marketplace, at min. #MeToo 

[ValKalAstra]

17 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I think it's good they removed smoking ads in the U.S.  How harmful does something have to be, or what factors should influence decisions, before society sanctions removal of ads and depictions?  For example, in SL we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas (at least I don't think we can depict the latter).  What makes the difference?

The answer is, simply and complicated enough, perceived consensus on a corporate level. Any deliberation about harm and influence is moot when what decides a platform's action is lost value for shareholders/owners. Cynical? Maybe. But if you want smoking to be banned too, all you need to do is stir up the pot to the level that media attention snaps onto it and the $$$ value is in danger. 

Look at something like Reddit. It's got a thousand or more communities all focused on various things. Amongst those things are some truly and utterly vile things. Every couple of months the site gets into the headlines because of these communities. Then it's a dozen articles or so lambasting media's harmful influence and then the communities get banned. Case in point: It didn't matter one bit that thousands of people reported a community about ogling underage girls in swimsuits before media got wind of it - and then it went down quick.

And the important part here is the perceived consensus, not necessarily the actual consensus. Social Media allows people to be extremely loud to the point that a single person can shift the entire narrative if they reach critical mass. Case in point, the damage Requires Hate has done to the writing community at large persists to this day. So: The difference is the bottom line of those that make money on it.

 

 

[Ted McGregor]

2 hours ago, Annie Nova said:

Just so everyone knows...I am Annie LOL.

Are you okay ? Please tell us.

[JoJo Aurelia]

10 hours ago, Chris Nova said:

LOL! Requesting people not respond a certain way is...futile. This is a public forum and you cannot control what another person says.

Too true. I used to post all the time on here. But I'm thin skinned. A terrible thing for a creative person. 

[Amina Sopwith]

1 hour ago, ValKalAstra said:

Social Media allows people to be extremely loud to the point that a single person can shift the entire narrative if they reach critical mass.

This is a really good point, and touches on the issue PPs have raised about whether you've actually changed a consensus just by being the loudest (without making a partisan statement either way on that particular issue; I'm just talking about the concept in abstract).

The UK got absolutely blue rinsed (haha) in the last general election, but you'd never have known it was coming from social media. If you were paying attention to news sources, you'd know the Tories were going to win but social media alone would give the impression that they had no support...and even the experts didn't expect an absolute landslide like that. There are many issues where people won't put their heads above the parapet, because they've seen what happens to those who do, but it doesn't change what they think. And when they can vote anonymously, the discrepancy between the dominant narrative and what people really believe can become very clear.

[Annie Nova]

1 hour ago, TDD123 said:

Are you okay ? Please tell us.

I am fine, why? lol

[So Whimsy]

Smoking ads have also been removed in germany for some time now and they added super gross pictures to smoke packs/tobacco containers along phrases like "Smoking Kills".