OVERVIEW |
FORMAT |
SOCRATIC CIRCLES
What is this?
Step 1: Topic and Drawing Lots
Topic A
Topic B
What the outer circle should be looking for
|
DISCUSSIONSTopic A:Topic B |
Group 1 (Red)
Debate regarding censorship on social media centred around the imperative of individuals who control the mainstream media narratives to protect the public from general harm against the right to free speech of the public. The CEO of Instagram argued for the right of its Organisation to be able to retain the ability to control the operations of its own body and project a positive image of itself through providing a pleasant environment for its users, and negated potential counters by maintaining that users suscribed to the terms and conditions of usage and therefore should comply with the rules of the social media platform. On the other hand, proponents of free speech argued for the rights of the people to be able to independently form their own judgements based on a whole spectrum of available online content. The premise of this argument is that harm is often a subjective experience and given that is is practically impossible to value judge each individual material and its associated harm, it is best to leave the formation of judgement to the individual. Censorship was also said tone controversial because it forms a moral hazard, setting up a precedent for the government to unilaterally determine the "acceptable" forms of speech whilst simultaneously condemning others. In less than democratic autocracies which routinely suppress voices into whispers and turn genuine cries for help into cries of sorrow, censorship entrenches inequalities within society and legitimise ostracism of a particular group. Group 2 (Yellow) Censorship is inevitable and necessary for filtering materials that evoke discomfort ⁃ censorship is effective in ensuring social stability by filtering anti-government sentiment. Group 3 (Purple) It was very very interesting as the topic of the censorship of social media was discussed in Topic A. Various standpoints such as being the CEO of Instagram, a parent of a five-year old child and an exclusive government possessing limitations on social media, were investigated as a main viewpoint was established that the conjunction of perspectives given by the social media corporations themselves and the general public, provide the basis of what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the social media. Secondly, it was established that as social media platforms are still companies, who still require profit, have the motive of rather maintaining a public image and reputation in order to create profit from its target audience. This is contradicted by the fact that the government has a completely opposite view of its reasons for the censorship of social media. It was established that many governments that censor specific modes of social media usually censor media targeting contradicting government groups or usually anti-patriotic sentiments Group 4 (Blue) Group 5 (Black) Group 6 (Pink) Group 7 (Orange) Pornography, violence, blood, gore, swear words, opinions, what qualifies to be censored from the public. What gives the government the right to tell us, the public, what we can and cannot view. If the government were to create a system; in which the adults would filter out inappropriate content, there would be many flaws. Each generation experience our society in a different way. The generation that experience World War II will be desensitised to death, blood and war. However, if the World War II generation were to censor the inappropriate internet content for this current generation there would be problems. The current generation has not experienced war, therefore they are not desensitised to blood and gore. This generation is verbally desensitised as cuss words and derogatory terms, that was used primarily but gangs, are casually thrown around in conversation. This system would result in internet users’ contents to be block when using derogatory terms and swear words but there would be multiple pages of content based on blood, gore and death. Therefore, this system wouldn’t work. Censorship systems based off of the movie suggestion age recommendation system would also inefficiently manage the problem. This is because it is hard to define what is appropriate for another person, especially persons who are young or in another age group to the person creating the censorship system. Within an age group different people respond differently to the same content, due to there up-bringing, culture, and maturity. This is another factor that must be addressed when creating a criterion to rank the inappropriate content. Censorship is however very necessary as the internet is extremely accessibly for children in this day and age and no matter they mature there are some things that 13 year olds should not be view. A solution could not be reached as many options were presented, but flawed and discussed, in the limited time we could not reach a solution in which there were little flaws and majority agreed. Group 8 (Green) The topic discussed was about internet censorship. The government supported internet censorship by stating the two main motives of governments who ban their citizens from accessing certain social media content, namely to maintain the government's power and to protect citizens' safety. The parent of a five-year-old child agreed with the government by stating her concern of her child's growth. The CEO of instagram also agreed that certain information have to be banned to protect users' safety. The university student who was an active participant in internet forums opposed their arguments by stating humans should have the freedom of speech and any kind of speeches or posts should not be banned. Discussions on the accessibility of "inappropriate" information lead to the discussion on the "forbidden fruit" effect, which is the human nature of having a stronger curiosity towards illegal or banned information. It was argued that humans would have a stronger urge to find their own ways to overcome firewalls in order to gain access to certain blocked information, which in turn would cause the opposite of the desired effect. Towards the end of the discussion, the group came into a consent that internet censorship to a certain extent was necessary. Extreme inappropriate information such as blood and explicit sexuality should be blocked. Internet censorship should also be assisted with education to equip students with right values. Group 1 (Red)
Group 2 (Yellow) Propaganda is acceptable when it fosters national pride ⁃ however, prolonged propagation may result in polarization of political opinions/the ideology propagated may radicalize. Group 3 (Purple) Group 4 (Blue) Group 5 (Black) In the discussion topic B, which was political censoring and propaganda, different stakeholders expressed their views. The patriotic nationalist expressed her views towards the legitimacy of such censoring and propaganda, due to the belief that it boosted people’s confidence in the government and different schemes, and that it would help with the citizens’ sense of belonging. The other stakeholders also agreed with her views, stating different points such as how it would help empowerment, public dissemination of information and education. Examples were raised, such as the Great Leap Forward. The programme was failing, but the propaganda, such as the posters which advocated the fact that the programme was working perfectly, and it boosted people’s confidence in the plan, and it strengthened the Government’s reign. In the example of Australia, in WWI and WWII, the use of posters helped advocate the empowerment of women, which helped support the economy in times where the men were out of the country, fighting in a foreign land. In such a case, the posters which helped the empowerment saved the nation’s economy, and hence props that censoring and propaganda should be justified. For censoring, the example of terrorist propaganda was raised. The fact that the messages should be censored to prevent fear in the people also shows how it promotes national security and helps the Government, and was proven to be legitimate. Group 6 (Pink) Group 7 (Orange) After a round of discussion, delegates managed to come to a consensus and they agreed that propaganda would have to be a necessary evil when the circumstances call and permit for it to be employed. Therefore, propaganda might not be as pernicious after all for it might serve in the best interest of citizens by uniting the nation behind a common goal in times of wars, famines or other forms of catastrophes. We also contextualised our discussion and agreed that the effectiveness of propaganda in this day and age would be discounted and reduced to a very huge extent since there are many alternative sources to the propaganda that was released by governments. This means that people today would less likely take the information disseminated by the government at face value and would cross check it before accepting it. With that, it would be a huge challenge for governments to blind their citizens from the truth in the 21st century. We also condemned the actions of governments who utilised propaganda to further political agendas that are immoral, abhorrent and unacceptable. Examples of such governments would be the Nazi Government that rules over Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s where it perpetuates the notion that Jews are lesser human beings and do not deserve a place on this Earth. Ultimately, it was a fruitful discussion where we managed to look at this very pertinent issue from many different angles and perspectives. Group 8 (Green) Our discussion entailed an informative collaboration of views regarding political censors and propaganda during the Cold War Era. As a patriotic nationalist, propaganda was considered heroic and inspiring. The government is rather manipulative in terms of using propaganda to its advantage and to enforce specific ideologies. As a citizen of a country whose government activity puts out propaganda-based messages, propaganda has become a normal element of everyday life, and the inundation has almost desensitised other views. Another citizen, whose government minimally exercises media control and educational policies, is exposed to many views which in turn facilitates informed opinions. The extent in which propaganda posters are acceptable as a form of national education to encourage patriotism, short and long term ramifications and is contribution to fear and confidence varies among the stakeholders. Particularly for the government and the patriotic nationalist, propaganda is in fact a very acceptable form of national education. For the citizen whose life has been inundated with propaganda, the sense of national prize is exacerbated as, to some extent, personal ideologies are desensitised. This could potentially lead to more radical/extreme versions of propaganda, as governments can take advantage of the gullibility of the people. It was discussed that this results in a rather black and white view of certain issues, which may result in disagreement to any other views encountered. Furthermore, propaganda has the potential to lead by fear and confidence. Overall, various views were discussed about the concepts revolving around propaganda during the Cold War Era. |