|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 17, 2021 20:00:01 GMT
Say a lie often enough and people believe it. What you're saying is stupid conspiracy laden shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 17, 2021 23:16:23 GMT
What he's saying is, speaking is fine. Protesting is fine. No he isn't you retard. cyph is saying it's okay all these people are losing their jobs, one person is losing their insurance, over their speech and peaceable assembly. Learn to read, bitch. I said that if they were in the Capitol building, too fucking bad, you broke the law. The rest of the idiots shouldn't be receiving that kind of punishment. Pretty sure I said that, dolt. Nope. I don't see what they have as public square protections. They're allowed to moderate or not. Their choice. But moderating doesn't mean that they're responsible for what people who are not their employees post. What makes that so difficult to understand? What would happen if the protections weren't there would not be that they would go away. It would mean an end to moderation. They make way to much money to just close up shop. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 17, 2021 23:27:48 GMT
Ah. My bad. My opinion still stands. Only a combination of luck and quick thinking saved law-makers from the mob. Don't think they wouldn't have cheered if those congress men and women were strung up on that rickety gallows.
So fuck em. They deserve everything they're getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 17, 2021 23:30:16 GMT
No he isn't you retard. cyph is saying it's okay all these people are losing their jobs, one person is losing their insurance, over their speech and peaceable assembly. Learn to read, bitch. I said that if they were in the Capitol building, too fucking bad, you broke the law. The rest of the idiots shouldn't be receiving that kind of punishment. Pretty sure I said that, dolt. Nope. I don't see what they have as public square protections. They're allowed to moderate or not. Their choice. But moderating doesn't mean that they're responsible for what people who are not their employees post. What makes that so difficult to understand? What would happen if the protections weren't there would not be that they would go away. It would mean an end to moderation. They make way to much money to just close up shop. The issue is that social media has half-assed their moderation - removing info not on its content, but upon which side of the political spectrum is expressing that content. Twitter suspended an account recently based only upon the person including #democracydiesindarkness in their post. The same twitter that hasn't banned the Iranian government for tweeting hate for Jewish people and supporters of Israel and hasn't banned the individual antifa chapters that plotted violence all summer long. The trespassing of the Capitol was planned on Facebook (the same facebook that had several million instances of child exploitation posted on their site) - but parler gets thrown off while nothing has been done about facebook. You don't get to claim you have the right to moderate your users' content *and* enjoy Section 230 protections. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 18, 2021 11:05:03 GMT
Honestly, the rules as writ says you can. The Republicans created this mess by doing away with Net Neutrality and relaxing regulations. Now they're crying in their cheerios.
I have no sympathy. None.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Jan 18, 2021 12:58:00 GMT
You frame it as a "War on Free Speech". But is it? I think there was, and maybe there still is, a war on the truth.
Twitter didn't ban Trump. Twitter ,for many years ,allowed him to spew misinformation, lies, half-truths and personal attacks. They allegedly did this despite their own terms of use because there was a legitimate interest in having a public person like the president of the united states be present on Twitter. Regardless of whether he broke the rules. That was their mistake. They probably benefitted from the extra attention this gave twitter. Suddenly it was an important source for news. With him finally leaving office, that use has diminished, and now their are marketing gains by finally banning him.
Getting rid of Parler doesn't mean a war on free speech, either, because it's companies doing it as Parler is violating their terms of use. The government is not involved. But Parler is even less about free speech than Twitter, because Parler was apparently mostly used by Conservatives, it is hardly something used by the "public". It's an echo chamber.
And conservatives can still post stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Signal, Whatsapp and what not.
Unless they say racist stuff, or incite violence, post child pornography and all the kind of stuff that might be either against the ToU or the law.
It might be surprising to some (particularly on the Left perhaps?), but you don't need to tell lies*, or have to be racist, to be a conservative and to voice conservative opinions.
*) Well, except the kind of lies people of political coleurs will tell... like "Freedom", "Justice", "Liberty", "Community", "Equality"...
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 18, 2021 13:24:36 GMT
You frame it as a "War on Free Speech". But is it? I think there was, and maybe there still is, a war on the truth. Twitter didn't ban Trump. Twitter ,for many years ,allowed him to spew misinformation, lies, half-truths and personal attacks. They allegedly did this despite their own terms of use because there was a legitimate interest in having a public person like the president of the united states be present on Twitter. Regardless of whether he broke the rules. That was their mistake. They probably benefitted from the extra attention this gave twitter. Suddenly it was an important source for news. With him finally leaving office, that use has diminished, and now their are marketing gains by finally banning him. Getting rid of Parler doesn't mean a war on free speech, either, because it's companies doing it as Parler is violating their terms of use. The government is not involved. But Parler is even less about free speech than Twitter, because Parler was apparently mostly used by Conservatives, it is hardly something used by the "public". It's an echo chamber. And conservatives can still post stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Signal, Whatsapp and what not. Unless they say racist stuff, or incite violence, post child pornography and all the kind of stuff that might be either against the ToU or the law. It might be surprising to some (particularly on the Left perhaps?), but you don't need to tell lies*, or have to be racist, to be a conservative and to voice conservative opinions. *) Well, except the kind of lies people of political coleurs will tell... like "Freedom", "Justice", "Liberty", "Community", "Equality"... If only that were true. I've seen people being suspended and banned for posting things that hit too close to home (i.e. the truth) for liberals. It's usually because what was posted was so concise and spot-on, there is no counterpoint available to be made. Contrast that to the leftists shit-posting - they are hailed by each other as geniuses with insightful commentary. What people need to realize is that social media *is* the street corner soapbox in the modern world. US law needs to treat it that way in regards to 1st amendment protections. Companies can argue that their platform is private but it's riding on networks based upon an internet originating in USG research labs - so the underlying transport protocols were invented using taxpayer dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 18, 2021 13:35:44 GMT
There is a reason for that. I've seen what you've posted 3cat. In any other forum, you'd have been banned for spreading lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories, all the while wondering why, when you think it's truth. Here we just mock you for the shit you post. The sad part is, you still think it's gold when literally everyone on both the left and right are telling you it's shit.
That's why "conservatives" get banned. It's not because they tell the truth to power, but the opposite. They lie, even to themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 18, 2021 18:31:23 GMT
You frame it as a "War on Free Speech". But is it? I think there was, and maybe there still is, a war on the truth. Twitter didn't ban Trump. Twitter ,for many years ,allowed him to spew misinformation, lies, half-truths and personal attacks. They allegedly did this despite their own terms of use because there was a legitimate interest in having a public person like the president of the united states be present on Twitter. Regardless of whether he broke the rules. That was their mistake. They probably benefitted from the extra attention this gave twitter. Suddenly it was an important source for news. With him finally leaving office, that use has diminished, and now their are marketing gains by finally banning him. Getting rid of Parler doesn't mean a war on free speech, either, because it's companies doing it as Parler is violating their terms of use. The government is not involved. But Parler is even less about free speech than Twitter, because Parler was apparently mostly used by Conservatives, it is hardly something used by the "public". It's an echo chamber. And conservatives can still post stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Signal, Whatsapp and what not. Unless they say racist stuff, or incite violence, post child pornography and all the kind of stuff that might be either against the ToU or the law. It might be surprising to some (particularly on the Left perhaps?), but you don't need to tell lies*, or have to be racist, to be a conservative and to voice conservative opinions. *) Well, except the kind of lies people of political coleurs will tell... like "Freedom", "Justice", "Liberty", "Community", "Equality"... If only that were true. I've seen people being suspended and banned for posting things that hit too close to home (i.e. the truth) for liberals. It's usually because what was posted was so concise and spot-on, there is no counterpoint available to be made. Contrast that to the leftists shit-posting - they are hailed by each other as geniuses with insightful commentary. What people need to realize is that social media *is* the street corner soapbox in the modern world. US law needs to treat it that way in regards to 1st amendment protections. Companies can argue that their platform is private but it's riding on networks based upon an internet originating in USG research labs - so the underlying transport protocols were invented using taxpayer dollars. So here's the problem with what you're saying. They're removing misinformation, and you have a problem with it. For example, the vaccine "debate". Just about everything put out that's anti-vaccine is full of lies. Those things not only shouldn't be given equal time, they shouldn't be given time. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 18, 2021 20:18:23 GMT
If only that were true. I've seen people being suspended and banned for posting things that hit too close to home (i.e. the truth) for liberals. It's usually because what was posted was so concise and spot-on, there is no counterpoint available to be made. Contrast that to the leftists shit-posting - they are hailed by each other as geniuses with insightful commentary. What people need to realize is that social media *is* the street corner soapbox in the modern world. US law needs to treat it that way in regards to 1st amendment protections. Companies can argue that their platform is private but it's riding on networks based upon an internet originating in USG research labs - so the underlying transport protocols were invented using taxpayer dollars. So here's the problem with what you're saying. They're removing misinformation, and you have a problem with it. For example, the vaccine "debate". Just about everything put out that's anti-vaccine is full of lies. Those things not only shouldn't be given equal time, they shouldn't be given time. It would be fine if they were just removing misinformation across the political spectrum - if they had an all-knowing AI confirming truth. The fact is they are removing ideas that they don't like because "fact checkers" are human and the vast majority of them lean strongly left. I didn't see, for example, any rush by the media, to remove or correct their narrative when the DoJ started walking back their assertions that the capitol riots were right -wingers exclusively, once they started arresting hard-core antifa leftists. Most news outlets revised their story in like page A97 when the initial story was front-page. The narrative that Trump incited riots by only right-wingers is still prevalent on social media despite the proof that violence was pre-planned by both left and right extremists. You bring up the anti-vax example and I get it that some of their assertions hold no water primarily as it relates to childhood diseases; but the medical community and pharmaceutical industry are themselves to blame by their unwillingness or inability to be transparent. The 1976 swine flu resulted in a rush to develop a vaccine and distribute it - and it resulted in a couple of hundred injuries (Guillain-Barr). Those who are leery see that the covid vaccine was whipped out in roughly the same amount of time - and unlike a traditional vaccine, some of these rely upon mRNA manipulation - something that is going to raise concerns, even amongst those who aren't anti-vaxxers. Several people have already died or suffered significant side effects. Norway is seriously looking into the issue. The US - not so much. Couple that with several publicized instances of people being "vaccinated" with a dry needle, of a nurse passing out after saying she felt fine at a presser after getting vaccinated and it's a recipe for no trust. 40% if the LA county firefighters didn't show up for their vaccination appointments. In *any* endeavour, the tendency of government and corporate America to not be 100% transparent and to attempt to discredit detractors instead of listening to their concerns and addressing them is why people don't trust them. Instead of, for example, saying that "they're perfectly safe - I give them to my own kids" in response to claims that some vaccines cause autism, why not publish the raw data of the clinical trials showing "yeah, 1 in 20,000 might suffer a seizure after taking this vaccine." Give people all the info, no matter how scary, and let them digest it. It'll lead to better-informed, more educated citizens. But then again, the goal of those who want globalism and crony capitalism is a populace just educated enough to work and be a consumer. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 18, 2021 22:01:15 GMT
And again, you're full of shit. The riot happened because of Trump. Both because of his rhetoric before the rally and during it. The riot was the final spark that lit the entire barn on fire though. The only extremists there were right wing extremists. Some people are going to have reactions to vaccines, sometimes serious ones. That's just a fact of medicine. It's still better for most people to take the vaccine. Corporate American and the government have never been transparent. The Trump administration has been one of the least transparent of them all.When you go into an echo chamber, you only hear your voice echoed back to you. That's the conservative problem. Their lies and self-deception are amplified and that's all they hear. Facts become irrelevant. Only the leader's words matter. When that leader is Trump, you get chaos, division, hate and confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 19, 2021 2:49:21 GMT
You frame it as a "War on Free Speech". But is it? I think there was, and maybe there still is, a war on the truth. Twitter didn't ban Trump. Twitter ,for many years ,allowed him to spew misinformation, lies, half-truths and personal attacks. They allegedly did this despite their own terms of use because there was a legitimate interest in having a public person like the president of the united states be present on Twitter. Regardless of whether he broke the rules. That was their mistake. They probably benefitted from the extra attention this gave twitter. Suddenly it was an important source for news. With him finally leaving office, that use has diminished, and now their are marketing gains by finally banning him. Getting rid of Parler doesn't mean a war on free speech, either, because it's companies doing it as Parler is violating their terms of use. The government is not involved. But Parler is even less about free speech than Twitter, because Parler was apparently mostly used by Conservatives, it is hardly something used by the "public". It's an echo chamber. And conservatives can still post stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Signal, Whatsapp and what not. Unless they say racist stuff, or incite violence, post child pornography and all the kind of stuff that might be either against the ToU or the law. It might be surprising to some (particularly on the Left perhaps?), but you don't need to tell lies*, or have to be racist, to be a conservative and to voice conservative opinions. *) Well, except the kind of lies people of political coleurs will tell... like "Freedom", "Justice", "Liberty", "Community", "Equality"... No, it is a war on speech. There is ALSO a war on truth. The issue here isn't whether private companies can ban content without violating the 1st amendment. The issue is that with the meteoric rise of social media, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, etc. have a lock on communication. The vast amount of it is being done on social media platforms, which means that they have incredible control over what we get to talk about and see. If they are allowed to just ban and allow what they wish, it is a huge free speech issue, as in people won't be free to speak about things. They will be very fettered. Obviously, these platforms need to keep some amount of control, so that they can monitor and keep out illegal content, but legislation needs to be passed to keep them from censoring ideas that they don't want people to see and just allowing us to see the ones that they approve of. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 19, 2021 3:38:46 GMT
Nope. I don't see what they have as public square protections. And you're wrong. Objectively wrong. Correct, because legally they aren't publishers despite actually publishing online content. Because legally 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them public square protections, explicitly. Wrong. If they weren't protected from the consequences of what they publish, they would have to spend more on moderation to protection themselves from the potential of being sued for publishing defamation and libel than it would be worth. That's what 47 U.S.C. § 230 gives them, protection from the consequences of what they publish. You frame it as a "War on Free Speech". But is it? Yes it is. And it's about to get worse. They just did. Do you know why (it's clear you do)? Hint it's not what kirinke thinks, it's because he's about to not be president so his presence is no longer going to be as revenue driving as it was. So yes, they're banning him for all the TOS violations he's been up to over the years, but they're using "incited insurrection" as the reason. Because it made them money. Twitter also allows bluechecks to get away with way more bs than non-bluechecks, because bluechecks drive way more interaction with the system than non-bluechecks. Was it though? It drove interactions, it made them money, and very very few were upset they let him stay because it drove traffic for the Lefty bluechecks as well. Exactly. False. censorship; noun the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Nothing there about requiring government. Hmmmm... Here's a meme to help explain the concept:  As long as they don't offend. But more and more they are being driven off, shadowbanning, suspensions, the "unfollow bug", etc. Even I've smacked into this discriminating treatment on twitter. Ah, ye olde canard of "hate speech". I get you're German, but here in the US (in theory) were against the concept of hate speech. Said best here by Ira Glasser, former ACLU head: |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 19, 2021 5:05:21 GMT
A blow struck for Free Speech!
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 19, 2021 7:06:01 GMT
|
|
