Topkick
Verified Military
People like this are part of the problem, not the solution. These talking heads work to turn people against each other and although people should have the right to hear it, I'm not sure why they do that to themselves.
Freedom of speech vs. the ‘right’ to be heard....
- Thread starter Ooh-Rah
- Start date
I watched a Joe Rogan clip on YouTube where he talks about AJ just yesterday. Apparently, and I'm taking JR's word for it, AJ has in the past uncovered some serious conspiracies. Like the broken clock analogy, he usually says some off the wall rediculous stuff.
As FB, YT, Twitter and all that become huge platforms that are suposed to be for public consumption, there seems to be a trend where left leaning FOS commentators are left alone while right leaning lunatics get shadow banned or removed. ISIS uses Twitter, The Nation of Islam has tons of Kill Whitey shit on YT, FB has pretty much EVERY shithead imaginable. All us rational folks know about the user policy, and all of us know that there's sensationalism on both sides.
I want to start hearing tree huggers and commies getting banned now. I won't hold my breath.
I want to add that recently there was some Hollocaust denial outrage where FB refused to ban the perpetrator.
As FB, YT, Twitter and all that become huge platforms that are suposed to be for public consumption, there seems to be a trend where left leaning FOS commentators are left alone while right leaning lunatics get shadow banned or removed. ISIS uses Twitter, The Nation of Islam has tons of Kill Whitey shit on YT, FB has pretty much EVERY shithead imaginable. All us rational folks know about the user policy, and all of us know that there's sensationalism on both sides.
I want to start hearing tree huggers and commies getting banned now. I won't hold my breath.
I want to add that recently there was some Hollocaust denial outrage where FB refused to ban the perpetrator.
Holy shit. Perfect explaination.
Besides what Ocoka says...how about suing a baker over a fucking cake...
Colorado is at it once again no less.......
The SOCMED players aren’t publishers as noted. The real censors are organisations like Sleeping Giants & they’re very effective.
Sleeping Giants - Wikipedia
Censorship is no longer exclusively a government function.(yep, know wiki isn’t an ideal source but there you go)
Sleeping Giants - Wikipedia
Censorship is no longer exclusively a government function.(yep, know wiki isn’t an ideal source but there you go)
Last edited:
Ron Wyden calls for 'consequences' when 'bad actor' content isn't removed from social media
ACLU: Alex Jones ban could set dangerous social media precedent
I've been doing some thinking on this and I find it a bit disturbingly slanted. In the top article it carries on about labeling "bad actors" and talks about common decency and or eludes to morality of media and or news. Who gets to decide that? This is almost the same as being labeled a terrorist by the government and travel banned without recourse or due process. Civil rights are being restricted and or removed without due process of law.
The private company issue, is another concern, as us a private company should be able to set it's own rules and governing laws for internal use. But where it get dicy is what happens when that company uses internal rules and or laws to restrict civil rights? Is it a right to be on a private social media platform? Obviously not, but when those platforms monopolize and do a blackout ban of (whether you like it or not) a large "news" media influence, but not to other's, I would argue that it yields an unfair advantage to those other media's and restricts the freedom of press and speech of the other, such as infowars or Alex Jones.
Bad Actors, who gets to decide who is a bad actor? Who gets to decide who has civil rights, and who doesn't?
Now I'm not jumping into the conspiracy rabbit hole here, but shit just might be a little more fucked up than we are all thinking.
ACLU: Alex Jones ban could set dangerous social media precedent
I've been doing some thinking on this and I find it a bit disturbingly slanted. In the top article it carries on about labeling "bad actors" and talks about common decency and or eludes to morality of media and or news. Who gets to decide that? This is almost the same as being labeled a terrorist by the government and travel banned without recourse or due process. Civil rights are being restricted and or removed without due process of law.
The private company issue, is another concern, as us a private company should be able to set it's own rules and governing laws for internal use. But where it get dicy is what happens when that company uses internal rules and or laws to restrict civil rights? Is it a right to be on a private social media platform? Obviously not, but when those platforms monopolize and do a blackout ban of (whether you like it or not) a large "news" media influence, but not to other's, I would argue that it yields an unfair advantage to those other media's and restricts the freedom of press and speech of the other, such as infowars or Alex Jones.
Bad Actors, who gets to decide who is a bad actor? Who gets to decide who has civil rights, and who doesn't?
Now I'm not jumping into the conspiracy rabbit hole here, but shit just might be a little more fucked up than we are all thinking.
Those like Jones thrive on outrage & the more the better. As long as sections of the community bite, he'll have a job.
Topkick
Verified Military
I figured this is relevant here. Now the government is going to dictate what is disinformation and misinformation, censoring the internet. If you think this will happen only in Canada, just wait.
Melanie Joly vows to tackle 'virtual battleground' of Russian disinformation
Melanie Joly vows to tackle 'virtual battleground' of Russian disinformation
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I know we had a lot of discussion on this subject regarding twitter's censorship and amplification of certain narratives of the regime. "The Regime" is generally the establishment that controls everything, for the moment the regime is not conservative. Obviously if people vote one way and some of these smug rich people change their mind it could become so.
But Twitter and Facebook are clearly a public square. And we've seen that now especially, if we go back to the Hunter Biden issue, which does have its own thread on here. Twitter and Facebook deplatformed the New York Post, a newspaper that has been published for 221 years and founded by Alexander Hamilton. But now they're still manipulating the story and not allowing any amplification of the New York Times articles on this. You also have explicit avoidance to cover the story by CNN/MSNBC. Which Twitter and Facebook explicitly amplified the "fake news" of the denials by the retired members of the IC who went on every news program to say it was fake or a deep fake and Russian interference. These members of the IC clearly are a part of the "regime" but are also in fact "traitors" to the truth. (Hard to think of a better word here, but open to suggestions)
Additionally, Twitter and Facebook and the liberal media also pushed the Steele Dossier story and then we had the FBI run a years long investigation into a Presidential Candidate and interfered with an election.
So say what you want about them being private companies, but what they're doing is funneling the information that their moderation teams want users to see. And that is a problem. You could say: Hey use another platform. You can, but those platforms are effectively worthless. It also makes it harder to actually read news etc. Speed of information being instant with social media is why this issue is so great and why there should be regulation on what they can and can't do.
These are the same companies that give ISIS a platform to spread hate. But why are they deplatforming the truth?
But Twitter and Facebook are clearly a public square. And we've seen that now especially, if we go back to the Hunter Biden issue, which does have its own thread on here. Twitter and Facebook deplatformed the New York Post, a newspaper that has been published for 221 years and founded by Alexander Hamilton. But now they're still manipulating the story and not allowing any amplification of the New York Times articles on this. You also have explicit avoidance to cover the story by CNN/MSNBC. Which Twitter and Facebook explicitly amplified the "fake news" of the denials by the retired members of the IC who went on every news program to say it was fake or a deep fake and Russian interference. These members of the IC clearly are a part of the "regime" but are also in fact "traitors" to the truth. (Hard to think of a better word here, but open to suggestions)
Additionally, Twitter and Facebook and the liberal media also pushed the Steele Dossier story and then we had the FBI run a years long investigation into a Presidential Candidate and interfered with an election.
So say what you want about them being private companies, but what they're doing is funneling the information that their moderation teams want users to see. And that is a problem. You could say: Hey use another platform. You can, but those platforms are effectively worthless. It also makes it harder to actually read news etc. Speed of information being instant with social media is why this issue is so great and why there should be regulation on what they can and can't do.
These are the same companies that give ISIS a platform to spread hate. But why are they deplatforming the truth?
Adding this here instead of starting another thread. To sum up, President Biden announced that the DHS "Disinformation Board" has been suspended, and the person tapped to head it has been fired.
Top Republicans Turner, Katko say 'disinformation' board pause 'best decision' by Biden admin
I think President Biden made a good decision on both of the above counts. This Board was a bad idea, and the person originally tapped to lead it was working out of an enormous credibility hole.
Top Republicans Turner, Katko say 'disinformation' board pause 'best decision' by Biden admin
I think President Biden made a good decision on both of the above counts. This Board was a bad idea, and the person originally tapped to lead it was working out of an enormous credibility hole.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,661
At the risk of sounding like I should don some tinfoil, I view this as more of a test to see what kind of support they have and what they can get away with. I don't think the concept of this idea is dead. They'll try something similar again. Look at our media channels. Information/data is the battleground.
It's funny how some old movies can be so clairvoyant:
Last edited:
Liberal Administrations (and liberal political candidates) have the advantage of having a ready-made, built-in Ministry of Propaganda through the largely supportive main stream media. They don't need a disinformation board. I fully agree with @Blizzard 's assessment above that this was a case of "let's run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes."
Devildoc
Verified Military
And getting this chick to run it was like getting Dr. Josef Mengele to run a medical ethics commission.
I did nazi that coming. ;) But, yes, you're correct bro.
DHS "Disinformation Board": suspended back in May, formally disbanded on the 24th and announced of the 25th of August.
Good riddance to an absolutely terrible (and terrifying) idea.
DHS Finally Admits Defeat, Disbands Failed Free Speech Governance Board
