Shutting down to social media

[Murphy]

Because unless you DO read it you have NO idea what the EO says, what the EO aims to do and how it will effects social media. If you don't know those things then you know nothing and thats your choice. I chose to read what he says so that I can decide whether to agree with him or call him an idiot, but I can't do that unless I know what he's saying by reading the bloody EO first.

To be fair you don't need to read something to know it's not worth the paper it's written on, would you read an order of mine that says i want you to flap your wings and perch on the jumbo jet flying overhead? No you wouldn't because you don't need to read it to know it's impossible for you to do what my order is asking because you don't have wings.

What the EO aims to do could be anything but if we know what it aims to do is not possible there's no need to read how it aims to achieve the impossible, we just need to know it's impossible.

 

[ianh]

To be fair you don't need to read something to know it's not worth the paper it's written on

That is the dumbest thing I've read regarding this EO - "I can't be bothered to read it because, despite not knowing anything it says, I automatically know it must be rubbish and don't want to find out any differently which would prove me right/wrong because my echo chamber of Trump Bad must never be broken by reading what he ACTUALLY wrote".

What the EO aims to do could be anything but if we know what it aims to do is not possible there's no need to read how it aims to achieve the impossible, we just need to know it's impossible.

How do you know if "what it aims to do" is impossible if you haven't read it first? I mean just tell me "how" you know it's impossible if you don't know what it actually says, because if you've got the idea that it's "impossible", and you haven't read the EO to find out for yourself, then someone must have told you instead?

At this point I genuinely don't know if I'm being trolled right now. Multiple people who, when given the actual EO to read say the same thing - I haven't read it, I don't know anything it says yet I'm angry about it and refuse to find out the facts for myself by reading it because..........reasons???? - thats the level of discourse we've dropped to?

In my opinion "this" is the biggest issue in trying to have a discussion nowadays - "I don't know anything, I can't be bothered to find out anything but I'll argue with someone because I've been told to be angry about it" - Well thats not my game, if people can't be bothered to read then I can't be bothered to continue the discussion, it's pointless.

 

[BowdonUK]

There are thousands, if not millions of opinions that are pushed daily on social media. The only ones that are removed are ones that break the rules.

There is no conspiracy.

But you didnt answer my question

 

[Newbie007]

There are thousands, if not millions of opinions that are pushed daily on social media. The only ones that are removed are ones that break the rules.

There is no conspiracy.

That's verifiability false tho, you only have to look at Kathy Griffin to know this. By twitter's own rules she should be off the platform but is still there posting garbage.

 

[Efour]

There are thousands, if not millions of opinions that are pushed daily on social media. The only ones that are removed are ones that break the rules.

There is no conspiracy.

i have no horse in this race but that is verifiably untrue. I mean, the question of impartiality and "silicon valley" has been headline news for the past 5 years.

 

[LabR@t]

Never signed up to Facebook, couldn't see the point and now the majority are in it. I think I made the best decision. Everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they like no matter how disgusting, however there should be no platform for it, however if there is then the platform should be open to all, regardless of the message.

 

[chroniclard]

i have no horse in this race but that is verifiably untrue. I mean, the question of impartiality and "silicon valley" has been headline news for the past 5 years.

Only to raging nutters spreading stuff that is against the rules.

 

[wesimmo]

That's verifiability false tho, you only have to look at Kathy Griffin to know this. By twitter's own rules she should be off the platform but is still there posting garbage.

He didn't say that all offensive material was taken down, but that all material taken down was offensive.

 

[Screenbeat]

******* is not worth discussion! I'm ashamed of myself for even posting this!!

 

[Newbie007]

He didn't say that all offensive material was taken down, but that all material taken down was offensive.

Not quite, he was saying if you break their rules then you have no recourse if you are banned/removed off the platform in question. That's quite clearly a fallacy. There are 1000's of examples that contradict that, Kathy Griffin is just the easiest one to use as she has clearly broken twitters own rules multiple times and yet is still there. If the rules aren't equal in their application then what's the point in rules?

I hope the EO is successful if social media platforms can be sued for discrimination/offensive material etc I'm all for it, they've been able to abuse being their position for far too long.

 

[pooley]

next stop china lol

 

[wesimmo]

Not quite, he was saying if you break their rules then you have no recourse if you are banned/removed off the platform in question. That's quite clearly a fallacy. There are 1000's of examples that contradict that, Kathy Griffin is just the easiest one to use as she has clearly broken twitters own rules multiple times and yet is still there. If the rules aren't equal in their application then what's the point in rules?

I hope the EO is successful if social media platforms can be sued for discrimination/offensive material etc I'm all for it, they've been able to abuse being their position for far too long.

That doesn't change the point I made, that they have no recourse is another thing completely and not what he was saying anyway.

The point was, the content was tagged justifiably.

That there is no recourse isn't relevant.

 

[chroniclard]

Not quite, he was saying if you break their rules then you have no recourse if you are banned/removed off the platform in question. That's quite clearly a fallacy. There are 1000's of examples that contradict that, Kathy Griffin is just the easiest one to use as she has clearly broken twitters own rules multiple times and yet is still there. If the rules aren't equal in their application then what's the point in rules?

I hope the EO is successful if social media platforms can be sued for discrimination/offensive material etc I'm all for it, they've been able to abuse being their position for far too long.

I dont know who Kathy Griffin is, have you got some examples?

 

[ianh]

The most popular examples of a Lady who has gone literally wibble over Trump -

Holding the severed bleed head of Trump



Wishing Trump would kill himself with a Syringe of Air



Confirming that she did want him to die (so no misunderstanding) etc



You've also currently got, during the riots in the US, a lot of Celebs such as Kaepernick posting alleged "incitement to violence" tweets with nothing done whilst Trump's alleged "incitement to violence" tweet gets edited. The issue as always is that the global rules of the site are not enforced globally, but selectively, and that hypocrisy creates more divisions than it solves.

 

[Newbie007]

The point was, the content was tagged justifiably.

Except the rules aren't applied to the same standard for the same content, if you think that they are then I don't know what else to say.

 

[elmarko]

I suggest you read the Executive Order I posted rather than the headlines - It called for an END to censorship so everyone can have a voice, the direct opposite of what you posted. In fact if Trump was so "anti-fact" then why would he actively campaign for the END of censorship, allowing many more people to see when he's lying? I'm not sure you've thought through the logic of your post and it seems like you've instead just reacted to a set of headlines without reading the content of EO first, am I wrong?

You are just missing the point.

Trump is pushing for extra regulation because "HE" has been fact checked, not that he's against fact checking in principle. Trump is fine with authoritarian measures whenever it politically suits his needs & suddenly is an advocate for 'freedom of fact check warnings'. He isn't being censored, he's being tagged as being misleading.

1. They are not the same thing.
2. His motives are based on personal pride being challenged.

Trump has never & is never being censored, the only change is now his unsupported claims are being challenged by a privately owned platform who if they wanted could just shut down/remove his twitter account due to his various infractions.

If anything he's been treated better than countless other uses who would have been banned for violating the ToS had they acted the same.

- Regarding the other tosh you wrote regarding Kathy Griffon, if you think a washed up failed comedian has the same influence as the leader of the free world you are somewhat mistaken.

Would you believe it, Frankie Boyle can say things which Boris can't?. What a travesty of justice. It's almost like the role of leader of a nation with great political power & command over the military is more powerful & held on different terms of communication than somebody who's job is to make people laugh...

Whatever next...

 

[ianh]

You are just missing the point.

Ditto!