Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Edit: lol.
Big Tech Authoritarianism
- Thread starter mmj_uk
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,553
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Nobody is shutting down debate. People are still allowed to discuss things.
You seem to be suggesting conservative views are being censored across the board. This is clearly not true and just more right wing brainwashing. Extreme nutters who promote lies, misinformation and drivel are being shutdown and/or fact checked is all.
The fact you're making it only a right wing problem shows you have willingly fallen in to the trap.
I find it a bit funny that on the one hand when talking about Twitter some people are saying "well, they are a private company and can do what they want!". But yet when it comes to Parler its "oh we have to shut them down for extremism", as though Twitter isnt the biggest most toxic site on the net at the moment. I don't see Twitter being deplatformed when people are posting white people should be shot. Why aren't you calling for Twitter to be shut down to?
Political views need to become a protected class. That would solve all the problems.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,221
- Location
- London, UK
Does Twitter leave posts up saying people should be shot? So the posts are moderated or at least made aware to Twitter but they leave them up saying its free speech? Also if Twitter was using Amazon or any other web hosting service and that company didn't want to be associated with such speech then Twitter could be forced offline while it found new hosting. I really don't get why you can't understand this. Parler was exposing Amazon to liability. Amazon was perfectly within its rights to say moderate that speech or take your business elsewhere.
And you can't make political speech protected in the way you imagine. You are talking about forcing private companies to allow any speech which could be interpreted as political on their servers. That right there would be unconstitutional as it would violate the 1st amendment rights of the company.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,553
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Trap....what the actual **** are you on about. You do have some bizarre takes on reality.
These are not political "views" that are being shutdown they are lies and propaganda. In the case of Trump they are not shutting him down because he has "views" or "opinions" they are outright lies and propaganda leading to radicalising his cult followers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,221
- Location
- London, UK
Trap....what the actual **** are you on about. You do have some bizarre takes on reality.
These are not political "views" that are being shutdown they are lies and propaganda. In the case of Trump they are not shutting him down because he has "views" or "opinions" they are outright lies and propaganda leading to radicalising his cult followers.
From a legal point of view if it was the government trying to shut down Trump's speech then Trump would indeed have a case that his 1st amendment rights were being infringed. That doesn't apply to private companies though, in fact they are protected by the 1st amendment as well. This is what people like mmj_uk and others just don't seem to understand.
Twitter doesn't need to moderate anything under section 230.
Twitter is now on Amazon, and yes they leave tweets up like that. They also leave up libel posts too. Which is how it works under section 230. They won't be prosecuted against for illegal posts/material uploaded to their platform. I'm just calling out the hypocracy that both Parler and Twitter do the same thing yet everyone is against Parler but no comments against Twitter.
Trap....what the actual **** are you on about. You do have some bizarre takes on reality.
These are not political "views" that are being shutdown they are lies and propaganda. In the case of Trump they are not shutting him down because he has "views" or "opinions" they are outright lies and propaganda leading to radicalising his cult followers.
It doesn't matter whether they are lies and propaganda. If you have a problem with what someone posts on these platforms, then sue them, or if you think the posts are illegal call the police.
I'm sorry to break this to you guys. But the position you are taking on this subject is a right wing position, advocating for private (or government) censorship is a right wing position. While advocating for free speech is the traditional left wing view. So trying to distance yourself against 'those evil right wing people' is mind bending when you then go on to promote private business control over legal speech.
You're becoming like the Mary Whitehouse brigade
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,950
Is that so, hey. Not much different from Twitter then. So watch out Minds, Gab and Bitchute, you're next on the chopping block, and you won't get a warning or recourse either. It's just the way it is. Corporations rule.
Man, I just love giant Ethical corporations. Big guys bullying the little guys. Can't wait for the banks to join the fun. Hell, bring on the social credit system, see who's allowed to board planes, convicted of anything or not, if you can get a loan, buy a house based on your political allegiance. Lovely.
Everyone should play the identity politics game rather than blurb conspiracy theorties about 'globalism', 'big business', and push populist agendas on some obscure echo chamber. Populism bad. Globalism good. I'm sure the Koch Brother would appreciate that, thank you.
I'm predciting this. Anyone supporting Trump or populist movements even tangentially will be socially ostracised. Hard. And all of you lot will cheer and laugh.
BTW, I'm not a Trump fan, nor am I a populist although I'm progressively being more sympathetic, given current events. I find it ironic that the so-called left who is suppose to be for the little guy and how the voice of the oppressed minority is important, then is cheering on for corporate censorship and power. Don't come cry to me when the hammer swings the other way.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Are you suggesting that Trump is a victim of right wing prejudice
That's a novel thought
I highly doubt that left-wingers are happy with the situation, i mean it ideologically makes no sense for them to be... What you're moaning about are liberals who are not left-wing. Any 'cheering' from left-wingers will undoubtedly just be short-term joy from the schadenfreude as the supposedly orthodox right-wingers finally come up against a consequence of their uncritical belief in capital.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Pfft what do they know?
But most of what you have posted has shown you do believe these idiots.
Anyway...
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...p-supporters-are-radicalised-by-the-far-right
Now why does that sound familiar? Im fairly sure some of our own contributors are constantly doing this.
Last edited:
Would we be surprised if there is a handbook that goes along the lines of "The point of discussion you should focus on is the blatant racism/sexist/transphobe agenda that is being aggressively pushed from every institution in the country, as well as the <insert selected minority here> demographic oppression and it's consequences." ?
Maybe focusing so much on that has enabled these far-right groups to use it as further avenue, as highlighted above, to start the recruitment process? I'm not denying that these issues exist, or warrant addressing, because they do, but there is a trend (or even an alternative left-wing rabbit hole) that makes everything problematic to the point where white men are practically being told their contributions are discounted due to the privilege they hold being seen as the root cause of every issue identified. Mix this together with the perpetual victimisation of any intersecting group identity and you've got two very agitated and "justified" sides that have completely opposing ideologies. Hardly surprising that there's ****ing recruitment handbooks being passed around, this whole situation is disgusting and is the furthest I've seen the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, be from a civilised nation.
What I did notice is your omission from the above article is this quote from Adam Hadley, founder and director of Tech Against Terrorism:
We're at such a dangerous point in time with extreme ideology being fed into peoples minds. From what you quoted, “Big Tech made a serious mistake by banishing conservatives to the one place [Telegram] where we have unfettered access to them, and that’s a mistake they’ll come to regret!” which is what I immediately anticipated as the consequences of these actions earlier in this thread. You may interpret that as seeing me as "red-piller" as I agree with that statement, but it's more me seeing the bigger picture that the knee jerk reaction of banning stuff has unintended consequences as I stated in my very first post in this thread. I do not agree with the content, but agree that it should not be supressed in the form of banning/de-platforming/cancelling etc.
Who is going to decided who and what can be posted on social media? Private sector? Government?
Having just finished listening to Ira Glasser on Joe Rogan, I'm finding it really hard to disagree with him - but I was already 95% there so aware it's confirmation bias on my part. As soon as you start to ban this sort of stuff you push it underground, out of view but it doesn't go away! Make laws to stop hate speech? Government then silences you as well when they decide what you say is classed as hate speech. The only way to do this is to not ban anyone or anything. Counter the arguments, either at the ballot box, counter marches, petty squabbles in forums like this, on TV etc. What people should ask themselves is would you be willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech in order to ban someone from theirs? That's effectively what will happen in the long run if this gets to the point of Government being the ones to decide.
We've got this. The pandemic. Climate change. Brexit. Flippin' heck.
At least soon there'll be no Trump as President. I'm hoping for some of the heated aspects to calm down for a while and give people a chance to collect their heads a bit.
Maybe focusing so much on that has enabled these far-right groups to use it as further avenue, as highlighted above, to start the recruitment process? I'm not denying that these issues exist, or warrant addressing, because they do, but there is a trend (or even an alternative left-wing rabbit hole) that makes everything problematic to the point where white men are practically being told their contributions are discounted due to the privilege they hold being seen as the root cause of every issue identified. Mix this together with the perpetual victimisation of any intersecting group identity and you've got two very agitated and "justified" sides that have completely opposing ideologies. Hardly surprising that there's ****ing recruitment handbooks being passed around, this whole situation is disgusting and is the furthest I've seen the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, be from a civilised nation.
What I did notice is your omission from the above article is this quote from Adam Hadley, founder and director of Tech Against Terrorism:
We're at such a dangerous point in time with extreme ideology being fed into peoples minds. From what you quoted, “Big Tech made a serious mistake by banishing conservatives to the one place [Telegram] where we have unfettered access to them, and that’s a mistake they’ll come to regret!” which is what I immediately anticipated as the consequences of these actions earlier in this thread. You may interpret that as seeing me as "red-piller" as I agree with that statement, but it's more me seeing the bigger picture that the knee jerk reaction of banning stuff has unintended consequences as I stated in my very first post in this thread. I do not agree with the content, but agree that it should not be supressed in the form of banning/de-platforming/cancelling etc.
Who is going to decided who and what can be posted on social media? Private sector? Government?
Having just finished listening to Ira Glasser on Joe Rogan, I'm finding it really hard to disagree with him - but I was already 95% there so aware it's confirmation bias on my part. As soon as you start to ban this sort of stuff you push it underground, out of view but it doesn't go away! Make laws to stop hate speech? Government then silences you as well when they decide what you say is classed as hate speech. The only way to do this is to not ban anyone or anything. Counter the arguments, either at the ballot box, counter marches, petty squabbles in forums like this, on TV etc. What people should ask themselves is would you be willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech in order to ban someone from theirs? That's effectively what will happen in the long run if this gets to the point of Government being the ones to decide.
We've got this. The pandemic. Climate change. Brexit. Flippin' heck.
At least soon there'll be no Trump as President. I'm hoping for some of the heated aspects to calm down for a while and give people a chance to collect their heads a bit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,221
- Location
- London, UK
Section 230 does not protect them from liability if they allow illegal speech to remain on their platform. Also if people were calling for someone to be murdered and then a poster attempted of carried out that murder after they failed to remove that post then they again could be liable. Its not a golden ticket against all liability.
I will absolutely call for Twitter to remove such speech. I have no problem with that at all. If people want to spew such hateful speech let them do it on fringe sites. There are no shortage of places were pretty much anything goes on the internet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,221
- Location
- London, UK
They won't ban hate speech because they can't, it would be unconstitutional.
Like it or not though there is a very serious problem, especially in the US. A huge part of the blame belongs with politicians who have used this hate and division to fire up their bases and raise huge amounts of money so they've actively thrown petrol on the fire. Look at the last election and the constant rhetoric of communists and socialists taking over the country when the Dems aren't even really left of centre from a UK perspective. They nearly all would be Tories here. Both sides are guilty of it but until politicians stop doing this it isn't going anywhere.
I've heard the argument about driving it underground when the likes of Britain First and the EDL were banned from social media. Some people said it would make it worse, I disagree. The nationalistic far right rhetoric has diminished considerably here. When they were on social media they had a huge pulpit to spout they divisive speech and it was in everyones face. Now only extremists who actively want to join in that rhetoric can find them. They are still out there on the internet but they are back where they belong, on the fringe.
I know I've mainly given examples of right wing groups but for me both sides should be treated the same. Right wing extremism is a far bigger problem in the US than left wing extremism.
And I don't agree that "conservatives" are being banished. I follow quite a few conservatives on Twitter. People like Alex Jones were given so much leeway but they just couldn't stick to the rules and eventually got banned. Although after the 6th it is going to get worse. Trump and his MAGA insurrectionists have made it inevitable that the market would say no more of that thanks.
Thanks for the response @Colonel_Klinck .
I think generally a lot this just seems to be fear, that like you said, is being fuelled by politicians for their benefit. It feeds that "you're either with us, or against us" attitude that appears to make the electorate easier to control. You don't need to persuade people that you've got the best policies if you can just make them hate your opponent.
I do not believe for a second that every person that voted for Trump is a neo-nazi, but since he hasn't come out hard enough against these heinous groups that endorse him, voting for him in a way shows support for those groups which is where I can see the view of the Trump voter being tarnished that way. Pouring petrol on the fire is a good way of describing that sort of behaviour, it's powerful but totally uncontrollable. There's millions of people over there in the states that need pulling back from that influence of far-right extremism thanks to this. On the topic of the thread, I can't help but think this type of environment is ripe for big tech manipulation - either independently or through influence and pressure.
I think the downfall of the EDL and BF has coincided with the Brexit result as it gave an outlet for those types, but once they realise it won't do what they want they'll be back. I don't think they've gone anywhere or had their minds changed, just not got the focus point they require for recruitment.
On the conservatives being banished point, again I think you've got it spot on. Only thing I'd add on that is that there is a perception they are being banished due to the very quick calls to do the banning/de-platforming/cancelling stuff I mentioned, even if there's a whiff someone might be on the "wrong" side.
I think generally a lot this just seems to be fear, that like you said, is being fuelled by politicians for their benefit. It feeds that "you're either with us, or against us" attitude that appears to make the electorate easier to control. You don't need to persuade people that you've got the best policies if you can just make them hate your opponent.
I do not believe for a second that every person that voted for Trump is a neo-nazi, but since he hasn't come out hard enough against these heinous groups that endorse him, voting for him in a way shows support for those groups which is where I can see the view of the Trump voter being tarnished that way. Pouring petrol on the fire is a good way of describing that sort of behaviour, it's powerful but totally uncontrollable. There's millions of people over there in the states that need pulling back from that influence of far-right extremism thanks to this. On the topic of the thread, I can't help but think this type of environment is ripe for big tech manipulation - either independently or through influence and pressure.
I think the downfall of the EDL and BF has coincided with the Brexit result as it gave an outlet for those types, but once they realise it won't do what they want they'll be back. I don't think they've gone anywhere or had their minds changed, just not got the focus point they require for recruitment.
On the conservatives being banished point, again I think you've got it spot on. Only thing I'd add on that is that there is a perception they are being banished due to the very quick calls to do the banning/de-platforming/cancelling stuff I mentioned, even if there's a whiff someone might be on the "wrong" side.
Aye, IIRC section 230 only gives them limited protection until they're aware of the content that breaks the law.
From what I understand if what, as the Republicans and Trump have repeatedly called for happens and section 230 were to be removed far from Twitter becoming more "open" and allowing stuff to remain, they'd likely become far more closed because it would have the result of putting far more liability on Twitter for not just criminal stuff that is posted using their services, but also civil matters like libel.
I've been watching actual practicing lawyers from the US explaining it in detail, repeatedly and basically pointing out that just because someone may have at some point got a law degree (as many politicians have), doesn't mean they have ever practiced law, know the current laws, or even care about what the actual law is as long as they can rile up their supporters.
Are you suggesting that Trump is a victim of right wing prejudice
That's a novel thought
There are many levels of groups in all ideologies on both the left and right.
The most extreme right wing group is the establishment i.e. the civil services and the armed forces of the state.
My personal view is that good government needs to draw on both sides of opinion. In order for that to happen we need an open and frank debate. These social media companies have the power to put a government in power, or to overthrow a government. I think that is a dangerous situation.
It will be interesting what happens when the Dems and Reps bring their bipartisan law forward to tackle this issue, as neither side are happy with how things are currently.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It would be nice also if the debate was "decent, respectful, inclusive and honest".
As to the suggestion that the Civil Service and the Armed Forces are the most right wing groups - perhaps you are right but I am not convinced.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,881
- Location
- Auckland
I don't think this is how words work.