Poll: Should links to Twitter / X be banned on Overclockers?

Should links to Twitter / X be banned on Overclockers?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Mods edited the OP so who cares anymore

Results are only viewable after voting.
Chuk_Chuk said:
Interesting. What constitutes a reliable source of information? We can't pretend that main stream news outlets don't get things wrong and don't misrepresent things. And let’s be honest any corrections they issue is usually late or in the corner of the article.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. This is the type of discussion I wanted to have throughout.

I’d add more but, Cody is waiting.
 
Jono8 said:
This is immensely condescending and incredibly rude. "Mental crisis"? So debating politics and how awful someone like Trump is, is having a "mental crisis"? I realise it is convenient to look upon anyone who thinks your views are abhorrent/inexplicable as having a "mental crisis". If that make you feel better when you cannot cope with reading the objective reality of how terrible the people on your "side of the aisle" are, then i guess you have to do whatever you can to feel better about yourself.

Personally, i would suggest taking a good hard look at yourself before coming out with such condescending rubbish in future.
Click to expand...
Ironic that you are writing a strawman so that you can feel good about yourself.

P.S. Oh and this your specific post I was referring to.

Jono8 said:
I am quite distraught by the result yes, as it's another damning indictment on human beings in general.

Who said I was taking it "personally"? What an odd thing to say. You've got to understand that I have absolutely zero respect for people who support Trump, and are celebrating his win, so the condescending advice is very much not wanted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Worthy said:
Couldn’t agree more. This is the type of discussion I wanted to have throughout.

I’d add more but, Cody is waiting.
Click to expand...

Would you not agree that a social media platform run by a member of the US government who will have an office and be working from the whitehouse is somewhat problematic? In fact far more problematic than an independent news outlet or website?

This isn’t even touching on the fact that it is for an administration under Trump who is, objectively, a convicted fraudster and well documented habitual liar.
 
Worthy said:
Even if that was the case and needed amending, do you honestly think we’d ask for opinions on if we should ban twitter based on members impressions of the owner and not think “That has to be a typo”?

You’re better than that and I’m disappointed you don’t think we are too.

If anyone has any further input, say it now please as I think this thread has just about run its course.

Peloton then close. Cody Rigsby is back so it’ll be at least 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
You didn't ask the question. A poster did, and then Feek did a rug pull

Edit: you're saying it was mistaken as a typo now? :cry:
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
Am I being thick.?
Click to expand...
It's a platforms applied bias, censorship and weighting given to posts, comments and (to specific) users that is ultimately determining what's shown to a user, ie - show more cats over dogs etc, or rank posts/comments higher from Feek'sTwitterAccount, or 'shadowban' Efour and limit reach of content.
Xitter's 'For You' section would be a good example of that as it'll show you a load of crud from people/outlets that you don't follow and you have no interest in - mine sometimes shows political tripe but i don't really use that section of the platform.

This isn't Xitter specific as all social media platforms do the same (or similar).
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Would you not agree that a social media platform run by a member of the US government who will have an office and be working from the whitehouse is somewhat problematic? In fact far more problematic than an independent news outlet or website?

This isn’t even touching on the fact that it is for an administration under Trump who is, objectively, a convicted fraudster and well documented habitual liar.
Click to expand...
Why would it? twitter has this wonderful functionality where you can only see posts from people you are following and none of the other ********, called ironically, following...
 
Last edited:
200sols said:
So you think the factual state of information on X is on a par with the BBC? That's actually hilarious.
Click to expand...

No I don't, I think X is a social media platform where people talk BS all day and the BBC purports to be a trusted news outlet yet has soiled itself several times with misinformation..

My point is, if misinformation is so critical, then the outlet purporting to be a trusted news outlet yet seemingly allows misinformation to filter through needs banning as well.. with Social media, you know it's a bunch of morons talking BS..

You don't seriously get your news from X (or facebook) do you?
 
Last edited:
Demon said:
No I don't, I think X is a social media platform where people talk BS all day and the BBC purports to be a trusted news outlet yet has soiled itself several times with misinformation..

My point is, if misinformation is so critical, then the outlet purporting to be a trusted news outlet yet seemingly allows misinformation to filter through needs banning as well.. with Social media, you know it's a bunch of morons talking BS..

You don't seriously get your news from X (or facebook) do you?
Click to expand...
I dont use any social media now apart from forums.

At this stage I think it's actively harmful to society.
 
Last edited:
Demon said:
No I don't, I think X is a social media platform where people talk BS all day and the BBC purports to be a trusted news outlet yet has soiled itself several times with misinformation..

My point is, if misinformation is so critical, then the outlet purporting to be a trusted news outlet yet seemingly allows misinformation to filter through needs banning as well.. with Social media, you know it's a bunch of morons talking BS..
Click to expand...
Biggest difference is accountability as news broadcasters and journalists are held to standards/CoP (NUJ etc) and typically they have to report if they've published factually incorrect news items/articles etc.
There isn't that with social media as any anonymous moron can (largely) post whatever they like regardless of facts or truth. It ultimately depends on the platform with what someone can get away with.

200sols said:
I dont use any social media now apart from forums.
At this stage I think it's actively harmful to society.
Click to expand...
Certainly i believe there's a lot of truth in that.
 
Last edited:
Chuk_Chuk said:
Interesting. What constitutes a reliable source of information? We can't pretend that main stream news outlets don't get things wrong and don't misrepresent things. And lets be honest any corrections they issue is usually late or in the corner of the article.
Click to expand...

I'm under no illusion that BBC journalists get things wrong sometimes, but they are posting under thier real names and what they post is accountable to those higher up in the company and UK law.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely not. Honestly the hysteria on show here seems totally insane to me, it seems even worse than the usual Trump derantement syndrome stuff.

Worthy said:
Lesson learnt, in future we’ll continue to make decisions for you.
Click to expand...

My initial draft post before I re-read the thread was basically saying this. This is the way it should be at all times, even if only to completely avoid the possibility to delegate responsibility for for bad decisions. Not saying this has been done (can't remember it if it has!), just that I can see how it would go and I can't see many benefits to allowing this sort of decision to be made by users, especially at such an obviously, hilariously hysterical time.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
Why would it? twitter has this wonderful functionality where you can only see posts from people you are following and none of the other ********, called ironically, following...
Click to expand...

You don’t think that effectively state run and owned social media could become problematic?

Ideally politicians and those that work for the government should divest their companies so there is absolutely no conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
My initial draft post before I re-read the thread was basically saying this. This is the way it should be at all times, even if only to completely avoid the possibility to delegate responsibility for for bad decisions. Not saying this has been done (can't remember it if it has!), just that I can see how it would go and I can't see many benefits to allowing this sort of decision to be made by users, especially as such an obviously, hilariously hysterical time.
Click to expand...
You forgot to say heil :cry: :p
 
Zefan said:
Absolutely not. Honestly the hysteria on show here seems totally insane to me, it seems even worse than the usual Trump derantement syndrome stuff.



My initial draft post before I re-read the thread was basically saying this. This is the way it should be at all times, even if only to completely avoid the possibility to delegate responsibility for for bad decisions. Not saying this has been done (can't remember it if it has!), just that I can see how it would go and I can't see many benefits to allowing this sort of decision to be made by users, especially at such an obviously, hilariously hysterical time.
Click to expand...
Well, it was an interesting social experiment at the very least ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom