Here we go.... Please tell me how you decide what is and isn't genuine?
Shutting down to social media
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
Here we go.... Please tell me how you decide what is and isn't genuine?
It does though and thats a perfect example - Everyone can see what he wrote and everyone can poke holes in his tweets. However, if he was blocked on twitter and he could only post on a "Republicans only" site behind a paywall (so only supporters could post) then how do you counter that. You can't and the echo chamber would grow amongst his supporters.
Everyone knows that it wouldn't change every single persons mind, no-one has ever said that it will, but banning "non-illegal" opinions just because you don't like them or disagree with it only shows the opposition that you are "scared" of what they are saying and that perceived fear (real or not) gives the opposition a feeling of "power", whilst keeping that opinion visible for everyone to see takes away far more of it's "power" than banning it does.
In the end, as someone who is quite a Libertarian, I don't think that the censoring of "non-illegal" opinions, that Authoritarian's love to censor so much, is ever a good idea. Yes you have to take the rough with the smooth but thats what freedom of expression is all about, the freedom to hear the good along with the trash.
If you start banning "non-illegal" opinions because you disagree with them, how long in the future before your "currently fine" opinion also becomes a "bad" opinion to the next generation and YOU get cancelled? I'm sure plenty of people in the 70's never dreamed that the "currently fine" opinions they held then would be "bad" opinions now which could get them banned from SM.
The hypocrisy is lost on some people.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,679
Because you won't post any evidence of its existence, this is a fairly circular argument chap.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,679
Yep, still waiting.
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?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,223
- Location
- North East England
It's posturing. He isn't being censored because his bile and garbage remains up there, just with a disclaimer. It's more along the lines of selling a movie with an 18 rating instead of cutting out the offensive scenes. He's anti-fact when the facts do not coalesce with his world view.
What's absolutely hilarious to anybody even vaguely learned is that his executive order is a direct contravention to the first amendment which prevents GOVERNMENTS from curtailing free speech. Twitter isn't a flipping goverment.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,679
Great, more YouTube post and run. How useful.
So true, I've had a ban for discussing Hitler in a WWII discussion group, the "best" one was posting a picture of the Eagle crest which had a Swastika on it in a discussion about the Graff Spee, the crest in question was attatched to the stern of the ship, it couldn't have been clearer in context yet the ban hammer came down - I've seen German WWII artefacts for sale on FB marketplace with swastikas clearly on display, many times...
I use Facebook but can't say I'd cry too much if it disappeared overnight.
Everyone who has an opinion has an agenda.
If you owned a social media company would you be prepared to let people post opinions that were 100% against your own and/or you thought was a stupid view?
What's absolutely hilarious to anybody even vaguely learned is that his executive order is a direct contravention to the first amendment which prevents GOVERNMENTS from curtailing free speech. Twitter isn't a flipping goverment.
So from that it would seem that you haven't read the Executive Order yet. Would you read the EO first as then you'll see it only asks the FCC to clarify if various SM sites have crossed between "Platform" and "Publisher" - It is for the FCC to decide NOT Trump.
It is also for the FCC to decide (not Trump) what to do if they do agree that sites have moved from Platform to Publisher. The biggest consequence would be that the various SM would have to END the censorship of opinions - so not "shutdown", not "add more censorship" but actually END censorship of "non-illegal" opinions i.e. so no more banning of the man who said "OK dude" to a trans person, or typed "learn to code" on twitter etc. Removing censorship seems to be the complete opposite of what you believe the EO asks.
I'd ask if you'll read the EO now, it's posted right there for you to read? It only takes about 5-7 mins and tells you exactly what Trump has asked for, why he asked for it, who will carry the EO out and what they will do if they agree etc - all the information you need right there, if you want to read it, it's your choice in the end after all.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
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.
Why would I waste time reading the insane ramblings of a delusional old man that have no legal ramifications and that any court will laugh out of court?
It's a publicly traded company. He could do more damage by just not using it and going onto Gab or whatever other nonsense platform exists. This is the equivalent of saying Apple are illegal because they put a warning message up before you install unsigned apps. They don't stop you from installing them, they just give you fair warning that what you're about to install *might* be garbage.
Seriously what the hell is actually wrong with you people defending this seventy-something toddler who runs a country you don't even live in.
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.
Not one single thing you just wrote has anything to do with the EO, making writing it and reading it absolutely worthless to everyone.
As I said above, people have a choice - Read the actual EO and get a full understanding of the whole situation (either positive or negative) OR read a headline, know nothing about the situation, get angry and rant about random stuff which the EO doesn't cover - I made my choice and it takes a little effort, you've made yours.
Also, I could also ask you the same question - why are you attacking "this seventy-something toddler who runs a country you don't even live in." - that question runs both ways, only I'm not "defending" anyone, I'm finding out the facts by reading the EO for myself and then making up my own mind without being told what to think by others, it's harder but more rewarding when you actually know whats going on.