Social Media getting a bit...overbearing.

Corporate fascism is taking over, enjoy.

9lE8IKt.png


Seriously though, y'all keep voting for it.
 
Last edited:
social media ain't the same as sitting in your local pub.

and it never was, one of the first things our country did was start arresting people for personal opinions you could share in a pub with friends fine, but you can'tr post the same comment online restricted to the same bunch of friends.

it's the thought police

saw a video yesterday of some woman wearing an "censored word boris" tshirt and the police were telling here its illegal because someone might take offence.

wahhh wahhhh he has a tshirt that insults my deer leader wahhhhh wahhhhh.

the country pathetic.
don';t claim its for a swear word mr policeman.

when you let a company exist called french connection UK ,everyone knows what that's really read as but apparently its fine because it doesnt say "boris" next to it
 
Congratulations not only did you get a 24 hour ban.

Facebook now has you down as a hate speech poster. Forever.

They also might sell that piece of data to 3rd parties like government agencies at any point in the future.

Think about what you post online.
 
Slight concern about this sort of thing being automated is that it will be at risk of being culturally biased.

For example “Smoke a fag” has a very different meaning if you were an American unfamiliar with the term and only familiar with the use of those words in US slang.

I had a glass door review that wasn’t allowed to be published because of the use of the word “fag”... context was “back of a fag packet”, somehow they got interpreted as homophobic.

There is a bit of chat at the moment about “thug” being the new “n-word”, despite it being a term adopted by the British in India derived from the name of a group of robbers.
 
Yep, the Internet certainly isn't what it used to be. It's a cesspit of censorship these days, unless of course you are being racist against white people. That's fair game.

gX0OOGp.png

 
The internet is taking on the bad quality bourgeois quality of overbearing politeness that stops people from being able to say what they really think, which isn't healthy. Sometimes you just have to deal with people you find obnoxious and have views that upset you, we're all better off mentally for it.

It's a pretty difficult concept to wrap your head around since we're all used to 'he said thing I didn't like, clamp down on discussion' but it is a legitimate part of cognitive behavioural therapy.

People just aren't genuine and no longer are allowed to communicate authentically anymore, so we never say what we really think.
 
The real issue of social media over real life interaction is that social media is an anonymous media.

People would not say many of thee things that they do if their name and address were published alongside it.

It also allows people to be able to interact only with those people who hold the same views as themselves, thus perpetuating their own bigoted beliefs. (For those people who hold those beliefs at least.)

It is always best to read a paper that holds opposite views to your own in order to be able to understand other people's beliefs. That is why the recent university moves to ban speakers who hold views outwith the particular year's students' views are worrying. How do you have a quality debate when only one side is represented?

Unfortunately social media is the same - ideas opposite to your own can be removed either by yourself or by other powers in the background. It is the end of free speech and rational debate when you are told which subjetcs you are allowed to debate.
 
gailjon said:
The real issue of social media over real life interaction is that social media is an anonymous media.

People would not say many of thee things that they do if their name and address were published alongside it.

It also allows people to be able to interact only with those people who hold the same views as themselves, thus perpetuating their own bigoted beliefs. (For those people who hold those beliefs at least.)

It is always best to read a paper that holds opposite views to your own in order to be able to understand other people's beliefs. That is why the recent university moves to ban speakers who hold views outwith the particular year's students' views are worrying. How do you have a quality debate when only one side is represented?

Unfortunately social media is the same - ideas opposite to your own can be removed either by yourself or by other powers in the background. It is the end of free speech and rational debate when you are told which subjetcs you are allowed to debate.
Click to expand...

Just like this forum
 
dowie said:
Slight concern about this sort of thing being automated is that it will be at risk of being culturally biased.

For example “Smoke a fag” has a very different meaning if you were an American unfamiliar with the term and only familiar with the use of those words in US slang.

I had a glass door review that wasn’t allowed to be published because of the use of the word “fag”... context was “back of a fag packet”, somehow they got interpreted as homophobic.

There is a bit of chat at the moment about “thug” being the new “n-word”, despite it being a term adopted by the British in India derived from the name of a group of robbers.
Click to expand...

or maybe your going to "eat some faggots for dinner" and enjoy a 24hour ban
G-MAN2004 said:
Yep, the Internet certainly isn't what it used to be. It's a cesspit of censorship these days, unless of course you are being racist against white people. That's fair game.
Click to expand...


It's well known amongst millennials that black people can't be racist
 
gailjon said:
The real issue of social media over real life interaction is that social media is an anonymous media.
Click to expand...

The most popular forms generally aren't - facebook is supposed to be your real name or a name you're known by (for performers etc..). Twitter can be anonymous but people will take less notice of say some troll with no followers and a flag or cartoon as a profile pic etc..

That's why you get campaigns to "cancel" even ordinary non-celebs if they have uttered the wrong views - complaining to their employers etc..
 
dowie said:
The most popular forms generally aren't - facebook is supposed to be your real name or a name you're known by (for performers etc..). Twitter can be anonymous but people will take less notice of say some troll with no followers and a flag or cartoon as a profile pic etc..

That's why you get campaigns to "cancel" even ordinary non-celebs if they have uttered the wrong views - complaining to their employers etc..
Click to expand...

Just like this forum
 
Allnamestaken said:
Yeah I totally understand that.

Its just the first time Ive hit a wall like this, I am pretty aware generally of what I say. It was just a bit of a shock as I've used this word lots of times in the past so it is deffo more of a new adjustment to their moderation system.
Click to expand...

They'll get you with something else later. There's no point in the authorities controlling speech to inflate "hate crime" numbers unless they keep changing the definitions to catch more people.
 
Look at it this was, remember when 'tard' was commonplace, and it isn't acceptable now? Stuff changes, get used to it.
 
I'm with the OP on this. If he wrote it similar to "lol you're an r-tard :p" then that's just banter between 2 friends. If it was a direct attack though, then that would go against the rules on Facebook and here on OcUK and most other forums. The level of censorship now is pathetic.
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
I'm with the OP on this. If he wrote it similar to "lol you're an r-tard :p" then that's just banter between 2 friends. If it was a direct attack though, then that would go against the rules on Facebook and here on OcUK and most other forums. The level of censorship now is pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was literally on my own private post and profile, basic level banter between me and a mate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom