|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 11, 2021 20:03:14 GMT
Is censorship and banning Trump's account good? Is it bad?
Should social media censor people who are inciting violence and harm?
Do we have a right to say whatever the heck we want on social media?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 11, 2021 22:53:10 GMT
Is censorship and banning Trump's account good? Is it bad? Should social media censor people who are inciting violence and harm? Do we have a right to say whatever the heck we want on social media? I don't think the censorship is going well. Trying to silence an opponent never seems to work out well in the long run. It just give the opposition ammo. And makes martyrs out of people. Put differently, what if this were about christians. What if people were banned from social media based on religious belief or affiliation? All it would do is create a persecution scenario. We generally allow opposing view to speak and counter their claims and arguments with sensible responses. I think that's the way all opposition should be handled. Maybe social media sites have an argument for censoring people who incite violence. But the difficult part is that they have made false allegations about inciting violence. If they don't like someone they can just claim, without evidence, that the person incited violence. Even to the extent that there is video all over the place of the person who is being accused of inciting violence, saying in plain terms on record, that they're asking for peaceful protesting and not violence. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8wThe issue of who the anarchist's really were is a shit storm right now. But whatever the case, antifa, BLM, or far right anarchist's - none of it really applies to the masses of actual Trump supporters who stand for law and order and always have the entire time. It's painful to watch mainstream media try and misconstrue this into something that it clearly isn't. These antifa guys have been showing up at protests since last summer and stirring the pot to turn peaceful protests violent. They have been doing that at BLM protests for a long time already. All it takes is a minority of people to show up at any protest, stir the pot, and then mob mentality spreads out from there and shit storms erupt. They know what they're doing and this is an old tactic already. What's really sad about all of this, in my opinion, is how poorly played the whole thing has been. The same media that are recorded excusing all of these violent protests through last summer and suggesting that this is what democracy looks like with building on fire in the back ground, then flip a switch and start denouncing the same when it appears to come from the other side. As if people are naive enough not to notice the contradictions that all on record. If my side is doing it, that's what democracy looks like. If the other side is doing it, that's anti-democratic. I expect a lot of back lash towards Big Tech going forward....
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 12, 2021 0:45:17 GMT
Is censorship and banning Trump's account good? Is it bad? Should social media censor people who are inciting violence and harm? Do we have a right to say whatever the heck we want on social media? I don't think the censorship is going well. Trying to silence an opponent never seems to work out well in the long run. It just give the opposition ammo. And makes martyrs out of people. Put differently, what if this were about christians. What if people were banned from social media based on religious belief or affiliation? All it would do is create a persecution scenario. We generally allow opposing view to speak and counter their claims and arguments with sensible responses. I think that's the way all opposition should be handled. Trump has been talking evil about dems on tv, on twitter and in person for 4 years. These social media outlets havent banned Christians nor republicans, just Trump and probably other radicals. What about banning the phrase "Hang Pence?" Good or bad. If Ken Copeland had been on tv and social media with 60 million followers for 4 years talking evil about atheists, pagans and muslims, culminating in some scuffle resulting in several deaths, then yes, they should take him off the air/internet. Where does free speech end and inciting violence begin? Maybe social media sites have an argument for censoring people who incite violence. But the difficult part is that they have made false allegations about inciting violence. If they don't like someone they can just claim, without evidence, that the person incited violence. Even to the extent that there is video all over the place of the person being accused of inciting violence, saying in plain terms that they're asking for peaceful protesting. Trump said something about being weak not cutting it and you need to be strong ...to an angry group. Giuliani said something about combat. Then an angry mob stormed the capitol. (If I'm incorrect, I'll withdraw this comment. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8wThe issue of who the anarchist's really were is a shit storm right now. But whatever the case, antifa, BLM, or far right anarchist's, none of it really applies to the masses of actual Trump supporters who stand for law and order and always have the entire time. It's painful to watch mainstream media try and misconstrue this into something that it clearly isn't. These antifa guys have been showing up protests since last summer and stirring the pot to turn peaceful protests violent. They have been doing at BLM protests for a long time already. All it takes is minority of people to stir the pot and then mod mentality spreads out from there and shit storms erupt. Thousands of Trump flag waving undercover antifa and BLM members?....about as likely as a Christian wearing a Satan costume for some sneaky purpose, imo. I will agree that most Trump supporters and Republicans in general...as well as Democrats and Trump non-supporters stand for law and order.What's really sad about all of this, in my opinion, is how poorly played the whole thing is. The same media that are recorded excusing all of these violent protests through last summer and suggesting that this is what democracy looks like, flip a switch and start denouncing the same when it appears to come from the other side. As if people are naive enough to not notice the contradictions that all on record. I expect a lot of back lash towards Big Tech going forward....
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 12, 2021 1:00:42 GMT
Trump has made up so much nonsense over the last 4 years that now people are questioning obvious reality, denying common sense, and believing stuff that is highly unlikely and without any evidence: See "Massive Election Fraud." I equate Massive Election Fraud to Jesus Christ. Show me. Voting for someone else isnt fraud. Inability to accept that you lost though is delusion. We had a 'discussion' at Christmas time. Wife and I said our stuff against Trump, and backed it up with what the media said....the retort from our Trumper relatives was that "The media cant be trusted." Then they said their pro-Trump stuff and we asked them where they heard that nonsense....and they said.....drumroll.......The Media! lol. Politics and religion are not based on logic. It's just 'what I feel'. For you, for me, for all.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 12, 2021 1:11:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 12, 2021 2:45:43 GMT
I don't think the censorship is going well. Trying to silence an opponent never seems to work out well in the long run. It just give the opposition ammo. And makes martyrs out of people. Put differently, what if this were about christians. What if people were banned from social media based on religious belief or affiliation? All it would do is create a persecution scenario. We generally allow opposing view to speak and counter their claims and arguments with sensible responses. I think that's the way all opposition should be handled. Trump has been talking evil about dems on tv, on twitter and in person for 4 years. These social media outlets havent banned Christians nor republicans, just Trump and probably other radicals. What about banning the phrase "Hang Pence?" Good or bad. If Ken Copeland had been on tv and social media with 60 million followers for 4 years talking evil about atheists, pagans and muslims, culminating in some scuffle resulting in several deaths, then yes, they should take him off the air/internet. Where does free speech end and inciting violence begin? Maybe social media sites have an argument for censoring people who incite violence. But the difficult part is that they have made false allegations about inciting violence. If they don't like someone they can just claim, without evidence, that the person incited violence. Even to the extent that there is video all over the place of the person being accused of inciting violence, saying in plain terms that they're asking for peaceful protesting. Trump said something about being weak not cutting it and you need to be strong ...to an angry group. Giuliani said something about combat. Then an angry mob stormed the capitol. (If I'm incorrect, I'll withdraw this comment. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8wThe issue of who the anarchist's really were is a shit storm right now. But whatever the case, antifa, BLM, or far right anarchist's, none of it really applies to the masses of actual Trump supporters who stand for law and order and always have the entire time. It's painful to watch mainstream media try and misconstrue this into something that it clearly isn't. These antifa guys have been showing up protests since last summer and stirring the pot to turn peaceful protests violent. They have been doing at BLM protests for a long time already. All it takes is minority of people to stir the pot and then mod mentality spreads out from there and shit storms erupt. Thousands of Trump flag waving undercover antifa and BLM members?....about as likely as a Christian wearing a Satan costume for some sneaky purpose, imo. I will agree that most Trump supporters and Republicans in general...as well as Democrats and Trump non-supporters stand for law and order.What's really sad about all of this, in my opinion, is how poorly played the whole thing is. The same media that are recorded excusing all of these violent protests through last summer and suggesting that this is what democracy looks like, flip a switch and start denouncing the same when it appears to come from the other side. As if people are naive enough to not notice the contradictions that all on record. I expect a lot of back lash towards Big Tech going forward.... The most likely, actually. I was wondering what antifa would do, just sit it out? How could they show up at a half million people Trump rally to cause mayhem being that extremely outnumbered? These were questions I was asking myself before January 6. The BLM leader who showed up, which is a documented situation, was wearing Trump gear. How else could he show up there? He said he was trying to quietly observe, after having been exposed. The most obvious result of storming the capitol building while the senate was deliberating in the process of raising objections, would be to demolish the remaining objections. That's exactly what happened. One republican after the next stood up and felt compelled to with draw their objections due to the mob break in. You couldn't have played a better hand from the antifa perspective. Trump wanted to orchestrate having what was his last chance cut off at the heals while mid session??? What happened was the absolute stupidest strategy for republicans and a hell of a devious winning strategy for democrats. I'm quite suspicious of the charade...
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 12, 2021 3:17:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 12, 2021 3:55:47 GMT
Some bipartisan agreement on the censorship issue is beginning to come forward....
|
|
|
Post by logicalfallacy on Jan 12, 2021 10:05:30 GMT
Is censorship and banning Trump's account good? Is it bad? Trump was banned for violating the terms of agreement. Now he might not like the terms, but he agreed to them, as have I. If I start talking shit about Christians I will get banned because I'm violating the terms. Heck on Quroa my posts have been deleted for being too insulting (Not my fault the other poster was a moron!) Do I wail about censorship? No, I violated the be nice, be kind policy. Apparently calling someone stupid and insulting their holy book isn't nice. Who knew? Had Trump not been a world leader he would have been banned ages ago. He has been spreading misinformation and hate on twitter for years before he became president. It's not new, its just more of Trump, but instead of a TV show, its a real life show with actual lives on the line.Should social media censor people who are inciting violence and harm? Yes. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies or properties. What's more I'm a firm believer of freedom of speech with responsibility. Do we have a right to say whatever the heck we want on social media? No. It's a privately owned platform. They can do whatever the fuck they like within the confines of the law. Is there an ethical argument to be made due to the massive influence these companies have? Possibly. Ultimately you can create your own platform if you want. Be the next youtube or twitter. And lets face it, twitter is the worst platform of all time for getting coherent ideas across.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 12, 2021 16:50:30 GMT
Here's an interesting article about the reactions coming from world leaders about Big Tech's recent censorship campaign: link
Political elites worldwide have criticized big tech companies for banning President Donald Trump from their social media platforms. At present, the president has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Snapchat, Reddit, and Instagram. Twitter permanently removed Trump’s account, saying that his recent posts were in violation of the “Glorification of Violence Policy.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Twitter’s ban on Trump “problematic,” and said that freedom of opinion is an essential right of “elementary significance,” her spokesperson, Steffen Siebert, said on Jan 11. “This fundamental right can be intervened in, but according to the law and within the framework defined by legislators—not according to a decision by the management of social media platforms,” Siebert said." “Seen from this angle, the chancellor considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. president have now been permanently blocked,” he said. Members of the French government agreed. Clement Beaune, the junior minister for European Union affairs, said he was “shocked” a private company made this kind of decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire also condemned the move and said that tech giants were part of a digital oligarchy that was a threat to democracy. Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party—a centre-right political party—echoed Beaune and called for Big Tech firms to be regulated. “We cannot leave it to American Big Tech to decide how we can or cannot discuss online. Today’s mechanisms destroy the compromise searching and consensus-building that are crucial in free and democratic societies. We need a stricter regulatory approach,” he wrote on Twitter on Jan. 11.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 13, 2021 2:04:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 15, 2021 16:20:32 GMT
Money talks, bullshit walks. Maybe financial pressures will settle the censorship issue...
Another issue starts at 13:25 in the video. A women arrested for video and audio evidence of soliciting $55,000 to create 5 thousands fraud votes for Biden county wide. This is an example of the upper ballot fraud, where there don't waste time filling out an entire ballot. They just mass produce fraudulent ballots for just the president, or the president and someone else on the upper ballot. But it's insightful as to how this type of voter fraud is conducted.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 18, 2021 12:47:01 GMT
Can I be banned from this platform? No matter what I say or how I behave?
I know that over on the other ex-c site there have been others that have been banned. Not just members but xians. Are they being "censored?" Are they entitled to the platform?
This is all being used to attack section 230 and if successful you will see the end of sites like this in the United States. No one will accept the liability for user content without safe-haven provisions. You will see any/all such forums flee the States. The very idea that we will return to some happy, pre-section 230, internet is a huge, huge, lie. That was a time before people realized they could sue. Once it was realized the precedent was set. Once Prodigy lost their lawsuit I can tell you it pretty much put the fear of god in everyone. Since I ran an ISP at the time I began to fear lawsuits in a very real way for any content my users put anywhere. A chilling effect. However, with section 230 those fears went away.
Ultimately, what this would mean, for the US, is that nearly all user generated content would go away. The big guys would produce content. For someone like Trump who wants to be the arbiter of his own reality section 230 is a problem. He wants to speak from his pulpit and not hear any contradictions from the peanut gallery. Just a lot of thumbs up. Maybe that will be the future? It's easy to moderate up/down votes. It's nearly impossible to effectively moderate sites with more than a handful of actual written content. Unless you're interested in simply hearing what people had to eat for breakfast and other Milquetoast sorts of posts. A site like this, that could cross into a religious discrimination minefield, could be a difficult place if the wrong post existed and the right person sues. You might find yourself out of business, letting everyone post whatever they like even if it's blatant proselytizing, or editing/removing posts whenever someone makes legal threat. How do I know? I had to do it when Scientology made me do it when one of my subscribers posted something they didn't like and I wasn't in any position to fight them on it. Section 230 would have given me the "fuck off" option.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 18, 2021 18:10:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 5:05:04 GMT
Can I be banned from this platform? No matter what I say or how I behave? I know that over on the other ex-c site there have been others that have been banned. Not just members but xians. Are they being "censored?" Are they entitled to the platform? This is all being used to attack section 230 and if successful you will see the end of sites like this in the United States. No one will accept the liability for user content without safe-haven provisions. You will see any/all such forums flee the States. The very idea that we will return to some happy, pre-section 230, internet is a huge, huge, lie. That was a time before people realized they could sue. Once it was realized the precedent was set. Once Prodigy lost their lawsuit I can tell you it pretty much put the fear of god in everyone. Since I ran an ISP at the time I began to fear lawsuits in a very real way for any content my users put anywhere. A chilling effect. However, with section 230 those fears went away. Ultimately, what this would mean, for the US, is that nearly all user generated content would go away. The big guys would produce content. For someone like Trump who wants to be the arbiter of his own reality section 230 is a problem. He wants to speak from his pulpit and not hear any contradictions from the peanut gallery. Just a lot of thumbs up. Maybe that will be the future? It's easy to moderate up/down votes. It's nearly impossible to effectively moderate sites with more than a handful of actual written content. Unless you're interested in simply hearing what people had to eat for breakfast and other Milquetoast sorts of posts. A site like this, that could cross into a religious discrimination minefield, could be a difficult place if the wrong post existed and the right person sues. You might find yourself out of business, letting everyone post whatever they like even if it's blatant proselytizing, or editing/removing posts whenever someone makes legal threat. How do I know? I had to do it when Scientology made me do it when one of my subscribers posted something they didn't like and I wasn't in any position to fight them on it. Section 230 would have given me the "fuck off" option. The way I see it, facebook and twitter could lose upwards of 70,000,000 members and go belly up over making stupid choices. Stocks drop. Maybe facebook tanks. The videos I've been posting make it clear. They are selective censoring. They are only censoring people who they disagree with politically. Meanwhile all of the other examples mentioned have gone on uncensored. Whatever the case, it's blatantly one sided and bias censoring going on. In my opinion facebook should have never taken a transparent partisan stand. Parler came along and took a non-partisan free speech approach, soared to number one, and they tried to gang up and shut it down. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are monopoly allegations.
|
|