|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 5:11:04 GMT
I haven't banned any christian at ex-C, ever. Nor anyone else. I myself prefer to let them speak and argue with them. But I don't make the rules. I'll say this, it takes a lot to get banned. And 'few' people on the staff are willing to ban anyone. But ex-C is a far cry from facebook and twitter. Those are major public platforms dealing in the communication of government and citizens. We are nothing like that. Technical arguments can be made, but at the end of the day ex-C is nothing like facebook or twitter in the public eye.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 19, 2021 5:39:38 GMT
If FB and Twitter shutdown, so do all the anti-government anti-liberal hate groups that these sites host.
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Rider on Jan 19, 2021 6:38:56 GMT
I haven't banned any christian at ex-C, ever. Nor anyone else. I myself prefer to let them speak and argue with them. But I don't make the rules. I'll say this, it takes a lot to get banned. And 'few' people on the staff are willing to ban anyone. But ex-C is a far cry from facebook and twitter. Those are major public platforms dealing in the communication of government and citizens. We are nothing like that. Technical arguments can be made, but at the end of the day ex-C is nothing like facebook or twitter in the public eye. ...... Dorsey apparently considered Trump's continued presence on Twitter a public safety issue.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 19, 2021 9:34:52 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. Not everything is partisan even if it seems that way. Misinformation, being made partisan, then appears to be partisan. That is to say that if, for instance, one were to make flat-earth a partisan issue and then these platforms were to create a moderation policy that were to flag flat-earth content because it is scientifically incorrect it would also be seen as being biased against these people for partisan reasons. This is where we're at on a number of these issues.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 19, 2021 9:49:24 GMT
I haven't banned any christian at ex-C, ever. Nor anyone else. I myself prefer to let them speak and argue with them. But I don't make the rules. I'll say this, it takes a lot to get banned. And 'few' people on the staff are willing to ban anyone. But ex-C is a far cry from facebook and twitter. Those are major public platforms dealing in the communication of government and citizens. We are nothing like that. Technical arguments can be made, but at the end of the day ex-C is nothing like facebook or twitter in the public eye. Trust me, it's a legal issue, not a public perception issue. Without Section 230 all public forums are subject to liability. This includes this forum. This would include blogs with comment sections. I've never been in favor of banning folks. Some douche started board stalking me over on ex-c way back when Kevin was the only real mod and I said I didn't want them banned (Kev banned them anyhow). I wasn't in favor of BO being banned. I tend towards leaving all the xian trolls around. I'm not really a ban kind of guy. That doesn't change the fact they (or any of us for that matter) aren't entitled to Dave's site as a platform. Nor does it change the fact that we couldn't say much of what we say over there, or here, without Section 230 protection.
|
|
|
Post by disillusioned on Jan 19, 2021 10:11:59 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. Really? You think losing 70M users would break a company that has over 2.7B users? That seems like a stretch to me...
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 20:01:46 GMT
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. Not everything is partisan even if it seems that way. Misinformation, being made partisan, then appears to be partisan. That is to say that if, for instance, one were to make flat-earth a partisan issue and then these platforms were to create a moderation policy that were to flag flat-earth content because it is scientifically incorrect it would also be seen as being biased against these people for partisan reasons. This is where we're at on a number of these issues. I agree with your example, but the issue with facebook and twitter seems quite different. They literally finance in a partisan direction. They have been supporting on partisan basis, and now censoring in the same direction. They are censoring the #walkaway page. Which is based on people walking away from the democratic party. This is a deep rooted issue where the social media giants are concerned. Is Dorsey worried about the public safety due to BLM and antifa burning down inner city sections??? Have their platforms been eliminate immediately upon the first protests turned to illegal violent mob rage riots??? This is transparently one sided partisan bias. If they evenly and fairly flagged and dropped 'everyone' involved in the potential for public safety, then it might make more sense and they might be able to get away with claiming a non-partisan platform. But as it is, facebook and twitter may as well promote themselves as the social media arm of the DNC in my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 20:22:23 GMT
I haven't banned any christian at ex-C, ever. Nor anyone else. I myself prefer to let them speak and argue with them. But I don't make the rules. I'll say this, it takes a lot to get banned. And 'few' people on the staff are willing to ban anyone. But ex-C is a far cry from facebook and twitter. Those are major public platforms dealing in the communication of government and citizens. We are nothing like that. Technical arguments can be made, but at the end of the day ex-C is nothing like facebook or twitter in the public eye. Trust me, it's a legal issue, not a public perception issue. Without Section 230 all public forums are subject to liability. This includes this forum. This would include blogs with comment sections. I've never been in favor of banning folks. Some douche started board stalking me over on ex-c way back when Kevin was the only real mod and I said I didn't want them banned (Kev banned them anyhow). I wasn't in favor of BO being banned. I tend towards leaving all the xian trolls around. I'm not really a ban kind of guy. That doesn't change the fact they (or any of us for that matter) aren't entitled to Dave's site as a platform. Nor does it change the fact that we couldn't say much of what we say over there, or here, without Section 230 protection. I guess it just boils down to if we, or Dave, or facebook and twitter piss off enough people with our actions, that we won't have anyone for doing so. Or dwindle to a small amount of people and take the hit. These guys as social media giants don't seem to realize that it could all go away just like that. Piss the public off enough and they'll pull back. Stocks will plummet. If the only protection we all have is Section 230, so be it. I don't want to rail against the one thing that keeps places like this forum and ex C afloat. I just hope that facebook, twitter, and even amazon get a good lesson on losing public opinion before all is said and done. They can decide if it makes more sense to back off with this censorship campaign or keep it going.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 19, 2021 20:27:54 GMT
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. Really? You think losing 70M users would break a company that has over 2.7B users? That seems like a stretch to me... That's just looking at it from the republican base. I've posted videos and comments from world leaders. Everyone's watching this now. The potential audience to lose is actually more along the lines of global scale and not just republicans in the US. Depending on how it's handled and how public reaction around the globe pans out...
|
|
|
Post by disillusioned on Jan 19, 2021 22:55:34 GMT
Really? You think losing 70M users would break a company that has over 2.7B users? That seems like a stretch to me... That's just looking at it from the republican base. I've posted videos and comments from world leaders. Everyone's watching this now. The potential audience to lose is actually more along the lines of global scale and not just republicans in the US. Depending on how it's handled and how public reaction around the globe pans out... Meh. I don't see it, but we'll see.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 20, 2021 9:06:21 GMT
Not everything is partisan even if it seems that way. Misinformation, being made partisan, then appears to be partisan. That is to say that if, for instance, one were to make flat-earth a partisan issue and then these platforms were to create a moderation policy that were to flag flat-earth content because it is scientifically incorrect it would also be seen as being biased against these people for partisan reasons. This is where we're at on a number of these issues. I agree with your example, but the issue with facebook and twitter seems quite different. They literally finance in a partisan direction. They have been supporting on partisan basis, and now censoring in the same direction. They are censoring the #walkaway page. Which is based on people walking away from the democratic party. This is a deep rooted issue where the social media giants are concerned. Is Dorsey worried about the public safety due to BLM and antifa burning down inner city sections??? Have their platforms been eliminate immediately upon the first protests turned to illegal violent mob rage riots??? This is transparently one sided partisan bias. If they evenly and fairly flagged and dropped 'everyone' involved in the potential for public safety, then it might make more sense and they might be able to get away with claiming a non-partisan platform. But as it is, facebook and twitter may as well promote themselves as the social media arm of the DNC in my opinion... I have no idea how their filters work beyond the fact that they're almost entirely automated due to the sheer volume of information they have to wade through. So unless they make it known how the filters actually function it's impossible to really know why things are playing out as they are. My guess is one ability they have is weighting terms. So if they weight them high enough those things simply start to "disappear" aggressively. They probably weighted other "offensive" terms lower so it took a higher threshold before an account triggered a moderation. Some of these terms may even auto-adjust based on current events or some other sort of criteria so, since the events at the Capitol have been classified as riots and essentially domestic terrorism, the various terms surrounding them have gotten weighted higher in order to throw a wider net. What this might mean is this weighting system didn't react the same to the BLM protests in the same way since the various sources they utilize to compile this information didn't show these same sets of terms as problematic. Again, this is all speculation. They don't say how it all works. I imagine that what I'm describing here is much more simplistic that what's actually being used.
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 20, 2021 9:21:13 GMT
Trust me, it's a legal issue, not a public perception issue. Without Section 230 all public forums are subject to liability. This includes this forum. This would include blogs with comment sections. I've never been in favor of banning folks. Some douche started board stalking me over on ex-c way back when Kevin was the only real mod and I said I didn't want them banned (Kev banned them anyhow). I wasn't in favor of BO being banned. I tend towards leaving all the xian trolls around. I'm not really a ban kind of guy. That doesn't change the fact they (or any of us for that matter) aren't entitled to Dave's site as a platform. Nor does it change the fact that we couldn't say much of what we say over there, or here, without Section 230 protection. I guess it just boils down to if we, or Dave, or facebook and twitter piss off enough people with our actions, that we won't have anyone for doing so. Or dwindle to a small amount of people and take the hit. These guys as social media giants don't seem to realize that it could all go away just like that. Piss the public off enough and they'll pull back. Stocks will plummet. If the only protection we all have is Section 230, so be it. I don't want to rail against the one thing that keeps places like this forum and ex C afloat. I just hope that facebook, twitter, and even amazon get a good lesson on losing public opinion before all is said and done. They can decide if it makes more sense to back off with this censorship campaign or keep it going. All platforms face problems. Just ask MySpace. Things change. No one uses Ask Jeeves or Alta Vista for searches anymore. AOL is dead. As for some of the rest maybe look at the Paradox of Tolerance?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 20, 2021 14:42:52 GMT
I did join Parler and MeWe. In case facebook does end up going the way of myspace eventually. I never was on twitter or instagram. Hopefully, Parler can survive. They were saddled with needing Amazons servers. The free speech, non-partisan platforms are going to need to pretty much go it alone and figure out how not to depend on Big Tech. Then kick their royal asses in business....
|
|
mwc
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by mwc on Jan 21, 2021 17:52:27 GMT
I just learned that Facebook formed an independent review group for what I guess you'd call "difficult" cases awhile back ( here). The panel consists of 20 folks: So Trump's case is going before them. Their decision is final and can't be overridden by FB execs or even Zuck.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuapantera on Jan 21, 2021 20:54:50 GMT
Wow!!!
At least the societal debate drummed up a spot light and some much-deserved professional attention to the problem.
|
|