Search:

That's why I wasn't that fussed about the fact check Twitter did. I didn't like that it was them doing it and I will always, always question their motive tho. If a public platform could somehow utilize a "to know more" link to credible sources of a topic a user puts forward in a fair and comprehensive matter I think anyone logical will be on board with it. How to implement that in a fair way with as less bias as possible is beyond me, but it's a good avenue to explore.

That's why I wasn't that fussed about the fact check Twitter did. I didn't like that it was them doing it and I will always, always question their motive tho. If a public platform could somehow utilize a "to know more" link to credible sources of a topic a user puts forward in a fair and comprehensive matter I think anyone logical will be on board with it. How to implement that in a fair way with as less bias as possible is beyond me, but it's a good avenue to explore.

There are no doubt be dilemmas to address when considering a public social media platform. There are no doubt gaps when trying to apply laws that were created before the rise of social media and even the internet itself to an environment with them. I also don't want to pretend that I am an expert and have spent years researching when in reality it was a thought I had when loading my washing machine.

There are no doubt be dilemmas to address when considering a public social media platform. There are no doubt gaps when trying to apply laws that were created before the rise of social media and even the internet itself to an environment with them. I also don't want to pretend that I am an expert and have spent years researching when in reality it was a thought I had when loading my washing machine.

1. In the Senate of the USA Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation making it illegal to distribute bomb making instructions on the internet. This legislation has rightfully been cross-examined since books aren't within the scope of this law, but in on the internet there is protection against it.

2. I'd say that propagating false information that will lead to self harm falls under some law.

3. If people are sharing pictures of children framed to be sexually provocative on a public medium they would possibly be the most dumbest person in existence. They are already social pariahs and resort to operating in the shadows. Also, at least in Australia, we have laws against this.

[quote=Criminal Code (Qld) s 210(1)(f)]Any indecent visual image of a child under the age of 16 years; is guilty of an indictable offence.[/quote]

1. In the Senate of the USA Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation making it illegal to distribute bomb making instructions on the internet. This legislation has rightfully been cross-examined since books aren't within the scope of this law, but in on the internet there is protection against it.

2. I'd say that propagating false information that will lead to self harm falls under some law.

3. If people are sharing pictures of children framed to be sexually provocative on a public medium they would possibly be the most dumbest person in existence. They are already social pariahs and resort to operating in the shadows. Also, at least in Australia, we have laws against this.

Originally Posted by Criminal Code (Qld) s 210(1)(f)

Any indecent visual image of a child under the age of 16 years; is guilty of an indictable offence.

What if a social media platform was created as a public utility? It should theoretically be the bastion of freedom of speech on the internet.

What if a social media platform was created as a public utility? It should theoretically be the bastion of freedom of speech on the internet.

I've just come across another situation where social media is over stepping freedom of speech. YouTube censored a biostatistician for raising critiques of the quarantine measure against COVID. How can we expect to have proper discourse on a subject if voices are being silenced that are against the status quo? I cannot emphasize how much I do not like this.

Knut Wittkowski is his name.

I've just come across another situation where social media is over stepping freedom of speech. YouTube censored a biostatistician for raising critiques of the quarantine measure against COVID. How can we expect to have proper discourse on a subject if voices are being silenced that are against the status quo? I cannot emphasize how much I do not like this.

Knut Wittkowski is his name.

You can't separate violence from it.

"We put the young ones [B]on the front line[/B], sir, they love it, and [B]good practice[/B].�
"...nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been [B]greeted with the most vicious dogs[/B], and [B]most ominous weapons[/B], I have ever seen. That�s when [B]people would have been really badly hurt[/B], at least."
"...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly[B] come down on them, hard[/B] - didn�t know what [B]hit them[/B]."

All of these have some sort of violent element to them. Yes he was praising the Secret Service, so it would be glorifying Secret Service violence. That is still glorifying violence. But again interpret how you wish. That is the last I will comment on it, bed time.

You can't separate violence from it.

"We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and good practice.�
"...nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That�s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least."
"...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didn�t know what hit them."

All of these have some sort of violent element to them. Yes he was praising the Secret Service, so it would be glorifying Secret Service violence. That is still glorifying violence. But again interpret how you wish. That is the last I will comment on it, bed time.

Not that I care, you are free to interpret that as you wish. I just find it stupid that Twitter flags the other post and none of those ones.

Not that I care, you are free to interpret that as you wish. I just find it stupid that Twitter flags the other post and none of those ones.

"...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didn�t know what hit them."

That's the full message.

Ganelon the definition of glorify is basically - to honor with praise, admiration, or worship. I don't see how you can say that the Secret Service tweets are not glorifying violence.

"...but whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, they would quickly come down on them, hard - didn�t know what hit them."

That's the full message.

Ganelon the definition of glorify is basically - to honor with praise, admiration, or worship. I don't see how you can say that the Secret Service tweets are not glorifying violence.

"“We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and good practice.”
"...nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That’s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least."

While I don't have a problem with this being interpreted as a threat, this is 100% glorifying violence. Yet, Twitter is silent on it.

"“We put the young ones on the front line, sir, they love it, and good practice.”
"...nobody came close to breaching the fence. If they had they would have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen. That’s when people would have been really badly hurt, at least."

While I don't have a problem with this being interpreted as a threat, this is 100% glorifying violence. Yet, Twitter is silent on it.

Who is being homo erectus

Who is being homo erectus

I just want to say I did pick up on a dubious doublespeak of Trump after you pointed it out oops. After his spiel glorifying the actions of the Secret Service he offered a "MAGA night" at the white house. This to me is a blatant call to his base to take action. At face value it could be two things, counter protests or violent clashing. If the MAGA gang turn up and counter protest peacefully, yay democracy. However if things turn violent I wonder if Trump could be charged with incitement. I lean towards no because he can always claim they took it upon themselves to turn violent and that he only meant peaceful protesting.

I think that is a much more questionable tweet than the one he got flagged for, and nobody really seems to care about it. If you were to subscribe to a world where Trump is trying to incite violence, that Tweet should ring alarm bells.

I just want to say I did pick up on a dubious doublespeak of Trump after you pointed it out oops. After his spiel glorifying the actions of the Secret Service he offered a "MAGA night" at the white house. This to me is a blatant call to his base to take action. At face value it could be two things, counter protests or violent clashing. If the MAGA gang turn up and counter protest peacefully, yay democracy. However if things turn violent I wonder if Trump could be charged with incitement. I lean towards no because he can always claim they took it upon themselves to turn violent and that he only meant peaceful protesting.

I think that is a much more questionable tweet than the one he got flagged for, and nobody really seems to care about it. If you were to subscribe to a world where Trump is trying to incite violence, that Tweet should ring alarm bells.

This guy is right leaning so there will be some bias, but the footage he shares doesn't lie. It's a complete shit show even without police present.

[url]https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer[/url]

Insane really.

This guy is right leaning so there will be some bias, but the footage he shares doesn't lie. It's a complete shit show even without police present.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer

Insane really.

I support the police to restore order because someone has to lol. That's not to say I support the deplorable shit they have done don't get me wrong, police brutality is not okay and they should be held accountable for any transgressions they commit. There is always the other side of the coin too. I saw [URL="https://streamable.com/ibwexe"]this [/URL] and felt my gut drop. Saw [URL="https://wbng.com/2020/05/30/federal-officer-killed-guarding-courthouse-near-protest/"]this[/URL] linked awhile ago too. All in all it's just a fucking mess and I think it's important to recognize how truly fucked up it is on both sides. I just hope the riots come to a peaceful end and the cop that murdered George Floyd as well as the officers standing by get the book thrown at them.

I support the police to restore order because someone has to lol. That's not to say I support the deplorable shit they have done don't get me wrong, police brutality is not okay and they should be held accountable for any transgressions they commit. There is always the other side of the coin too. I saw this and felt my gut drop. Saw this linked awhile ago too. All in all it's just a fucking mess and I think it's important to recognize how truly fucked up it is on both sides. I just hope the riots come to a peaceful end and the cop that murdered George Floyd as well as the officers standing by get the book thrown at them.

[url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266711221191020544[/url]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...11221191020544

Wow. I just looked at his twitter and he just went balls to the wall with this glorifying violence thing. Twitter literally has to censor those posts if they want to be seen as credible with their previous decision.

Wow. I just looked at his twitter and he just went balls to the wall with this glorifying violence thing. Twitter literally has to censor those posts if they want to be seen as credible with their previous decision.

Thing about double speaking that it's impossible to know what he is trying to gain unless he tells us himself. All we can do is speculate.

Thing about double speaking that it's impossible to know what he is trying to gain unless he tells us himself. All we can do is speculate.

I don't have an opinion on if he is doing that consistently as I don't follow much of what he says. I can only look at this message.

If I were to assume he is double speaking, my first thought would be what does he achieve by sending out this message? I can only logically conclude this. It's a political minefield this situation and any perceived misuse of force, even if it's justifiable use of force, can dog him and his chance of re-election. Obviously that is bad for him. So by laying out the truth that rioters looting correlate with shootings, which you can look at the LA riots for evidence of this (firefighters shot at, rooftop Koreans shooting to deter looters, police and national guard shooting rioters, etc), he is looking to gain support for the potential use of force to control the situation.

Do I think he is inciting individuals to take up arms against looters? No, but I won't lie and I think he would support the notion that store owners should take up arms to protect their property and his double speak could be alluring to that.

So yeah. My thought on that if he is intentionally choosing his words to send an ulterior message, that would be the jist of that message. And quite frankly I don't have much of an issue with it. Riots are fucked no matter what spin you put on it. It's incredibly sad that it has come to this but these riots need to be stopped before more lives are ruined. If they don't want to go peacefully then unfortunately force is required, and Trump will need support for it.

I don't have an opinion on if he is doing that consistently as I don't follow much of what he says. I can only look at this message.

If I were to assume he is double speaking, my first thought would be what does he achieve by sending out this message? I can only logically conclude this. It's a political minefield this situation and any perceived misuse of force, even if it's justifiable use of force, can dog him and his chance of re-election. Obviously that is bad for him. So by laying out the truth that rioters looting correlate with shootings, which you can look at the LA riots for evidence of this (firefighters shot at, rooftop Koreans shooting to deter looters, police and national guard shooting rioters, etc), he is looking to gain support for the potential use of force to control the situation.

Do I think he is inciting individuals to take up arms against looters? No, but I won't lie and I think he would support the notion that store owners should take up arms to protect their property and his double speak could be alluring to that.

So yeah. My thought on that if he is intentionally choosing his words to send an ulterior message, that would be the jist of that message. And quite frankly I don't have much of an issue with it. Riots are fucked no matter what spin you put on it. It's incredibly sad that it has come to this but these riots need to be stopped before more lives are ruined. If they don't want to go peacefully then unfortunately force is required, and Trump will need support for it.

Both of your examples of clarification checks are/were absurd. It is not even remotely fair to compare them to that tweet they are that outlandish lol.

It's up to us on an individual level to ensure speech is practiced efficiently whether it's speaking clearly or asking for clarification. I draw the line of speech policing when a body of power steps in and definitively tells you how you should interpret a message. It's absurd. It's been glaringly obvious for awhile now that what the users think a platform is for is so separate from the truth and it's only growing apart further as time goes by. Social media really did die in its ass the moment it got politicized with the boomer invasion of Facebook.

If people are worried about morons being manipulated by ominous vague words on the internet then perhaps vote in people that want to expand not only funding of education but the scope of it along with mental health. Being okay with a private company controlling speech in a medium unrivaled by anything else evidentially just exasperates things and personally speaking is wrong. Again it's the precedent it sets, not the content they are doing it to. The fact that it affects the political world is also very fucking concerning.

Both of your examples of clarification checks are/were absurd. It is not even remotely fair to compare them to that tweet they are that outlandish lol.

It's up to us on an individual level to ensure speech is practiced efficiently whether it's speaking clearly or asking for clarification. I draw the line of speech policing when a body of power steps in and definitively tells you how you should interpret a message. It's absurd. It's been glaringly obvious for awhile now that what the users think a platform is for is so separate from the truth and it's only growing apart further as time goes by. Social media really did die in its ass the moment it got politicized with the boomer invasion of Facebook.

If people are worried about morons being manipulated by ominous vague words on the internet then perhaps vote in people that want to expand not only funding of education but the scope of it along with mental health. Being okay with a private company controlling speech in a medium unrivaled by anything else evidentially just exasperates things and personally speaking is wrong. Again it's the precedent it sets, not the content they are doing it to. The fact that it affects the political world is also very fucking concerning.

I'm peacing out of this discussion. It really is outrage culture coming to a head where people cannot think or seek answers before coming to a verdict. A persons message was just framed from a position of power to mean specifically one thing without any clarification checks, and when a clarity check does happen after the fact they ignore it and continue framing it for what it is not. Amazing.

I'm peacing out of this discussion. It really is outrage culture coming to a head where people cannot think or seek answers before coming to a verdict. A persons message was just framed from a position of power to mean specifically one thing without any clarification checks, and when a clarity check does happen after the fact they ignore it and continue framing it for what it is not. Amazing.

[QUOTE=rumox;864500]SuperJack I think everyone has said he could have worded it better. How people interpret the message is besides the point. Twitter took his message and framed it to mean specifically something.[/QUOTE]

And now that he has clarified to the people that interpreted it wrong, his message is still being framed as something it is not. They still have it quarantined.

Originally Posted by rumox

SuperJack I think everyone has said he could have worded it better. How people interpret the message is besides the point. Twitter took his message and framed it to mean specifically something.

And now that he has clarified to the people that interpreted it wrong, his message is still being framed as something it is not. They still have it quarantined.

SuperJack I think everyone has said he could have worded it better. How people interpret the message is besides the point. Twitter took his message and framed it to mean specifically something.

SuperJack I think everyone has said he could have worded it better. How people interpret the message is besides the point. Twitter took his message and framed it to mean specifically something.

"Looting leads to shooting, and that�s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don�t want this to happen, and that�s what the expression put out last night means. It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It�s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!"

There we go. Now Trump should have been a lot more concise with his wording originally, but this is an example of presumption of guilt culture I loathe. It's now got a social media giant playing god on what is acceptable speech. Now that it's been clarified that he wasn't "glorifying violence" will Twitter remove the quarantine measure on the post? This entire process can be avoided by doing the sane thing, questioning the individual to clarify what they meant like bloody adults.

"Looting leads to shooting, and that�s why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don�t want this to happen, and that�s what the expression put out last night means. It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It�s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!"

There we go. Now Trump should have been a lot more concise with his wording originally, but this is an example of presumption of guilt culture I loathe. It's now got a social media giant playing god on what is acceptable speech. Now that it's been clarified that he wasn't "glorifying violence" will Twitter remove the quarantine measure on the post? This entire process can be avoided by doing the sane thing, questioning the individual to clarify what they meant like bloody adults.

Still shocked people are surprised about violent riots being met with force to disperse them. What do you think the government should do? Let the city burn? It needs to be stopped and based on footage I have seen I wouldn't be surprised if lethal and non lethal rounds are required. You reap what you sow.

Still shocked people are surprised about violent riots being met with force to disperse them. What do you think the government should do? Let the city burn? It needs to be stopped and based on footage I have seen I wouldn't be surprised if lethal and non lethal rounds are required. You reap what you sow.

I just want to say that the EO was tried a few years ago and failed. Zuckerberg has even written his own academic journal about how to properly regulate social media. It's been an on going discussion for awhile. While I do think Trump is petty as fuck I don't think he wrote an EO up in retaliation. They have probably been sitting on it for awhile and Trump is just being opportunistic.

I just want to say that the EO was tried a few years ago and failed. Zuckerberg has even written his own academic journal about how to properly regulate social media. It's been an on going discussion for awhile. While I do think Trump is petty as fuck I don't think he wrote an EO up in retaliation. They have probably been sitting on it for awhile and Trump is just being opportunistic.

In any case, if Twitter was worried about Trump drones killing because of that message they would use the term that is more applicable which is incitement of violence. They didn't and used glorifying violence. Better ban all Superheroes from Twitter. Don't forget to ban Quinten Tarintino as well. It's such an irrational reason to censor someone and now a precedent has been set it's going to be inconsistent as hell with implementation. If they don't follow up with this precedent being set with future posts being hidden it's just going to feed into the spastic alt rights rhetoric.

In any case, if Twitter was worried about Trump drones killing because of that message they would use the term that is more applicable which is incitement of violence. They didn't and used glorifying violence. Better ban all Superheroes from Twitter. Don't forget to ban Quinten Tarintino as well. It's such an irrational reason to censor someone and now a precedent has been set it's going to be inconsistent as hell with implementation. If they don't follow up with this precedent being set with future posts being hidden it's just going to feed into the spastic alt rights rhetoric.

I feel like I will just go in circles talking to you. I literally said in my second post I wasn't even aware of the first tweet and my issue was with the second one so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. The EO, as much as I don't care for it either besides a line from it which sums up my opinion of social media, goes into detail about other topics not just poor Trumps fact check. But again, beside my point.

Can Trump speak better? Yes definitely. Should Twitter impose context onto someone's statement as they seem fit? Hell no. If people go out and shoot looters because daddy Trump "told them to" based off that tweet I will be fucking surprised. Ridiculous.

I feel like I will just go in circles talking to you. I literally said in my second post I wasn't even aware of the first tweet and my issue was with the second one so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. The EO, as much as I don't care for it either besides a line from it which sums up my opinion of social media, goes into detail about other topics not just poor Trumps fact check. But again, beside my point.

Can Trump speak better? Yes definitely. Should Twitter impose context onto someone's statement as they seem fit? Hell no. If people go out and shoot looters because daddy Trump "told them to" based off that tweet I will be fucking surprised. Ridiculous.

I mean if you want to just look at the first tweet in a vacuum, it's not that bad in all truth. The source is fair and it basically says that Trumps tweet wasn't exactly wrong but he did fluff it up. I don't care. I'd rather they didn't but they are free to push features down our consumer throats.

My issue lies more so with the second tweet. They have taken a statement and framed it to mean specifically something. For arguments sake lets look at it where it was deemed worthy of stepping in on.

"Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

What if he meant by "the shooting starts" he meant "chaos starts" and by that he means he wants to 'assume control, but with the rioting it's going to get messy'.
What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means violent rioting will be met with adequate force to subdue it, aka shooting (tear gas, non-lethal rounds and lethal rounds, whatever).
What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means everyone not looting go shoot the looters.

This is what I mean that they have forced context onto a statement that doesn't explicitly mean what they are saying it means. Is it absurd to think that people violently rioting and looting will be fired upon? If people find that offensive then they are straight up delusional and think actions should have no repercussions. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand when you can't face the truth.

I mean if you want to just look at the first tweet in a vacuum, it's not that bad in all truth. The source is fair and it basically says that Trumps tweet wasn't exactly wrong but he did fluff it up. I don't care. I'd rather they didn't but they are free to push features down our consumer throats.

My issue lies more so with the second tweet. They have taken a statement and framed it to mean specifically something. For arguments sake lets look at it where it was deemed worthy of stepping in on.

"Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!"

What if he meant by "the shooting starts" he meant "chaos starts" and by that he means he wants to 'assume control, but with the rioting it's going to get messy'.
What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means violent rioting will be met with adequate force to subdue it, aka shooting (tear gas, non-lethal rounds and lethal rounds, whatever).
What if he meant by "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" he means everyone not looting go shoot the looters.

This is what I mean that they have forced context onto a statement that doesn't explicitly mean what they are saying it means. Is it absurd to think that people violently rioting and looting will be fired upon? If people find that offensive then they are straight up delusional and think actions should have no repercussions. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand when you can't face the truth.

Well that's the issue right there, you and I have interpreted what he said differently but Twitter has forced their god hand onto it to mean specifically something. I know Twitter does have the right to do what it wants with its own product but I think its bullshit they get to act like a platform where they are not liable for the content posted, then go on to curate said content to their own personal opinions. I think social media entirely is crap which is why I don't use any of the big ones. Even the Zuck commented on this saying he disagrees with Twitters policy and that social media should not act like arbiters of truth.

Well that's the issue right there, you and I have interpreted what he said differently but Twitter has forced their god hand onto it to mean specifically something. I know Twitter does have the right to do what it wants with its own product but I think its bullshit they get to act like a platform where they are not liable for the content posted, then go on to curate said content to their own personal opinions. I think social media entirely is crap which is why I don't use any of the big ones. Even the Zuck commented on this saying he disagrees with Twitters policy and that social media should not act like arbiters of truth.

Also there was a post/thread somewhere about perception of information but I can't find it. I have lost count how many times these riots have been labeled as protests and it it's starting to annoy me. If that isn't clear manipulation of information to be framed in a certain light I don't know what is.

Also there was a post/thread somewhere about perception of information but I can't find it. I have lost count how many times these riots have been labeled as protests and it it's starting to annoy me. If that isn't clear manipulation of information to be framed in a certain light I don't know what is.

And yes I think the last line of his tweet was terrible, but for Twitter to step in and to force context onto what he meant by it is gross. Personally I just figured that he meant that continued extreme rioting can be met with extreme riot control, aka shooting. Now Twitter is telling me he is getting a hard on at the thought of shooting people so they had to censor his post. Honestly if people think they can riot so violently without repercussions they are delusional. Yes Trump could have worded it better but its a pretty fair point of what happens in riots.

And yes I think the last line of his tweet was terrible, but for Twitter to step in and to force context onto what he meant by it is gross. Personally I just figured that he meant that continued extreme rioting can be met with extreme riot control, aka shooting. Now Twitter is telling me he is getting a hard on at the thought of shooting people so they had to censor his post. Honestly if people think they can riot so violently without repercussions they are delusional. Yes Trump could have worded it better but its a pretty fair point of what happens in riots.

I don't like Trump and I think majority of the shit he posts is dribble at best. But this path Twitter is walking down where they are claiming they know what is best and to trust them I don't like. For me it's the precedent it's setting, not so much the content that's being targeted to get the ball rolling. I wasn't aware of the mail in thing until I clicked that link. What I knew of is they basically quarantined another post of his that can't be replied to and you have to opt into viewing it ([url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump[/url] - linking directly doesn't show what I mean).

I don't like Trump and I think majority of the shit he posts is dribble at best. But this path Twitter is walking down where they are claiming they know what is best and to trust them I don't like. For me it's the precedent it's setting, not so much the content that's being targeted to get the ball rolling. I wasn't aware of the mail in thing until I clicked that link. What I knew of is they basically quarantined another post of his that can't be replied to and you have to opt into viewing it (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump - linking directly doesn't show what I mean).

Somewhat. Twitter is trying to have their cake and eat it too. From what I have read the EO correctly calls out Twitter and social media as a whole on their bullshit. You simply can't claim to be a platform free of liabilities of the content posted, yet curate content as if you're a publisher. Social media needs to be knocked down a fair bit because the perceived notion of what most people use it for and think its for, weighed up against the direction the board members have pushed the company towards are getting further and further apart.

Somewhat. Twitter is trying to have their cake and eat it too. From what I have read the EO correctly calls out Twitter and social media as a whole on their bullshit. You simply can't claim to be a platform free of liabilities of the content posted, yet curate content as if you're a publisher. Social media needs to be knocked down a fair bit because the perceived notion of what most people use it for and think its for, weighed up against the direction the board members have pushed the company towards are getting further and further apart.

Lmao I just googled Lauren Southern.

[QUOTE]Shortly before a planned speaking tour of Australia in July 2018, Australia's Department of Home Affairs denied Lauren Southern an Electronic Travel Authority visa, saying it was "not a working visa". She intended to charge $79 for a basic ticket [B]and up to $749 for an "intimate dinner"[/B]. The Australian government allowed her to enter the country once she had the correct visa.[/QUOTE]

FeelsAmazingMan

Lmao I just googled Lauren Southern.

Shortly before a planned speaking tour of Australia in July 2018, Australia's Department of Home Affairs denied Lauren Southern an Electronic Travel Authority visa, saying it was "not a working visa". She intended to charge $79 for a basic ticket and up to $749 for an "intimate dinner". The Australian government allowed her to enter the country once she had the correct visa.

The criminal code doesn't mention pronouns so not using/misusing them should not result in any arrests by itself. Discrimination is where it would get murky. Like oops said you can't refuse service to someone because they identify as a certain gender, but in the work and academic landscapes where everyone knows shit gets twisted and contorted simply refusing to use pronouns can very well lead to a defamation case imo. Basically any professional, leader, whatever that doesn't want to risk trouble now should alter their speech.

The criminal code doesn't mention pronouns so not using/misusing them should not result in any arrests by itself. Discrimination is where it would get murky. Like oops said you can't refuse service to someone because they identify as a certain gender, but in the work and academic landscapes where everyone knows shit gets twisted and contorted simply refusing to use pronouns can very well lead to a defamation case imo. Basically any professional, leader, whatever that doesn't want to risk trouble now should alter their speech.

I do agree people should not be discriminated against for their gender identity, just want that to be clear.

Personally I wouldn't use those pronouns like zim/zhe/ver. I think that's getting a bit carried away, I'd personally just use them/they. I also do think it's a fair statement that ideologues have or are trying to weaponize this law to compel speech to fit their narrative of how society should interact with each other.

I do agree people should not be discriminated against for their gender identity, just want that to be clear.

Personally I wouldn't use those pronouns like zim/zhe/ver. I think that's getting a bit carried away, I'd personally just use them/they. I also do think it's a fair statement that ideologues have or are trying to weaponize this law to compel speech to fit their narrative of how society should interact with each other.

I don't think some guy in the street refusing to call people by their prefered pronouns will get fined or arrested, but what about in the workforce or anywhere academic? Now that gender is a protected identifier in regards to discrimination in the human rights act and added to the criminal code in regards to hate speech and hate crimes I can see a refusal of using prefered pronouns being a contentious issue in the future. Time will tell.

I don't think some guy in the street refusing to call people by their prefered pronouns will get fined or arrested, but what about in the workforce or anywhere academic? Now that gender is a protected identifier in regards to discrimination in the human rights act and added to the criminal code in regards to hate speech and hate crimes I can see a refusal of using prefered pronouns being a contentious issue in the future. Time will tell.

The current exemptions to freedom of speech are pretty good I'd like to hear an argument for why they should be overturned.

The current exemptions to freedom of speech are pretty good I'd like to hear an argument for why they should be overturned.

Freedom of speech is provocative by nature. Someone will always be offended. It's up to us on an individual basis to be adults about it. Governments have no place in compelling speech outside obvious caveats like incitement to violence, slander, etc.

Freedom of speech is provocative by nature. Someone will always be offended. It's up to us on an individual basis to be adults about it. Governments have no place in compelling speech outside obvious caveats like incitement to violence, slander, etc.

What. "Do ideologies that directly threaten freedom of thought and speech have to be censored to ensure survival of said freedom". How does one ensure the freedom of something they seek to destroy? There was no free speech in your examples. If you dissented from the status quo you were shot, they weren't covert about their intentions. If you mean an ideologue leader(s) being covert about their censorship of freedom of speech, I don't see how that is attainable without being obvious. A government recently tried to be coy about slipping in a law compelling speech and people lost their shit.

What. "Do ideologies that directly threaten freedom of thought and speech have to be censored to ensure survival of said freedom". How does one ensure the freedom of something they seek to destroy? There was no free speech in your examples. If you dissented from the status quo you were shot, they weren't covert about their intentions. If you mean an ideologue leader(s) being covert about their censorship of freedom of speech, I don't see how that is attainable without being obvious. A government recently tried to be coy about slipping in a law compelling speech and people lost their shit.