FUCK TWITTER!!! - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 138

Thread: FUCK TWITTER!!!

  1. #51

  2. #52

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Although I could give 2 fucks about someone shutting the orange man up I think this is just a symptom of a much deeper problem that has been going on for a very long time.

    In the reality model of realism we accept that objective reality exists outside of our understanding and we can only interact with objective reality through our senses. The larger issue is tech companies are able to control the information we use to make decisions and can therefor, manipulate the decisions we make. They have spent years perfecting this ability because its their main source of income- marketing. On the most basic level marketing is someone paying someone else to influence people to buy, vote, or believe what they want.

    If I were to google 'Travon Martin' I would be given access to information on that situation. But if Google chooses they can curve the kind of information I am given. On a basic level thats what large tech companies have been doing on a macro level. This is just the most blatant in a series of such actions.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  3. #53

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them.

    But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites.

    Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want".

    If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad".

    These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!"
    I love this point. We always see people pushing 'freedom of speech and expression' until that freedom of speech is used for something they disagree with. People love to leverage the morality of such things when it is convenient but point out true protection of that belief structure requires protecting positions they personally want to silence and it puts them in a tough situation.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  4. #54

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    I understand that none of these platforms are breaking laws by kicking people off them.

    But the heart of the question is do you think if we had it so these companies were led by extreme racists/white supremecists. Lets say they kick off anyone who says anything bad about the police, the government, and only whites.

    Would you still have the stance of "These companies can do what they want".
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    If u are fine with people getting kicked off because you don't give a shit about their speech, but care when they kick someone off for speech u agree with, then its not about "they have the right to do this!" its about "they are doing something i support because X speech is bad".

    These companies can do this. It is their right. We can criticize them for their actions and anti free speech principles they stand for. I think those who are for it should just admit they are against free speech as a principle instead of obfuscating that "THEY ARENT DOING ANYTHING IILLEGAL!"
    If an app/service/community kicks off people I agree with, to the point that it affects me or it becomes clear that they're pushing some sort of agenda, I stop using it. I have been in this situation before and my opinion has not changed. I might even complain, but I won't say that said bias should be illegal or be enforced against in any way.

    This guy in the thread who sounds a lot like Mag, but isn't because Mag would never do something like create an alt account, seems to only care about this issue to the extent that they're censoring conservatives, and in addition actually does want some form of legal action to be taken.

  5. #55

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Although I could give 2 fucks about someone shutting the orange man up I think this is just a symptom of a much deeper problem that has been going on for a very long time.

    In the reality model of realism we accept that objective reality exists outside of our understanding and we can only interact with objective reality through our senses. The larger issue is tech companies are able to control the information we use to make decisions and can therefor, manipulate the decisions we make. They have spent years perfecting this ability because its their main source of income- marketing. On the most basic level marketing is someone paying someone else to influence people to buy, vote, or believe what they want.

    If I were to google 'Travon Martin' I would be given access to information on that situation. But if Google chooses they can curve the kind of information I am given. On a basic level thats what large tech companies have been doing on a macro level. This is just the most blatant in a series of such actions.
    I agree with this, but I think people vastly overstate the importance of political opinions in this sort of "curving". These tech companies are chasing profit, they don't really have an agenda beyond that. The people calling the shots probably don't give a fuck what you think about Trayvon Martin. What they do care about is engagement and showing ads (remember that 85% of Google's revenue comes from ads, they're primarily an advertising company). If a certain political skew is conductive to having you go on Google more often, then they'll adjust towards that. Often not even as a conscious business decision; remember the role that machine learning plays into all of this. Also take into account personalization, what Google shows you absolutely does depend on the individual.

    There is another aspect, one that is political but in a different way, and that is in influencing legislation and gaining political power. Specifically look at changes/repealing of Section 230. Repealing Section 230 would be one of the worst things to happen to tech companies for their bottom line, since it would require them to spend much more time, money, and resources in content moderation and curation. When you look at things like the recent capitol rioting, which was largely incited by Trump's rhetoric on Twitter, you can imagine that Section 230 shields Twitter from any liability from that event, and that will draw negative attention from lawmakers on this particular legislature. Banning Trump on all these platforms could be their way of making lawmakers less antsy on nixing Section 230.

    When analyzing the actions of these types of companies, I find that things make a lot more sense and become less conspiratorial when you forget about them wanting to influence society and instead look at their actions from the perspective of them just wanting to make way more money.

  6. #56

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Btw, both Biden and Trump have stated that they want to repeal Section 230. I suspect that is why tech companies showed restraint in their actions against Trump until very recently. Though I don't know why Trump would have wanted to repeal it since it likely would have put even more pressure on Twitter to get rid of him. I suspect that it's because he's actually, contrary to popular belief, a fucking dumbass.

  7. #57

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I agree with this, but I think people vastly overstate the importance of political opinions in this sort of "curving". These tech companies are chasing profit, they don't really have an agenda beyond that. The people calling the shots probably don't give a fuck what you think about Trayvon Martin. What they do care about is engagement and showing ads (remember that 85% of Google's revenue comes from ads, they're primarily an advertising company). If a certain political skew is conductive to having you go on Google more often, then they'll adjust towards that. Often not even as a conscious business decision; remember the role that machine learning plays into all of this. Also take into account personalization, what Google shows you absolutely does depend on the individual.

    There is another aspect, one that is political but in a different way, and that is in influencing legislation and gaining political power. Specifically look at changes/repealing of Section 230. Repealing Section 230 would be one of the worst things to happen to tech companies for their bottom line, since it would require them to spend much more time, money, and resources in content moderation and curation. When you look at things like the recent capitol rioting, which was largely incited by Trump's rhetoric on Twitter, you can imagine that Section 230 shields Twitter from any liability from that event, and that will draw negative attention from lawmakers on this particular legislature. Banning Trump on all these platforms could be their way of making lawmakers less antsy on nixing Section 230.

    When analyzing the actions of these types of companies, I find that things make a lot more sense and become less conspiratorial when you forget about them wanting to influence society and instead look at their actions from the perspective of them just wanting to make way more money.
    I absolutely agree with you. I think the direction taken is not the result of an intelligent and organized 'group' but rather just a product of market conditions. I will also say censoring Trump feels pretty justified when he is directly inciting riots in an attempt to maintain power.

    I do still feel that the manipulation of how we access information is an extremely dangerous thing that could use a lot more focus. Tech companies basically control a large portion of how we interact with society and that power should be regulated by more than just market conditions.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  8. #58

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Btw, both Biden and Trump have stated that they want to repeal Section 230. I suspect that is why tech companies showed restraint in their actions against Trump until very recently. Though I don't know why Trump would have wanted to repeal it since it likely would have put even more pressure on Twitter to get rid of him. I suspect that it's because he's actually, contrary to popular belief, a fucking dumbass.
    Accelerate it while he is still in the limelight

  9. #59

  10. #60

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I absolutely agree with you. I think the direction taken is not the result of an intelligent and organized 'group' but rather just a product of market conditions. I will also say censoring Trump feels pretty justified when he is directly inciting riots in an attempt to maintain power.

    I do still feel that the manipulation of how we access information is an extremely dangerous thing that could use a lot more focus. Tech companies basically control a large portion of how we interact with society and that power should be regulated by more than just market conditions.
    I agree with this. This specific example of censorship is less important, but these companies have vast power over how many ppl consume information, even if we abstain from these shitty sites ourselves. They need to be regulated and their ability to "personalize" information should be revised. That said, I'm not sure how legislation regulating machine learning would even look, honestly.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter.
    Like they make railway companys public.
    Rumox brought this up before. It's an interesting idea, but I think in practice it has risks. It's not clear how this would be managed on an international level, too. Would each country make its own social media? Would there be some kind of international platform managed by the UN? I can imagine strengths and weaknesses with both.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  11. #61

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    On one hand I fully support a company refusing entry to people they do not wish to do business with, but on another the immense power social media makes me skeptical about their implementation of this. It is quite the dilemma.

    I'm also really curious how a public version of social media would actually be implemented. Which jurisdiction takes precedence on an international platform? How will laws be enforced? It's actually illegal here to to swear in a public space, so how would that go in online?

  12. #62

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Btw, both Biden and Trump have stated that they want to repeal Section 230. I suspect that is why tech companies showed restraint in their actions against Trump until very recently. Though I don't know why Trump would have wanted to repeal it since it likely would have put even more pressure on Twitter to get rid of him. I suspect that it's because he's actually, contrary to popular belief, a fucking dumbass.
    Not only trump and biden. The big tech companies are fine with revisions and new regulation. They will be the ones deciding the regulations btw for those who think "we need more regulations on these tech giants!" for those screeching that 230 is bad. The replacement is going to be hell of a lot worse with both tech, both sides of aisle supporting it (who btw have no clue how any of this works because almost all politicians are boomers who can barely work a damn computer). What we will get is regulation favoring the tech giants, it will be harder for new competitors to enter the arena as it already is. See actions forcing parler off the internet when these companies coordinaate and decide "we don't want you here".

    internet is only gonna get worse lol.
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  13. #63

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Yes.



    If an app/service/community kicks off people I agree with, to the point that it affects me or it becomes clear that they're pushing some sort of agenda, I stop using it. I have been in this situation before and my opinion has not changed. I might even complain, but I won't say that said bias should be illegal or be enforced against in any way.

    This guy in the thread who sounds a lot like Mag, but isn't because Mag would never do something like create an alt account, seems to only care about this issue to the extent that they're censoring conservatives, and in addition actually does want some form of legal action to be taken.
    I wonder if your stance will change once someone is completely exiled from ability to engage in business because tech giants decide "we don't like what you say". Like not saying it has happened now. But lets say banks, payment processors, etc decide "you can't use our service". At what point is that going to be unacceptable? If i can't use a bank, can't transact (as far as im aware cryptocurrency exchanges are completely controlled by Mastercard? Someone correct me if i am dumb on that).

    Do we just create a separate economy for the social outcasts?
    I genuinely want to know cause i don't know the line between "businesses are free to associate with whoever they want" and all these companies getting together saying "we will not give you access to the basic tools you need to live in this world".

    I lean more on the side of forcing companies to do business with X is oppressive
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  14. #64

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    If i can't use a bank, can't transact (as far as im aware cryptocurrency exchanges are completely controlled by Mastercard? Someone correct me if i am dumb on that).
    Not that it detracts much from your point but, afaik, bitcoin transactions are handled by a very secure system called "blockchain" where lots and lots of unrelated ppl (10s of thousands maybe, idk) are effectively processing the transactions in return for a small reward, instead of any central bank or authority. That's what ppl mean by "mining for bitcoins". No external system is required apart from for stuff like currency conversion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  15. #65

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Not that it detracts much from your point but, afaik, bitcoin transactions are handled by a very secure system called "blockchain" where lots and lots of unrelated ppl (10s of thousands maybe, idk) are effectively processing the transactions in return for a small reward, instead of any central bank or authority. That's what ppl mean by "mining for bitcoins". No external system is required apart from for stuff like currency conversion.
    No, i am talking about companies own the exchanges where u can trade bitcoins for other currency. So while u can transact in bitcoin or w/e, you can't gain access to say USD and only exchange again with people using more crypto
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  16. #66

  17. #67

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter.
    Like they make railway companys public.
    Thats just a Europe thing. Its also the major reason (From my limited understanding) that American train transportation is such an inefficient mess.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  18. #68

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    Not only trump and biden. The big tech companies are fine with revisions and new regulation. They will be the ones deciding the regulations btw for those who think "we need more regulations on these tech giants!" for those screeching that 230 is bad. The replacement is going to be hell of a lot worse with both tech, both sides of aisle supporting it (who btw have no clue how any of this works because almost all politicians are boomers who can barely work a damn computer). What we will get is regulation favoring the tech giants, it will be harder for new competitors to enter the arena as it already is. See actions forcing parler off the internet when these companies coordinaate and decide "we don't want you here".

    internet is only gonna get worse lol.
    The net neutrality that got crammed down our throats took a big step in that direction. Now ISP's can throttle bandwidth. Although they are currently only targeting platforms like Youtube, Netflix, and Twitch I doubt it will be long before they set up a framework to monetize company's ability to enter internet markets. It will likely trend towards consolidation of the internet in general.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  19. #69

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hybrid Richard Dawkins View Post
    business should have the freedom to refuse service to any customer for any reason
    Quote Originally Posted by Hybrid Richard Dawkins View Post
    Except for when it comes to discrimination of protected classes - a political affiliation is not, however, a protected class.
    :bigthonk:

    Refusing to serve blacks is discriminatory, but refusing to serve orange is socially acceptable.

    DOUBLE STANDARDS.


    Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.

  20. #70

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Make a public version of Facebook/Twitter.
    Like they make railway companys public.
    Oh no, SJ... you're suggesting to NATIONALIZE sectors? you're a communist. We have to terminate you immediatly in the name of the Free American People.

    I somewhat agree with you, as long as other platforms remain alternatives and not controlled by the state. It's a very touchy topic, because the state controlling what is now a big part of free speech is dangerous, but it could be interesting to experiment. On the other hand, I wouldn't want this to happen in my country because I'd fear for democracy, so idk... Can you experiment this at home?
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  21. #71

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    You can't really do anything about social media until you have sorted out lobbying.

    The only reason politicians might do something because its completely unfair for social media to have that such of an impact on politics without having to legally bribe politicians first!
    Cryptonic made this sig

  22. #72

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    I think it should be nationalized. There are clear restrictions on censorship coming from the government but none on companies engaging in censorship. IMO rhe government can at least be trusted not to blatantly censor ppl for arbitrary reasons, but the issue of if they can be trusted with the flow of information is a differrnt matter. Would I trust them with managing Google? Probably not. That kind of power in the hands of the government is insane.

    If this is not illegal, then it should be. Itís unacceptable for a private company to censor ppl for political disagreement + to frame it as them somehow breaking Twitter terms. If Twitter were marketed as a social media site for liberals and conservative opinions were banned this wouldnít be an issue, but they are. Secondly, censoring a head of state is even worse. Remember that the ppl I mentioned who spoke out against what Twitter is doing - like Merkel - arenít Trump allies by any stretch of the imagination. I think theyíre worried it may happen to them too.

  23. #73

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    I wonder if your stance will change once someone is completely exiled from ability to engage in business because tech giants decide "we don't like what you say". Like not saying it has happened now. But lets say banks, payment processors, etc decide "you can't use our service". At what point is that going to be unacceptable? If i can't use a bank, can't transact (as far as im aware cryptocurrency exchanges are completely controlled by Mastercard? Someone correct me if i am dumb on that).

    Do we just create a separate economy for the social outcasts?
    I genuinely want to know cause i don't know the line between "businesses are free to associate with whoever they want" and all these companies getting together saying "we will not give you access to the basic tools you need to live in this world".

    I lean more on the side of forcing companies to do business with X is oppressive
    Itís hard for me to have an opinion on the matter seeing as what youíre describing has not occurred yet. If it were as pervasive as media censorship it could be a very real problem. Like if banks start using arbitrary reasons to freeze your account... that is something thay needs looking at.

  24. #74

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    I think it should be nationalized. There are clear restrictions on censorship coming from the government but none on companies engaging in censorship. IMO rhe government can at least be trusted not to blatantly censor ppl for arbitrary reasons, but the issue of if they can be trusted with the flow of information is a differrnt matter. Would I trust them with managing Google? Probably not. That kind of power in the hands of the government is insane.

    If this is not illegal, then it should be. Itís unacceptable for a private company to censor ppl for political disagreement + to frame it as them somehow breaking Twitter terms. If Twitter were marketed as a social media site for liberals and conservative opinions were banned this wouldnít be an issue, but they are. Secondly, censoring a head of state is even worse. Remember that the ppl I mentioned who spoke out against what Twitter is doing - like Merkel - arenít Trump allies by any stretch of the imagination. I think theyíre worried it may happen to them too.
    What about newspapers?

    Do you suggest something similar to how the BBC functions?

    What to stop whichever party is in power with controling it when nationalised?

    .The fundamental right [of freedom of expression] can be interfered with, but along the lines of the law and within the framework defined by the lawmakers. Not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms
    This is what you ment when referring to Merkal?
    That to me sounds more like she is blaming lack of laws to censor freedom of speech instead of the business having to do it. That is not in trump's favours and, if anything, would most likely censor him more/earlier.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  25. #75

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitterís feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them.

  26. #76

  27. #77

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitterís feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them.
    But then you still have the issue of people spreading harmful and dangerous lies and messages? What would stop that.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  28. #78

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Not familiar with how the BBC works unfortunately.
    Sorta public funded. It's complicated.
    But basically they have to try and equally but because their dependent on keeping their funding they tend to lean towards whatever government is currently in power.
    Sorta shit still
    But at least it's not the newspapers.

    Because, would you believe it . The newspapers (vast majority} that are all owned by billionaires that don't even live in the country all lean conservative, the company that cares most about billionaires and least about the country. (Surprise Pikachu face)
    Yes the public ones lean labour.

    And then you wonder why the UK is fucking itself over. Because the majority of plonkers that are gormless gits read whatever shit twisted dodgy stories rammed down theirs fat gobs and never look beyond the headlines.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  29. #79

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Laws. The government cannot restrict freedom of speech other than in some specific circumstances. If it was the Government and not Twitter doing this I believe they would be getting sued or attacked by the Supreme Court non-stop. There have been lawsuits leveled at twitter’s feet anyways over censorship but Section 230 protects them.
    1. Supreme Court doesn't sue anyone.

    2. This is exactly what everyone has been saying. Freezepeach doesn't apply to Twitter.

  30. #80

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    1. Well aware.
    2. No, but it should :P
    Itís not entirely clear if what twitter is doing is legal, it depends on various things such as your interpretation of Section 230 and on whether Trump violated the Twitter rules of conduct; the way Parler got immediately shut down by Amazon, its possible antitrust laws were violated. Especially seeing as Parler was gaining users and ppl were joining after Trump got banned.

  31. #81

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Companies find out they are being used as a platform to incite violence.
    Companies revoke services to those doing this (Parler)

    Where does Antitrust come in this? If Parler want's to be a platform where anyone can say anything they have to be self reliant because no other company will want to be associated with that shit.

  32. #82

  33. #83

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Could you please rephrase? I'm not sure I understand your question
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magician View Post
    Yeah I donít read or care to that much. I just vote correctly and thatís that.

  34. #84

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Could you please rephrase? I'm not sure I understand your question
    You mentioned something Merkal said that supported your ideals, wanted to find out what it was and if I had the correct quote.

    And if you wanted to control social media, would newspapers need the same treatment? Since they are perhaps the extreme of one sided views and censorship, along with tv news channels and their websites.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  35. #85

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Oh yeh. About Merkel. I agree with her that private companies shouldn’t be the ones to decide if a public figure is to talk to the populace or not (it should be the government, courts of law, ect). Otherwise, you can have a really rich person with their own agenda controlling political communication (and obviously also making politicians who don’t want to be censored sing their tune - whatever that happens to be). Imagine if Murdoch was the one who owned Twitter and was censoring Biden for *insert reason here*. When maybe he didn’t do that, and even if he did its not Murdochs call to decide if Biden gets to talk to people. Now that I put it in those terms I’m honestly surprised this is legal at all. Can we call this insurrection, mutiny? I think the proper term is sedition, but yeah.

    Newspapers dont really have the same influenxe they used to have, the main issue would be if newspapers were going out of their way to paint a certain candidate in a certain manner. Technically laws already exist against libel, although with public figures theyre seldom applied. There is an issue with newspapers being sensationalist, and that’s existed since time immemorial. Although I suspect its gotten worse recently. Its hard to tell bc I dont read newspapers so I dont know how biased they can really get.

  36. #86

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    I mean what you say about Murdochs already happens. And a vast majority of adults still pay attention to the newspapers. I may of allowed you to use the smallest example as a point, what I was mostly refering was media, so newspapers/TV/Online News. I just said newspapers to try and make it more simple. There is a free allowance of censorship and selective viewpoints controlled by humongous companies controlled by either one or few billionaires. Why is it fare to target social media and not these others?

    And no, you can't do that with Merkal. You cant cut her opinion in half, throw away the part you don't want to hear and then use the other half to push your point across. Please comment on this further.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  37. #87

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Murdoch owned newspapers was the deciding factor in recent political power changes here

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ath-news-corps

    The younger generation may not use them, but they are still a very powerful tool to target everyone else with.

    Newspapers owned by Murdoch in Australia:

    The Australian (Nationwide)
    Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles)
    Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles)
    The Courier-Mail (Queensland)
    The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
    The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland)
    The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland)
    The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland)
    The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales)
    The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales)
    Herald Sun (Victoria)
    Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria)
    The Weekly Times (Victoria)
    Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne titles)
    MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD)
    The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria)
    The Advertiser (South Australia)
    The Sunday Mail (South Australia)
    Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles)
    The Sunday Times (Western Australia)
    The Mercury (Tasmania)
    Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles)
    The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania)
    Northern Territory News (Northern Territory)
    The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory)
    The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland)


    All of them easily in the top selling category of papers.

  38. #88

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Murdoch owned newspapers was the deciding factor in recent political power changes here

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ath-news-corps

    The younger generation may not use them, but they are still a very powerful tool to target everyone else with.

    Newspapers owned by Murdoch in Australia:

    The Australian (Nationwide)
    Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles)
    Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles)
    The Courier-Mail (Queensland)
    The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
    The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland)
    The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland)
    The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland)
    The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales)
    The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales)
    Herald Sun (Victoria)
    Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria)
    The Weekly Times (Victoria)
    Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne titles)
    MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD)
    The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria)
    The Advertiser (South Australia)
    The Sunday Mail (South Australia)
    Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles)
    The Sunday Times (Western Australia)
    The Mercury (Tasmania)
    Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles)
    The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania)
    Northern Territory News (Northern Territory)
    The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory)
    The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland)


    All of them easily in the top selling category of papers.
    And you use the term papers but that isn't the full extent.

    Firstly you have every grocery retailer advertising their newspapers either with POS signage or/and main foot traffic areas with their front page aggressive putting forward the most eye-catching memorable headlines so even if you don't buy one, your still being their information.

    You have sets of "free" papers in various locations, we tend to have them on trains, free to take from shops, inside of waiting rooms and inside of staff areas and canteens.

    You then have all these newspapers online, infiltrating every social media and many other webpages trying to get you onto their site.

    You then have the broadcasted ones, from the many news channels or giant empires like Sky and Fox which they also use to push their personal goals.

    So yeh. Sure the younger Generation don't buy or read physical newspapers, but they are certainly easily targeted and also totally vulnerable.

    We just use the term newspapers for ease.

    And you can't agree with (or accept it at a cost) these media Monguls and be fine with how much control they have yet get unequally upset when social media does something which upsets you. That's just hypocritical.
    Cryptonic made this sig

  39. #89

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    I think it should be nationalized. There are clear restrictions on censorship coming from the government but none on companies engaging in censorship. IMO rhe government can at least be trusted not to blatantly censor ppl for arbitrary reasons, but the issue of if they can be trusted with the flow of information is a differrnt matter. Would I trust them with managing Google? Probably not. That kind of power in the hands of the government is insane.

    If this is not illegal, then it should be. It’s unacceptable for a private company to censor ppl for political disagreement + to frame it as them somehow breaking Twitter terms. If Twitter were marketed as a social media site for liberals and conservative opinions were banned this wouldn’t be an issue, but they are. Secondly, censoring a head of state is even worse. Remember that the ppl I mentioned who spoke out against what Twitter is doing - like Merkel - aren’t Trump allies by any stretch of the imagination. I think they’re worried it may happen to them too.
    That's kinda socialist but cool.

    If Twitter is nationalized, what happens when inevitably people start spamming random shit like gore, porn, and generally derailing any conversations by spamming advertisements and whatnot? What happens when some private company decides to create their own Twitter, then that private company's product becomes more successful than the government's Twitter?

    Do you realize that freedom of press is also a component of the first amendment? Why do you think that things would be different if Twitter was considered some sort of publisher or journalism company rather than social media? Do you think that newspapers and media sites should also be obligated to entertain bipartisan opinions, as opposed to the current situation where media is entirely at their discretion on whether or not to publish editorials from a given person?

    What conservative opinions are being banned from Twitter? Be specific, please, are they banning the discussion of lowering tax rates or deregularizing industries? Why are you complaining about Twitter, but you didn't complain about Parler when they billed themselves as a free-speech social network (something that Twitter does not claim to be, by the way) and then went and banned leftists and liberals?

  40. #90

  41. #91

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Youíre actually flat out wrong there. Twitter does claim to be for free speech and until around 2016 this was true but then they changed their Terms & Policies, and they reserved the right for any reason, including none (and potentially for their sexual orientation/religion/skin colour/etc), to ban posts and accounts. Their claim was actually part of a lawsuit leveled at them in 2018, as two users got banned when they respected Twitterís (terms) at the time that they made their accounts - and were banned with the supposed reason that they were linked to groups who incited violence (nobody named the group they were affiliated with and they in fact did not promote violence themselves either - not even off Twitter). The judge who presided over the case wanted to find them guilty, but was ordered by a higher court to reverse his decision, and the lawsuit ended there, for a couple of reasons. First, if it had been appealed, it wouldíve reached the same chair who overruled the judge, and second, it wouldíve set a legal precedent had their appeal been denied.

    Also, because Twitter could them be liable for damage for deciding which tweets get deleted.
    I find it amazing how the people using freedom of business as an argument are the same people who believe the rich are evil and believe in more regulation. Apparently freedom of business is nice when it suits you xD. Itís fine now because Trump is the one getting hit, but Iím curious how some of you will react when Twitter and Facebook start attacking something or someone you believe in. Will you still hide behind this argument, or will u finally realize thereís a problem? European leaders did the latter, because theyíre genuinely afraid it could happen to them as well.

  42. #92

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    You’re actually flat out wrong there. Twitter does claim to be for free speech and until around 2016 this was true but then they changed their Terms & Policies, and they reserved the right for any reason, including none (and potentially for their sexual orientation/religion/skin colour/etc), to ban posts and accounts. Their claim was actually part of a lawsuit leveled at them in 2018, as two users got banned when they respected Twitter’s (terms) at the time that they made their accounts - and were banned with the supposed reason that they were linked to groups who incited violence (nobody named the group they were affiliated with and they in fact did not promote violence themselves either - not even off Twitter). The judge who presided over the case wanted to find them guilty, but was ordered by a higher court to reverse his decision, and the lawsuit ended there, for a couple of reasons. First, if it had been appealed, it would’ve reached the same chair who overruled the judge, and second, it would’ve set a legal precedent had their appeal been denied.

    Also, because Twitter could them be liable for damage for deciding which tweets get deleted.
    I find it amazing how the people using freedom of business as an argument are the same people who believe the rich are evil and believe in more regulation. Apparently freedom of business is nice when it suits you xD. It’s fine now because Trump is the one getting hit, but I’m curious how some of you will react when Twitter and Facebook start attacking something or someone you believe in. Will you still hide behind this argument, or will u finally realize there’s a problem? European leaders did the latter, because they’re genuinely afraid it could happen to them as well.
    I'm not really worried because I'm not a white supremacist.

  43. #93

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    1. Influence isnt the problem. People one-siding ISNT the problem, because newspapers cant prevent major government leaders or like, anyone, from talking to their supporters, or from the ppl in general; dont like a candidate? Too bad. Heíll just go to this here newspaper that will publish what he says. But Twitter, Facebook, Youtube arent the same thing: these companies practically control the Internet, they control the flow of information, what you get to see and what you to get to hear. Cutting off a head of state from the ppl isnt a decision they should be able to take. That should be up to governments and courts of law to decide, not them. This isnt even that hard to understand; imagine if Twitter was conservative leaning and started to ban ppl saying the election was fair and maybe banning ppl like Biden/Harris/Sanders for idk sedition (lol some ppl could definitely be banned for sedition). I see ppl attacking me for caring about conservatives getting censored, and, yeah? What the hell is the problem with that? xD

  44. #94

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Funny thing is, itís actually the governmentís fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadnít existed many of these companies wouldíve gotten sued into oblivion.
    An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Googleís algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesnít like?

  45. #95

  46. #96

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Funny thing is, it’s actually the government’s fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadn’t existed many of these companies would’ve gotten sued into oblivion.
    An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Google’s algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesn’t like?
    https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/...icises_parler/

  47. #97

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    This guy in the thread who sounds a lot like Mag, but isn't because Mag would never do something like create an alt account, seems to only care about this issue to the extent that they're censoring conservatives, and in addition actually does want some form of legal action to be taken.
    You raaaang?

  48. #98

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Affecting distribution of free speech IS affecting freedom of speech xD
    Your first amendment rights dissipate the second you incite violence. There is no freedom of speech on shit like that.
    FMX: fm Kevinpowers - Citizen (WIN)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I will go ahead and fuck this cat

  49. #99

    Re: FUCK TWITTER!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Funny thing is, itís actually the governmentís fault for the mess we are in. Section 230 is practically a government sanctioned monopoly. If it hadnít existed many of these companies wouldíve gotten sued into oblivion.
    An even more pressing problem are Google and Amazon. Sure if you get banned from Twitter you can just go to Parler, but what happens once Amazon decides to take Parler off the Internet? And what happens once Googleís algorithm decides to make it very hard for you to find information it doesnít like?
    Create Parler 2.0 and moderate it. Creating a safe space to commit violence is a no no, though. Peoples' lives are at stake. Or do you like giving a platform to people to plan things where police end up dying?

    Google already does that. I gotta use duckduckgo to find torrents sometimes. Use a different search engine. Capitalism, free market and all that.
    FMX: fm Kevinpowers - Citizen (WIN)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I will go ahead and fuck this cat

  50. #100

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •