Oh Thank TechnoJesus. I was worried for a moment there.
Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread
- Thread starter Duke Nukem
- Start date
Oh Thank TechnoJesus. I was worried for a moment there.
If your a member of the Global Elite... There maybe a job for you at Facebook on their version of the Supreme Court!
Twitter asks: when should we cut off rule-breaking world leaders?
Twitter Inc said on Thursday it will seek public input on when and how it should ban world leaders, saying it was reviewing policy and considering whether the leaders should be held to the same rules as other users. Social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook Inc...www.reuters.com
Facebooks Oversight Board ordered the restoration of four out of five posts brought up to it for review on issues ranging from hate speech against Azerbaijanis on Facebook to breast camcer treatment pictures violating Instagrams no nudity policy...
The Oversight Board includes a former Prime Minister of Denmark and a former Editor of the Guardian newspaper.
Soon they will be reviewing Donald Trumps Facebook account and whether it should remain suspended.
Apparently Facebook and Twitter are still 'grappling' with how to deal with World leaders who allegedly violate their platforms rules.
And yeah, Facebook's 'Oversight' Board still hasn't decided on the whole Trump thing yet.
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
The Republicans had their shot to take Big Tech to task, and they blew it. Now we all have to live with their (perhaps intentional) failure for the foreseeable future.
I would point out that this is something of a legitimate issue as the importance of social media platforms increases. On the one hand, they're private entities just like our own forum here, just on a larger scale. On the other hand, if they're being used in an official or semi-official capacity -- as Trump declared his Twitter was -- that arguably gets complicated.
I would be inclined to pass a rule that a government official *cannot* use private social media platforms in an official capacity, but that has its own issues.
It sucks that they decided to be stupid and not handle things.
Its going to be a rough 8-12 years because of that willfull weakness, but I also understand that sufficient arrogance is indigisable from stupidity and that Big tech is quite simply put that arrogant.
they will be put in their place, much bigger and more powerful companies then them were brought to heel in the past and I am convinced they will join them.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
It's like the party is completely dedicated to defending corporate interests and giving up ground on everything else.
The "world" part is the biggest issue here.Apparently Facebook and Twitter are still 'grappling' with how to deal with World leaders who allegedly violate their platforms rules.
And yeah, Facebook's 'Oversight' Board still hasn't decided on the whole Trump thing yet.
Twitter is sitting in a safe so far double advantage position of "we're a private company and can do whatever we want", while what they want is protected by 1A from the other side.
Unfortunately for them, that position extends only to USA, and even there, only to the current setup of laws.
So next thing that happens is that one of said world leaders threatened with this sort of treatment goes "oh my, what do we do with rule breaking social media platforms, speaking of rules, i'm a ruler of a sovereign state and i set the rules here" and promptly ban them in their country.
And we all know how these personal data/advertising business companies love their business to cover more countries rather than less. Doubly so for countries where the establishment these companies are allied to obviously wants to propagandize to the local populations. Its certainly going to be interesting to see how they work around that problem.
Last edited:
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
My response if I was a world leader is to tell them to fuck off and make my own social media.Apparently Facebook and Twitter are still 'grappling' with how to deal with World leaders who allegedly violate their platforms rules.
And yeah, Facebook's 'Oversight' Board still hasn't decided on the whole Trump thing yet.
Their mistake was censoring Trump. That was over the line. They proved China partially right with the great firewall.
Already Russia and India is set to kick their asses.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
They were not stupid. Fact is, Republicans and Democrats are pro-big corporations, anti-free market first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. And besides, modern Republican party was formed by Democrat deserters. They are leftist, if not to the extent Democrats are.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Could you name some of these Democrat deserters?
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Not by name, but if you are interested how it happened:
The label “neoconservative” was first used in the early 1970s by friends and enemies of a group of New
York intellectuals who were critical of the leftward
turn that American liberalism had, in their view, taken in the previous decade.1
What these intellectuals
reacted against was a mix of social movements—like
student protests, counterculture, black nationalism,
radical feminism and environmentalism—and government overreach through Lyndon Johnson’s “War
on Poverty” programs. While in no way defenders
of the free market or the night-watchman state like
the true National Review conservatives, they stressed
the limits of social engineering (through transfers of
wealth or affirmative action programs) and pointed
out the dangers that the boundless egalitarian dreams
of the New Left had created for stability, meritocracy
and democracy. Intellectuals such as Nathan Glazer,
Seymour Martin Lipset, James Q. Wilson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan coalesced around The Public
Interest, a magazine created by Irving Kristol and
Daniel Bell in 1965, and a few years later around
Commentary, whose editor was Norman Podhoretz.
These original neoconservative were New York-based
intellectuals, primarily interested in domestic issues,
and they still regarded themselves as liberals. That is
why the disconnect could not seem more complete
between them and the latter-day neocons, who are
Washington-based political operatives identified with
the right, interested exclusively in foreign policy, and
who have a solid, if not excessive, confidence in the
ability of the American government to enact social
change—at least in Iraq or Afghanistan.2
There exists, nonetheless, a tenuous link between the two
groups, which explains why the label has travelled
through time. This link is provided by a third, intermediate family of neoconservatives, the Scoop Jackson Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s—named
after Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democrat
from Washington state—and the real ideological ancestors of the contemporary neocons, the ones who
literally invented neoconservative foreign policy.
The Scoop Jackson Democrats were also born of a
reaction to the New Left, but this time, inside the
Democratic Party, when Senator George McGovern
won the nomination to be the Democratic candidate against Richard Nixon in 1972. McGovern was
seen by traditional Democrats as way too far to the
left, both in domestic policy (he supported massive
social programs and affirmative action through quotas) and in foreign policy, where he advocated a hasty
retreat from Vietnam, deep cuts in the defense budget, and a neo-isolationist grand strategy.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Looks like opening salvos are being fired. Elizabeth Warren doesn't like it that people are allowed to send her "Snotty Tweets" and she's vowing to break up big tech so that won't happen anymore. Granted she seems to think it's Amazon that's making the laws allowing snotty tweets (Instead of, y'know, the Constitution) which makes little sense to me but she seems to have some sort of fight going on with Amazon anyway. It is amusing to see her getting so salty that Amazon dares to answer back with facts and figures when she's getting herself worked up into a nice moral outrage.
Elizabeth Warren said:
Amazon said:
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Most like outcome is some fancy show, that turns out to be a nothingburger.
If the corpos try to crawl back into our bed, let's remember what they did to us. And repay them ten-fold.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
In short, she's complaining that Big Tech isn't censorious enough. Why do I suspect this will just end in them ramping up the censorship?
King Arts
Well-known member
Ironically I think that social media that censors conservatives should be nationalized and taken away from their owners with no compensation. Sorry owners of Twitter but go screw yourselves.
IF the monster she created turns on her I will have no sympathy.
So there's a story where the New York Times 'kinda sorta' wants to cancel Telegram, the messaging service that was so disturbingly free speech that at one time the Russians tried banning it. I heard about the story but couldn't find a non-New York Times article on it... at least using Google Search.
But I digress... the main point of this post is how the New York Times wants to cancel Telegram and the only way some people can find the story... ain't on Google's basic search, but you can find it easily on DuckDuckGo.
newspunch.com
But I digress... the main point of this post is how the New York Times wants to cancel Telegram and the only way some people can find the story... ain't on Google's basic search, but you can find it easily on DuckDuckGo.
NY Times: We're Going to Make Sure Free Speech Platform 'Telegram' Is BANNED Forever
The New York Times has vowed to do everything in its power to ban free-speech platform Telegram from the internet.
newspunch.com