-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
Who cares about Hunter Biden or his laptop?
Well considering the evidence contained therein in light of current events in Russia , Ukraine and China ; EVERYBODY !
Why don't you READ the Times story; READ the e-mails ; READ Miranda Devine's book "The Laptop From Hell " ; listen to what Tony Bobulinski had to say about Joe, Jim and Hunter Biden and THEN try to tell us : " Nothing to see here folks. ".
Especially since neither Joe not Hunter ever denied the existence of the laptop or any of its contents. One of those e-mails was a complaint by Hunter that he paid all of Joe's bills and turned over half his earnings to his father. "10 % for the Big Guy" was Joe Biden's cut of one of Hunter's deals with the Chinese.
Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's business deals up to his neck.
Twitter and Facebook suppressed the contents claiming they were "hacked ". No, Hunter in his drug addled state left his laptop at a repair shop. I am not even touching all the crazy sex and drugs stuff on there , the possible involvement iof underage women ( possible kiddie porn ) but any and all who were shocked , SHOCKED ! by the alleged exploitations of Hugh Hefner should be all over this.
Both Hunter's ex-wife and the ex-stripper who bore his child ( for which he did not want to pay child support ) have spilled their guts to the Feds.
Likewise , a number of the 50 odd so called National security professionals who signed that infamous letter saying this was Russian disinformation ( of the few with the guts to respond ) said they were only raising the possibility even though they had zero evidence it was anything of the sort.
The media's collective balls will really be in a vise if Hunter is indicted. As he POSSIBLY will. There is strong evidence of both tax evasion and unreported income. It will be impossible for them to ignore the story as they did before the election.
Btw I love how the Times said the laptop and e-mails were genuine and never bothered to report what those e-mails said.
There was a lot of evidence of influence peddling and some of possible bribery and tax evasion by Joe Biden. Read Miranda Devine's book. She lays out the contents of the laptop and the e-mails together with lots of corroboration.
Remember , Joe never denied anything. He just said it was Russian disinformation. At some point he will have to say something.
Btw, there is no parent - child privilege or between brothers .
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
techqueen
Literally noone.
Except for the 8 to 10% of Biden voters who said they would not have voted for him had they known about Hunter's laptop.
Not to mention the 50% of Americans who were completely unaware of Hunter's laptop before the election.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
I'm not on FB anymore because I don't trust any of them!!
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stuffkharb
I'm not on FB anymore because I don't trust any of them!!
I don't blame you.
Facebook and Twitter enabled a fraud on the America people in my OPINION.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
I think it's a problem. Websites should be allowed to decide what content is and isn't allowed on their site, but these two companies are so big and have control over so much of the social media "market" that there aren't many other places you can go. And what we end up with is a small number of completely unelected tech guys in Silicon Valley dictating what is and isn't visible in the majority of public discourse.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Everyon is expecting free speech on Twitter now...that would be nice, there's too much censorship of the truth and imposition of the official narratives...but Elon is still part of the WEF and their agenda and he wants to bring in authentication to get rid of bots, which means ID, and that fits in nicely (scarily) with the planned social-credit score/digital ID. In the 4th Industrial Revolution, data is new crude oil. He will have a lot of it and authentication will give him even more. It's one thing proving who we are on cam and clip sites but it's another doing it on Twitter, as who were are in this role or as our regular personna. I already rarely post on Facebook, looks like I will be leaving Twitter if they bring in ID requirements.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Im curious about what Elon Musk administration will be on Twitter. I hope ID verification will not be changed like on Facebook, where basically you can't be anonymous anymore.
I am anonymous on Twitter and I want to keep it that way
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
We don't know exactly what Twitter will be like under Musk's ownership. We do know what he has been saying as to its importance as a public forum and why it should be more free and less censored than it had been in the past. Dorsey has been helping him with the takeover and with ways to make it profitable.
I am finding all the Liberal wailing, pearl clutching and teeth gnashing over Musk's takeover hilarious. None , NONE of these people were bothered in the slightest by Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post or Carlos Slim effectively controlling the New York Times. They are also bemoaning the unwillingness of the American people to pay for CNN+ . Leading to its deserved demise. I almost feel sorry for Chris Wallace.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
You can be anonymous on FB just like Twitter if you take the time to do so, and the way to kill bots is using Kapture added to every account that does random checks, like in many other online places.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
We don't know exactly what Twitter will be like under Musk's ownership. We do know what he has been saying as to its importance as a public forum and why it should be more free and less censored than it had been in the past. Dorsey has been helping him with the takeover and with ways to make it profitable.
I am finding all the Liberal wailing, pearl clutching and teeth gnashing over Musk's takeover hilarious. None , NONE of these people were bothered in the slightest by Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post or Carlos Slim effectively controlling the New York Times. They are also bemoaning the unwillingness of the American people to pay for CNN+ . Leading to its deserved demise. I almost feel sorry for Chris Wallace.
I don't know of any liberal wailing or pearl clutching, but there are people who are very concerned that Musk may allow Twitter to be used for inciting violence and spreading lies and misinformation. The Washington Post and New York Times are responsible for what is printed on their products. Twitter isn't. Carlos Slim doesn't control the NY Times.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
I don't know of any liberal wailing or pearl clutching, but there are people who are very concerned that Musk may allow Twitter to be used for inciting violence and spreading lies and misinformation. The Washington Post and New York Times are responsible for what is printed on their products. Twitter isn't. Carlos Slim doesn't control the NY Times.
The NY Times sold its soul to Slim. The richest man in Mexico who owns most of their telecommunications. His loan to the Times kept them afloat.
As for the wailing etc. it ranges from Twitter employees to almost everyone on MSNBC and CNN. Where were these people when Farrakhan was goven free rein to spew his antisemitism and other hatreds ? Or the Ayatollah of Iran ?
Musk has promised to have clear ,fair and nonpartisan rules. Mods will be told to err on the side of free expression . Threats and doxing will not be allowed. Jokes like the recent one from the Babylon Bee about Rachel Levine will be allowed. So will controversial ideas and tweets from people like Alex Berenson and even His Trumpiness if he comes back to Twitter as he probably will. Despite what he says now. Musk believes that "free speech is essential to a functioning democracy ". When 70% of 2 million respondents to Musk's question ON Twitter said that it does not permit free expression he decided to buy the company and take it private. Musk understands that we need more not less engagement with ideas we do not like or agree with and with those who hold such opinions. He wants Twitter to be a place where someone like Daniel Carver of the KKK can be held up to ridicule the way Howard Stern used to do it on his show. Carver was so awful and ridiculous that his Klan ideology was exposed for all to see. Not even the FCC tried to kick Stern off the air for "platforming evil ".
The best cure for "lies and misinformation " is exposure , discussion and debate.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
The NY Times sold its soul to Slim. The richest man in Mexico who owns most of their telecommunications. His loan to the Times kept them afloat.
As for the wailing etc. it ranges from Twitter employees to almost everyone on MSNBC and CNN. Where were these people when Farrakhan was goven free rein to spew his antisemitism and other hatreds ? Or the Ayatollah of Iran ?
Musk has promised to have clear ,fair and nonpartisan rules. Mods will be told to err on the side of free expression . Threats and doxing will not be allowed. Jokes like the recent one from the Babylon Bee about Rachel Levine will be allowed. So will controversial ideas and tweets from people like Alex Berenson and even His Trumpiness if he comes back to Twitter as he probably will. Despite what he says now. Musk believes that "free speech is essential to a functioning democracy ". When 70% of 2 million respondents to Musk's question ON Twitter said that it does not permit free expression he decided to buy the company and take it private. Musk understands that we need more not less engagement with ideas we do not like or agree with and with those who hold such opinions. He wants Twitter to be a place where someone like Daniel Carver of the KKK can be held up to ridicule the way Howard Stern used to do it on his show. Carver was so awful and ridiculous that his Klan ideology was exposed for all to see. Not even the FCC tried to kick Stern off the air for "platforming evil ".
We already have free speech. Free speech only applies to government, not private platforms. Twitter doesn't stop anyone from saying anything they want, off of their platform. There are countless other places for people to express their views. The FCC can't kick someone off the air for "platforming evil." The FCC is required to abide by the First Amendment. Twitter isn't. I think everyone knew what the Klan stood for before Carver went on Howard Stern's show. I don't think he changed anyone's minds either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
The best cure for "lies and misinformation " is exposure , discussion and debate.
No, the best cure for lies and misinformation is to not allow them to be given them a platform in the first place. There are too many stupid, stubborn people who are immune to facts and evidence. This isn't just about hurting people's feelings. It's about whether we will keep our democracy and whether or not more people will die from covid-19 because they believe lies and misinformation being spread on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. The majority of Republicans still believe the election was stolen, thanks to lies and misinformation being spread by the right-wing media. The Capitol Building was stormed by Trump supporting nutjobs who believed the lies about the election.
How did exposing hitler's lies, and discussing and debating them work out, when hitler was running for Chancellor of Germany?
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Well that's the thing, if you silence everyone who isn't 100% following the preferred narrative, how do you know what is lies and misinformation? If you're not given the opportunity to view alternatives, you are none the wiser. Maybe it's the preferred narrative that is lies and misinformation.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Classy_Katy
Well that's the thing, if you silence everyone who isn't 100% following the preferred narrative, how do you know what is lies and misinformation? If you're not given the opportunity to view alternatives, you are none the wiser. Maybe it's the preferred narrative that is lies and misinformation.
This has nothing to do with any preferred narratives. There are things that are true and things that aren't, and there are many people intentionally or unintentionally posting things that aren't true. It's a fact that President Biden is the legal and lawfully elected President of the United States. It is a fact that there is no evidence of any significant election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. It is a fact that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective. It's a fact that covid-19 is a deadly disease that has killed millions of people. This is not just about not wanting to offend people. People are being harmed and dying as a result of lies being spread on social media.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
So will controversial ideas and tweets from people like Alex Berenson and even His Trumpiness if he comes back to Twitter as he probably will.
Alex Berenson and Trump weren't banned for posting controversial ideas. Berenson was banned for posting lies about covid vaccines. Trump was banned for posting lies about the election and inciting violence.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
This has nothing to do with any preferred narratives. There are things that are true and things that aren't, and there are many people intentionally or unintentionally posting things that aren't true. It's a fact that President Biden is the legal and lawfully elected President of the United States. It is a fact that there is no evidence of any significant election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. It is a fact that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective. It's a fact that covid-19 is a deadly disease that has killed millions of people. This is not just about not wanting to offend people. People are being harmed and dying as a result of lies being spread on social media.
You SOMETIMES come across as a classic advocate of "Free Speech for me but not for thee". The issue is WHO decides what is "true" ; a "lie" ; "misinformation" ; the "preferred narrative " etc. You ? The Federal Government and its "Ministry of Truth " aka The Disinformation Governance Board of the DHS ? How does such an agency square with the First Amendment ? What are the criteria and guidelines ? Anything that you say is untrue or inaccurate ?
A lot of things that Twitter suppressed as "misinformation " and used as a basis of shutting down or suspending accounts have been proven to be true. Like Hunter's laptop. And a lot of what Berenson has said , written and published. Vaccination has now been shown not to prevent people from being infected with Covid. Nor does it prevent them from passing on the virus. As we have discussed it does prevent serious illness. For the most part , masks do not work. Not even N95 and KN95 masks unless they are perfectly fitted. Many Blue lockdown states had much worse Covid numbers than many Red states that stayed open. Except for California.
Now we are hearing from hosts and guests on CNN and MSNBC that Musk will ban candidates he does not like ???? Based on WHAT ? Where were these people when the N.Y. Post's account was shut down. Or when Trump and other conservatives were banned ? Some Twitter employees are reportedly in shock and depressed over Musk's takeover. Let them quit if they don't want to work under Musk.
Using the "Eagle " standard then Twitter should ban Louis Farrakhan ; the Iranians and the Taliban. All of whom have Twitter accounts. Why stop with Twitter ? Why not shut down Newsmax , Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all of which have been fonts of "MISINFORMATION " ? So were the N.Y. Times and Washington Post ? What's next ? Websites and blogs you don't like or agree with ?
Musk is taking Twitter private. He will decide how much freewheeling discussion to permit. 70% of Twitter users agreed with him (and me) that it did not permit enough free expression. So did Dorsey when he wasn't stoned. Bill Maher is in favor of removing barriers to free expression. Who would know better. I still say ABC never should have fired him. Many liberals including some you like to label "crackpots" are equally troubled about "wokesters" trying to shut down speech they don't like and the platforms where that speech is available. If you don't like where Musk is taking Twitter I would not worry too much. There will still be all the major networks (except for Fox) , almost all of the news outlets and Facebook. Not to mention hundreds of websites that you love to link to and sometimes even bother to read before doing so lol.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
We already have free speech. Free speech only applies to government, not private platforms. Twitter doesn't stop anyone from saying anything they want, off of their platform. There are countless other places for people to express their views. The FCC can't kick someone off the air for "platforming evil." The FCC is required to abide by the First Amendment. Twitter isn't. I think everyone knew what the Klan stood for before Carver went on Howard Stern's show. I don't think he changed anyone's minds either way.
No, the best cure for lies and misinformation is to not allow them to be given them a platform in the first place. There are too many stupid, stubborn people who are immune to facts and evidence. This isn't just about hurting people's feelings. It's about whether we will keep our democracy and whether or not more people will die from covid-19 because they believe lies and misinformation being spread on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. The majority of Republicans still believe the election was stolen, thanks to lies and misinformation being spread by the right-wing media. The Capitol Building was stormed by Trump supporting nutjobs who believed the lies about the election.
How did exposing hitler's lies, and discussing and debating them work out, when hitler was running for Chancellor of Germany?
Where the hell have you been ? Free speech applies EVERYWHERE to EVERYONE with very , very few exceptions. The First Amendment and similar state protections protect speech and speakers from government suppression, prosecution, limitation and punishment . Especially but not limited to "political" speech. Musk wants Twitter to be similarly constrained . Why not ?
Stern would interview and talk to Carver and a few others and show how stupid, ignorant and ridiculous they were . Even those who may not have known much about the KKK or other hate groups. Remember David Duke ? And how many votes he got when he ran for office ? Apparently a lot of people did not get their "Eagle Alerts" and may not have known enough about the Klan.
Again who decides what speech and which speakers are allowed access to PUBLIC Platforms ? You ? Who decides who is "stupid, stubborn , ignorant " etc. ? You ? I love how you claim that free expression represents a threat to our democracy. So you want to burn down the barn to kill the mice of "lies and misinformation " ? Are you serious ?
Many Republicans ( and others ) believed that the election was stolen based on last minute changes to voting and election procedures. Most of them have doubts or are less convinced when they are shown that the results in each and every state that changed their rules would not have changed i.e. there were not enough questionable votes to change the results. Most agree with me that Trump lost and Biden won. Now several states did pass laws to tighten up absentee and mail in balloting. So what ?
History has proven over and over again that no lie lives forever. The more truthful "good" speech the better because it
invariably defeats "bad speech" while maintaining freedom . Whether you like it or not there are a lot of people out there who have different opinions and beliefs about things like Covid , Trump , Biden and the 2020 election. Your solution is to shut them up instead of countering their supposed "lies " and misinformation with "truth" and better information. Or just learning to agree to disagree with people you don't like and whose ideas you find repugnant. Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
What history books are you reading ? Or are you just making it up ? If only Hitler's lies and deranged thinking had been exposed , discussed and debated. Shutting up and intimidating Hitler's critics and opponents was the primary function of the S.A. aka The Brownshirts. Remember them ? Some of his critics were assassinated by Nazi goons and the S.S. As soon as he took power Hitler took total control of the media. Just like Lenin, Mao , Chiang , Pinochet , various juntas , Castro , Kim etc. etc.
Btw, which conservatives are you equating with Hitler ? We can agree about Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is nuts. If you want Twitter to suppress or ban proven antisemites that's OK with me. We can start with AOC , Omar, Tlaib and the N.Y. Times.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Where the hell have you been ? Free speech applies EVERYWHERE to EVERYONE with very , very few exceptions. The First Amendment and similar state protections protect speech and speakers from government suppression, prosecution, limitation and punishment . Especially but not limited to "political" speech. Musk wants Twitter to be similarly constrained . Why not ?
No. It's guaranteed by the government, not private enterprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Again who decides what speech and which speakers are allowed access to PUBLIC Platforms ? You ? Who decides who is "stupid, stubborn , ignorant " etc. ? You ? I love how you claim that free expression represents a threat to our democracy. So you want to burn down the barn to kill the mice of "lies and misinformation " ? Are you serious ?
It's not a public platform.
Note this still hasn't sunk into your demented boomer skull nearly fifteen months later:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
Are they (Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc) suddenly part of the US government now or private companies? Don't bother with the "but they act like public utilities" crap.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
No. It's guaranteed by the government, not private enterprise.
It's not a public platform.
Note this still hasn't sunk into your demented boomer skull nearly fifteen months later:
Free speech is a natural, universal right. It is not something that is given to us by the government. As a matter of fact , private control of the media is a far better guarantor of free expression and a wide variety of views than when government controls radio and T.V. Not to mention the internet.
Since it is private then why are so many people squawking about who and what Musk will permit on HIS platform. If the government can control or influence what he can or cannot do then where will they stop ? Decide whose books get published ? Who can or can't appear on radio and T.V. ?
Name calling is 100 % against the rules of this board. Please edit your post and remove the personal attack.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Free speech is a natural, universal right. It is not something that is given to us by the government.
And yet you immediately bring up the First Amendment and the government:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
The First Amendment and similar state protections protect speech and speakers from government suppression, prosecution, limitation and punishment .
If free speech is a "natural, universal right" (and it's not), then why does the First Amendment have to explicitly state that Congress (NOT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!!!!) won't abridge it? Would this not just be a given?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Since it is private then why are so many people squawking about who and what Musk will permit on HIS platform.
/shrug, ask them. I'm indifferent. But I think people on both ends of the spectrum are mistaken, in that it won't become what they wanted/feared Parler, 8kun, Truth Social, etc to be. I think people have not considered this to primarily be a business decision and not an ideological one.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Free speech is a natural, universal right. It is not something that is given to us by the government. As a matter of fact , private control of the media is a far better guarantor of free expression and a wide variety of views than when government controls radio and T.V. Not to mention the internet.
Since it is private then why are so many people squawking about who and what Musk will permit on HIS platform. If the government can control or influence what he can or cannot do then where will they stop ? Decide whose books get published ? Who can or can't appear on radio and T.V. ?
Name calling is 100 % against the rules of this board. Please edit your post and remove the personal attack.
So what does that mean for other countries? Have you ever taken a civics class?
That the government doesn’t grant us free speech and that it is natural is one of the most asinine takes I have ever heard.
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
So what does that mean for other countries? Have you ever taken a civics class?
This is what "natural, universal right[s]" mean[s] to certain people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxHW...=sarvenazalmzd
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
And yet you immediately bring up the First Amendment and the government:
If free speech is a "natural, universal right" (and it's not), then why does the First Amendment have to explicitly state that Congress (NOT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!!!!) won't abridge it? Would this not just be a given?
/shrug, ask them. I'm indifferent. But I think people on both ends of the spectrum are mistaken, in that it won't become what they wanted/feared Parler, 8kun, Truth Social, etc to be. I think people have not considered this to primarily be a business decision and not an ideological one.
Our founders believed in "natural " rights. Ones we were born with. And that governments were established to secure those rights. The rights to " life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness" do not mean much in a state of anarchy or where the strong can prey on the weak with impunity and without consequences. That is why we have government. Some call such rights "God given ". Jefferson said we are endowed with them by our "creator". I tried to leave religion out of the equation by using the term "natural rights".
Twitter is a privately owned public platform . It was owned by its shareholders. By the end of the year it will be owned by Elon Musk. Many of the same people who were happy about previous decisions by Twitter staffers to ban various users like Trump and Berenson and not ban users like Farrakhan and other antisemites are now having conniptions over what Musk MIGHT do. Likewise , the same people who were happy over editorial decisions by Twitter staffers to ban discussion of Hunter's laptop among many other things that turned out to be legitimate , true and accurate are now screaming for government regulation of a privately owned platform. The same people who were gladdened by Twitter's protection under Section 230 when it was a public company are now having panic attacks over Musk's promise to show his critics "what free expression looks like. "
-
Re: Twitter and Facebook Controlling Speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
So what does that mean for other countries? Have you ever taken a civics class?
That the government doesn’t grant us free speech and that it is natural is one of the most asinine takes I have ever heard.
Whether you like it or not that is EXACTLY what the founders of our country believed. And many Americans still believe it.
They also think that the government doesn't grant us "free speech " or any other "right". We are born with those rights. Government exists to protect those rights. There are systems of government in other countries where a different philosophy is part of the civic foundation. Most of those countries that are democratic are former monarchies or broke off from monarchies. Rights were granted by the King. In Ancient Rome they were granted by the Emperor and before that by the Senate and People of Rome. Only Roman citizens had rights recognized at law in Roman Courts. Only male Athenian citizens could vote and enjoy other rights. In the U.S. even non-Citizens are guaranteed several basic rights including life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness just to name three.