|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
Northern Ireland24984 Posts
On April 17 2022 03:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 02:58 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? I think of things like Twitter and FB differently. Cable stations aren't places of public discussion in the same way these platforms (used to) say they were. It's automatically curated in the sense that only some people get to speak. That being said, I suspect that many of these deplatforming type moves that are made are not actually financially beneficial ones, but that there is either outside astroturf (which left wing activist groups have been much better at) or internal pressure from employees that makes its way up. I doubt anyone would drop DTV if they kept OAN but I bet people dropped them when OAN was removed. *** As to the other poster who said it was "content moderation." That phrase is avoided for more than one reason, but certainty no one would use it now because it would give the idea a bad name. They "moderated" a story about the contents of a device we now know are authentic. It doesn't speak well to these companies ability to decide what is and is not reliable. Comparing the Biden story to ad bots is quite frankly ridiculous but really funny. That's an interesting viewpoint. At the end of the day, Twitter and Facebook aren't places of public discussion any more than TL.net is. They are private companies providing a place for people to post content. I'd much prefer if they *were* a place of public discussion, because the government would be forced to do a *much* better job of regulating hate speech (at least over here in Europe) than Twitter and Facebook's rather laissez faire attitude until someone complains. That said, I do see some issues. What makes Twitter and Facebook public space and TL.net not? What about reddit? TikTok? 4chan? Stormfront? I don't really see anything categorically different between Facebook and 4chan, except size.
Categorically? Hm, I suppose not much, really, which is the tricky part.
Functionally, and arbitrarily there is a difference of sorts. Be it sheer scale, reach or what users come to the platforms for, expectations thereof etc.
The likes of Facebook/Twitter have many of the same structural hallmarks of a TL, but functionally they’ve supplanted say, print and televisual media as the content aggregator for news information for a lot of folks. But aren’t regulated as such because, yes they are only structurally an aggregator.
Also by virtue of sheer scale and reach, these platforms become pseudo-public spaces and exclusion from such platforms massively impacts said individuals.
So yeah, it gets a bit messy. Unsure what any solution might be or look like, although I’d lean towards some kind of pan-national non-arbitrary set of agreed standards for such platforms. Like a GDPR for social media kind of thing.
Also can we just have a moratorium on discussions of this fucking Hunter laptop until you know, it’s supposed contents are actually released and verified?
|
On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption.
As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods).
|
On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods).
The problem is they implicate nothing. Supposedly Biden a cut of a pay for a thing. But its so horribly lacking in details or even the notion that its something 'wrong', be it legal or moral, that there is nothing to make of it.
Its not in the news not because its being 'supressed' but because its a nothing burger that has no substance.
|
|
|
On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods).
What do the email say? I still legitimately don't understand what has been substantiated. What do we now know?
|
On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well?
I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it."
Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!"
We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it.
Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates.
I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that.
Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand.
|
Northern Ireland24984 Posts
On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well?
I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it."
Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!"
We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand.
It’s worth exposing but it’s the rough equivalent of someone telling you your significant other has been unfaithful, and they have proof and yeah it’s been a year but it’s definitely verifiable they just can’t come up with it versus logging on Pornhub and being confronted with high definition footage of your SO banging all over the shop.
It’s not really a ‘what about Trump’ argument it’s more a cynicism over this sudden concern for propriety and conflict of interest all of a sudden.
Like people want us to care about Hunter Biden’s emails after hand waving off the entire Trump Presidency and his general conduct. And want to call us hypocrites to boot, fun times.
It’s preposterous. If there’s dirt there, let it be known, I don’t even like Biden. Show me the money, or don’t as the case may be. Bit like Trump and his purported net worth.
|
|
|
On April 17 2022 06:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic.
You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year.
And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable.
Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. + Show Spoiler +It’s worth exposing but it’s the rough equivalent of someone telling you your significant other has been unfaithful, and they have proof and yeah it’s been a year but it’s definitely verifiable they just can’t come up with it versus logging on Pornhub and being confronted with high definition footage of your SO banging all over the shop. It’s not really a ‘what about Trump’ argument it’s more a cynicism over this sudden concern for propriety and conflict of interest all of a sudden. + Show Spoiler +Like people want us to care about Hunter Biden’s emails after hand waving off the entire Trump Presidency and his general conduct. And want to call us hypocrites to boot, fun times. It’s preposterous. If there’s dirt there, let it be known, I don’t even like Biden. Show me the money, or don’t as the case may be. Bit like Trump and his purported net worth.
Whataboutism was core rhetoric of both the 2016 and 2020 election and continues to be for both parties. It certainly isn't aimed at people to Democrats left because they don't care about Trump's improprieties (which seem to be limitless).
I don't think anyone believes that Hunter Biden wasn't trading on his fathers name or that Joe was oblivious to it, which in itself is a story. That the US has normalized such impropriety speaks more to the deplorable condition of US bourgeois democracy than the right/wrongness of Hunter taking a no-show job for salary higher than 99%+ of working people in the US.
|
On April 17 2022 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:43 WombaT wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended.
It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. + Show Spoiler +It’s worth exposing but it’s the rough equivalent of someone telling you your significant other has been unfaithful, and they have proof and yeah it’s been a year but it’s definitely verifiable they just can’t come up with it versus logging on Pornhub and being confronted with high definition footage of your SO banging all over the shop. It’s not really a ‘what about Trump’ argument it’s more a cynicism over this sudden concern for propriety and conflict of interest all of a sudden. + Show Spoiler +Like people want us to care about Hunter Biden’s emails after hand waving off the entire Trump Presidency and his general conduct. And want to call us hypocrites to boot, fun times. It’s preposterous. If there’s dirt there, let it be known, I don’t even like Biden. Show me the money, or don’t as the case may be. Bit like Trump and his purported net worth. Whataboutism was core rhetoric of both the 2016 and 2020 election and continues to be for both parties. It certainly isn't aimed at people to Democrats left because they don't care about Trump's improprieties (which seem to be limitless). I don't think anyone believes that Hunter Biden wasn't trading on his fathers name or that Joe was oblivious to it, which in itself is a story. That the US has normalized such impropriety speaks more to the deplorable condition of US bourgeois democracy than the right/wrongness of Hunter taking a no-show job for salary higher than 99%+ of working people in the US.
This post should get an award of some sort.
|
Northern Ireland24984 Posts
On April 17 2022 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:43 WombaT wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended.
It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. + Show Spoiler +It’s worth exposing but it’s the rough equivalent of someone telling you your significant other has been unfaithful, and they have proof and yeah it’s been a year but it’s definitely verifiable they just can’t come up with it versus logging on Pornhub and being confronted with high definition footage of your SO banging all over the shop. It’s not really a ‘what about Trump’ argument it’s more a cynicism over this sudden concern for propriety and conflict of interest all of a sudden. + Show Spoiler +Like people want us to care about Hunter Biden’s emails after hand waving off the entire Trump Presidency and his general conduct. And want to call us hypocrites to boot, fun times. It’s preposterous. If there’s dirt there, let it be known, I don’t even like Biden. Show me the money, or don’t as the case may be. Bit like Trump and his purported net worth. Whataboutism was core rhetoric of both the 2016 and 2020 election and continues to be for both parties. It certainly isn't aimed at people to Democrats left because they don't care about Trump's improprieties (which seem to be limitless). I don't think anyone believes that Hunter Biden wasn't trading on his fathers name or that Joe was oblivious to it, which in itself is a story. That the US has normalized such impropriety speaks more to the deplorable condition of US bourgeois democracy than the right/wrongness of Hunter taking a no-show job for salary higher than 99%+ of working people in the US.
I’ve less than zero issue with [i]you raising this point, and I entirely agree with you. As we tend to share a vaguely similar ideological framework
It’s obvious that Hunter Biden enjoyed a salary and a prestige way beyond his experience and competence, and as you say it’s part of normalised corruption, as you say.
Being bombarded with ‘what about Hunter’s laptop’ and accusations of hypocrisy while the eminently qualified Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump enjoyed prominent roles is another thing entirely.
|
On April 17 2022 03:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 02:58 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:On April 16 2022 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah, you don't get to claim a story was suppressed when in fact it was wide reported on, and then abandoned when Republicans turned to the "the dog ate my homework" defence when asked for details. I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well? I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it." Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!" We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either. And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression. Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? I think of things like Twitter and FB differently. Cable stations aren't places of public discussion in the same way these platforms (used to) say they were. It's automatically curated in the sense that only some people get to speak. That being said, I suspect that many of these deplatforming type moves that are made are not actually financially beneficial ones, but that there is either outside astroturf (which left wing activist groups have been much better at) or internal pressure from employees that makes its way up. I doubt anyone would drop DTV if they kept OAN but I bet people dropped them when OAN was removed. *** As to the other poster who said it was "content moderation." That phrase is avoided for more than one reason, but certainty no one would use it now because it would give the idea a bad name. They "moderated" a story about the contents of a device we now know are authentic. It doesn't speak well to these companies ability to decide what is and is not reliable. Comparing the Biden story to ad bots is quite frankly ridiculous but really funny. That's an interesting viewpoint. At the end of the day, Twitter and Facebook aren't places of public discussion any more than TL.net is. They are private companies providing a place for people to post content. I'd much prefer if they *were* a place of public discussion, because the government would be forced to do a *much* better job of regulating hate speech (at least over here in Europe) than Twitter and Facebook's rather laissez faire attitude until someone complains. That said, I do see some issues. What makes Twitter and Facebook public space and TL.net not? What about reddit? TikTok? 4chan? Stormfront? I don't really see anything categorically different between Facebook and 4chan, except size.
Well ultimately TL is supposed to be a website around starcraft and now a few other games right? Everything else that gets discussed is extra. TL is relatively small and as far as I'm aware, doesn't claim to be a place of great public importance. And while I don't want to overstate the importance of twitter or FB, surely they are different by scale alone. But even so, I've opposed many ban decisions, but I don't think they are as important. Twitter and FB clearly think they are important to the public discussion, or else they wouldn't act they way they do. So in some sense TL is part of the "public square" but reach is smaller. set aside discussions about larger platforms smothering smaller ones...
I oppose banning people or suppressing stories because someone suspects they might be insincere/false, respectively. Especially stories with relevance, e.g. stories about the president or his influence-peddling son. I would prefer more tools to let users curate their own feeds rather than have someone in the company decide what they see from on high.
As for other options... well it's tough. I'm not a fan of government intervention, because as tempting as it might be sometimes, I just don't trust the people who would be doing the regulating. That's why it's important that when social media sites make big mistakes like this they get called out on it, hopefully even by people who suspect or just want the stories they don't like to be false. I know it's become fashionable to meme on "more speech=better speech" but perhaps that really is the best option. The only thing "content moderation" will do is allow "misinformation" from the side of the censor to be disseminated while blocking true/false information he objects to.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square (Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy.
If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship.
|
On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic. You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year. And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable. Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2022 05:01 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I guess the lab leak theory wasn't suppressed either because that was "widely reported" as well?
I think a better metric for if something was suppressed is whether or not it was actively being deleted off of platforms as opposed to whether or not "people heard about it."
Also it's very easy to say after the fact that we don't have the details of these stories when the incentive for investigating the details is under attack. "Hey Bob go investigate this lab leak theory, if we are lucky we might get deleted off social media and be labeled as racists!"
We don't really have the details of why people critical of Putin keep falling out of windows. Do you think it's because there's not much to that story or because the people that are tasked with investigating the details don't want to also accidentally fall out of a window? People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand.
Which evidence are you referring to?
|
On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 16 2022 11:03 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Generally its called moderated is it not? I guess TL is supressing ad bots and so on, but you make it sound so dramtic.
You also act like there was something to the story that was being peddled, it was not "the lap top exists' it was "the laptop contained evidence of hunters illegal activity, the deepstate, and joe bidens corruption". None of ehich has came to pass despite the heros of draining the swamp having it for a year.
And nothing more swampy than naming your son in law to handle the middle east and then have him get 2bn investment right after. The fantasies about Biden are not even as bad as the realities of the Trumps. And yet the aelf righteousness is palpatable.
Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended. It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2022 10:52 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
People are just playing games. Twitter 1) banned the account of the newspaper that published it and 2a) prevented people from sharing the link 2b) prevented people from even directly messaging the story to another user. That obviously counts as suppression. Just because this isn't China or maybe Russia where you can literally be cut off the source itself doesn't mean twitter and Facebook didn't suppress it. Just because they didn't ban everyone who wrote the name "Hunter Biden" doesn't mean that either.
And still, not a single person can describe to me what these platforms did do. It wasn't suppression supposedly, but since apparently we lack a better word or phrase to describe what they did, I'm going to call it suppression.
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this?
If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you.
|
On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 16 2022 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Didn't it just get labelled as misinformation when the claims couldn't be substatianted? I'd say that's moderation working as intended.
It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation. There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post. On April 16 2022 17:43 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Is OAN being dropped by DirecTV suppression? Or a business decision? Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you.
Not sure if you did that on purpose or.....but that is not how the saying goes.
|
On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship.
The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context.
The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property.
In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views.
|
|
|
On April 17 2022 12:30 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 09:06 LegalLord wrote:Hell, there’s some court rulings that explicitly enforce the fact that the social media platforms are a public square ( Example) and run contrary to the fraudulent “I can kick people off my own lawn, so companies who have broad reach and conflicts of interest should be able to as well” analogy. If you get to the bottom of it, people largely seem to be of the opinion that censorship or suppression are a good thing if the opinion in question is a wrong / dangerous / dangerously wrong one, but they just want to clothe it in rhetoric that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that you hold a position that is at its core in conflict with the apparent virtue of freedom of speech. Why not just accept it for what it is and simply say that speech should be regulated and under the right circumstances, censorship is good? That or drop the thinly veiled support for censorship. The opinion you cited doesn't actually support your claim. As always, the First Amendment case here is being made by Packingham against the State of North Carolina, and the Supreme Court is opining upon the permissible actions of a state government, which the First Amendment applies to, not upon the permissible actions of a private entity, which Twitter, Facebook, etc. are. In legal terms, the First Amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech, gathering, etc. It does not prohibit private entities from doing so upon their own private property. Furthermore, the opinion is not designating specific websites as a "public square," but rather the web itself. Hence why the opinion is also concerned with whether or not convicted criminals would be able to have access to non-social media sites such as WebMD or Amazon. It wouldn't make sense to name these sites as public squares within the same context. The public square part can indeed be misleading, but the opinion is not designating Facebook, Twitter, etc. as publicly owned spaces such as utilities. Instead, the opinion is stating that NC's law barring an individual from going to a publicly available space, such as a Starbucks, creates an undue burden upon said individuals freedom of speech rights which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An analogous case here would be the following: Can North Carolina create a law banning all criminals from going to Starbucks? No, they cannot because that would be a government entity, North Carolina, creating undue burden by removing people's access to a public square, Starbucks. This opinion is silent upon whether or not Starbucks can prevent people from entering their stores. Here, the private entity is allowed to bar people from their premises as they own said property. In fact, if you read of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, it's actually violating a business's right to Freedom of Speech if laws were enacted to prohibit a business's choice in who it can do business with. For example, just like how Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to restrict access to its products (cakes) from individuals based upon their views (here, LGBTQ marriage), so Twitter and Facebook are allowed to restrict access to its products (their website) from individuals based upon their views.
I don't think his point was that the first amendment bars Twitter from moderating or suppressing content. It was that in the modern day, Twitter and Facebook are the "public square" or in other words the means of discourse. So we should maintain the free marketplace of ideas on those platforms, just as how, in the past, the first amendment was meant to maintain the free marketplace of ideas. But the argument is not that Twitter is legally required to do so.
On April 17 2022 12:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2022 10:27 gobbledydook wrote:On April 17 2022 06:48 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 06:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 06:00 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 03:33 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 02:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 17 2022 02:37 JimmiC wrote:On April 17 2022 00:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
It got labeled as such because a bunch of (anti-trump) former CIA officials took a guess that it was Russian disinformation.
There could be much more coming from the laptop and other devices of Hunter's. It will apparently be on wikileaks. Various outlets are dropping more purported emails and texts over time that, if authentic, show Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. However, the MSM is not yet covering the actual contents, it's more so outlets like the NY Post.
[quote]
Definitely suppression. It's the result of an artificial pressure campaign by liberals to force directv to make the "business decision." The express goal of the pressure campaign is to remove the ideas being said on OAN from the discourse. The claims were not and have not been substantiated. That is very much incorrect when it comes to Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances. I won't argue it further though because it may be frowned on by the mods here. On April 17 2022 02:23 plasmidghost wrote:On April 17 2022 01:50 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Thing is that speech disruption (such as, waging a pressure campaign against a business over a TV channel you don't ever watch, or shouting down a speaker at a university campus) is not the free marketplace of ideas in operation. It's an act by a group of people who do not believe in the concept of the concept of the free marketplace of ideas and are working to shut that concept down. Again, their end goal is not to "vote with their wallet" or "exercise their freedom of choice" or cause a "business decision" - their [i]end goal is to suppress particular ideas. And I really think they should be more forthright about what their end goal is.
But no I don't think the government should do anything to stop these forms of speech suppression. Well, when these ideas get people like me killed, they deserve to be suppressed I do think that violent type stuff should be moderated/suppressed. You are welcome to argue it here, you just have to have sources instead of assumptions. The problem is you still can't tell the difference between and fact and assumption. As you know or should know, I previously posted sources including authenticated emails. You just want to ignore or discount it because it implicates your side's president. But it actually is true that we are not supposed to be talking about Hunter Biden here (according to the mods). He's not my president, I'm not a Dem, I do not even live in the US. I've seen the email, Hunter says "the big guy" and the cut is some amount way to small to be what you think. The assumption part is that the big guy is biden and he is getting some sort of kick back, how long and nothing proven. But the real stupid part is Trump and his family are doing this out in the open, from their lack of security on documents and emails, to accepting payments from Saudi's, to staying at their properties along with all the security and so on and full ticket. He has tried to pressure other countries for political favors, pressured governors to over turn elections, and so on and so on. All of that is with no assumptions needed. Can you imagine what he is actually doing? Especially if you made the leaps and assumptions you are on the Bidens? It is so odd how most of you Republicans think everyone else is some biased Dem when why would be? We have not grown up with your team spirit style or consumed nearly as much American propaganda (from either side). It is is just so painfully obvious from the outside that the Dems are not very good but the Republicans are somehow 100x worse. Clearly there should be rules about enriching yourself with your political position but most Americans are only interested when someone not on their team is doing it. Not sure why you would claim to not be squarely on the side of the democrats in the US political debate. Your posting very clearly demonstrates otherwise. And people outside of the US do develop US partisan allegiances, as this thread demonstrates. I of course disagree that the evidence of Joe & Hunter's interlinked finances is a nothing burger. I think you are completely wrong and probably acting on partisan allegiance. But I won't go into specifics beyond that. Then there is the "whatabout trump" argument. And I don't discount it; it would be hypocritical to do so. But I still want to know about Joe & Hunter's arrangement, rather than actively put my head in the sand. As I said early in this discussion, post your sources about it, but you can not because they do not exist. All you have posted is the one that says "the big guy". You do realize he could have a heavy friend, or tall or any of 1000 different things. Source their interlinked finances? If you cannot then you are proving my point not yours. Also, you do realize everything you suspect Biden is doing, Trump proudly actually did and worse. I'm not trying to say that Biden's does not matter because of Trump, I'm saying Biden might have not done it, Trump for sure did. If you think it is wrong why do you support him? If actual proof came out on Biden, like has for Trump over and over, I would also want him removed the same way I did with Trump. Do you understand this? If you seriously believe that the 'big guy' doesn't refer to Joe Biden I got a used car to sell you. I have 1000 examples of people in the US pedaling political influence for money that are proven and apparently legal, that a politicans sons alluded to doing it possibly is not news. Not to mention last I checked people did not get in trouble for claiming their parents might be involved. So if he meant Joe, does that mean Joe was actually involved? Am I suposed to believe that Hunter is the most dishonest horrible person, but in this case honest and truthful? Am I to get worked up that Biden might have got a small payment? Kushner just got 2 billion, hoe much did the US gov pay at Trump resorts? Did all the foriegn nationals who switched their washington business to Trump properties after he got elected how much wss that, that is fine? We should probably check his taxes to see, oh they never came? Well he at least was not involved with his businesses while being president, oh he was? Is what Biden is being assumed to have done even illegal? Its so much less money then top lobbiests make or "donations" made. And not that either party is making and effort to tighten these horrible laws but the Reps are actively attempting to remove what little exists. The fake outrage about this or "emails" is so damn transparent its frustrating as hell. Have a tiny bit of logical consistency please. If Joe Biden has done something illegal by all means throw the book at him, but the amout of stupid conversations with the very same people who are all worked up about this, around horrible shit people have done and the proof is 10000x more clear, where the argument was "but legally that is not proven so it is allowed", to pretend some sort of moral high ground and arguement, come on. Apply the same burden of proof to basically every Republican that gets brought up here and they are all in jail for way longer terms. But you will not, not even close, so stop pretending to be victims and live up to the not very high standard of sourcing some proof of the claim and at least pretend to be upset when your team does the same and worse (heads up, its going to be a lot and very often.)
If Joe used his influence to boost Hunter's political consulting activity and in return Joe took a cut, that is a potentially illegal corruption scheme. And that is so even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. (But I agree, Trump should be called out for corruption too.)
The NYT has established that when Hunter wrote emails, he referred to Joe not by Joe's name but instead as Hunter's "guy":
https://nyti.ms/3wd3MNf
The NY Post recently reported on a text in which Hunter said "unlike pop, I won't make you give me half your salary":
https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/hunter-biden-frequently-covered-family-expenses-texts-reveal
Same story says Hunter's business partner emailed Hunter saying "your dad just called me and mentioned he'd be out a lot soon and not really back until Labor Day . . . He could use some positive news about his future earnings potential."
There are other examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
