- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,203
- Reaction score
- 9,694
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So, what you need to get is social media isn't establishing rules based on behavior they are basing based on political afiliation. They got popular and very rich by claiming to be nuetral, not strict. Make of that what you will but the goalposts you are using aren't the ones Twitter is based on.I can't believe I, a so called "libtard" have to repeatedly have the same conversation with so called "conservatives" (like Oppty Cost) but I guess it's my chance to lay my own conservative views wide open for them to see:
If I own a private club, and I demand that you adhere to a certain dress code if you're a member, say perhaps a suit and tie, and you repeatedly show up looking like this:
View attachment 67238363
Do I have the right to boot you off the premises of my club?
You're certainly free to open your own club, or just walk around socializing with people looking like that, just not in MY club, that's all.
It's MY private club. You're not the public, you're a MEMBER, that's why you had to SIGN UP and ACCEPT the terms of the agreement.
And I'm not the government, I'm a private organization serving my members.
The government isn't retaliating against these knobs.
Yeah, how dare the president speak out against the oppression of non-liberal views by liberal Silicon Valley tech companies. Free speech be damned :roll:
Once again shadow bans were described as a technical issue, which only affected conservative accounts. Sure, wanna buy a bridge?
Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Idiots get on here saying Trump wants to shut down the media’s freedom of speech(which he never said) and liberals go crazy. But then conservatives get banned from social media and liberals say it’s a good thing.
Hypocrites again!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, what you need to get is social media isn't establishing rules based on behavior they are basing based on political afiliation. They got popular and very rich by claiming to be nuetral, not strict. Make of that what you will but the goalposts you are using aren't the ones Twitter is based on.
Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
And that girls and boys, is your current game show host. The President of the United States, advertising for the next episode of his reality TV show "The white House - How I will continue to divide the nation."
Not even close. Since when is allowing divergent, unpopular viewpoints to be heard confirmation bias?
That's pretty much the opposite of it.
Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Do you feel that Prager U. is a Nazi organization? How about Ted Cruz? Because they both have had shadow bans at various platforms.
You guys used to be for free speech and understood showing how stupid hate is key to defeating those speaking it, what happened?
They've done studies on it, OC.
“Social media algorithms can be purposefully used to distribute polarizing political content and misinformation,” note the authors of a recent and timely study on fake news by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project...."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...lgo-how-social-media-fuel-political-extremism
https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles
https://www.newstatesman.com/scienc...get-fake-news-facebook-real-filter-bubble-you
https://medium.com/dnnmedia/social-media-echo-chambers-and-our-own-confirmation-bias-fcd89d7fa11c
Checked out the Prager U website and played a couple of their tapes. Weird. Strange commentary on how men should be masculine, presumably lose touch with "our feelings" we have been encouraged to discover, and continue to open doors for women. Another, a useful and informative and well documented but really unnecessary piece on how the Civil War was about slavery. We knew that, those deniers have largely retreated. And the strangest of all-- of what I saw -- the "inconvenient truth" about the Democratic Party being opposed to the interests of blacks, using the Civil War, lynching, the KKK, segregation, etc. Fair enough as a shameful history. But no mention of Nixon's famous southern strategy nor comment on how the white south turned republican and so many blacks switched to the democrats after the civil rights era, nor current efforts to gerrymander and restrict voting at republican hands, some of which have already been struck down as fairly obvious. The commentator, who is black, seems to assume black people are too dumb to have figured any of this out, and somehow have been snookered by the wily democrats.
What gives with this "university." It is certainly not Nazi, unless I missed something. (Is it a different campus of Trump U? couldn't resist.) True, my fellow liberals can be weird at times, but would anyone want to bother to ban it?
I do not own these social media companies, so when you attempt to blame me for what they're doing, you sound like an angsty teen.
And if you're expecting me to "fight for Alex Jones", then may I expect you to fight for Bernie, Obama and Hillary?
Eh, probably not.
Social media companies are basing their rules based on whatever they goddamn want.
I'm not using any goalposts whatsoever because I can assure you that Alex Jones has enough dough that he'll be back on the internet very soon.
You're getting more desperate sounding by the minute.
And you're about to get made into a laughingstock, so maybe you should think of choosing your battles more wisely.
He tweeted this. On Twitter. Can you be any more obtuse?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So out of millions of accounts only right wing political figures were affected. Jack Dorsey happy coincidence or Jack Dorsey is full of it? Odds are it was targeted and they weren't ready for the PR backlash. But hey, its really interesting to see leftists sticking up for corporate interests...that agree with them politically.
So, your objection is it is pro conservative in outlook? You're right that shouldn't warrant a ban. Better question, why did it?
Nope I am not asking you to fight for Alex Jones. I am asking you what your principles are. Instead you have decided to be derisive and mocking when you don't want to accept the consequences of your decisions. No angst. You say corporate censorship is ok because you don't like the target.
Do you feel that Prager U. is a Nazi organization? How about Ted Cruz? Because they both have had shadow bans at various platforms.
You guys used to be for free speech and understood showing how stupid hate is key to defeating those speaking it, what happened?
No "we" just don't like unproven conspiracy theories, of which this is.
So just conservative accounts got hit and you think that's ok. You can head out then.
You don't have to say it. You protect speech you don't like or you aren't protecting it at all. You have decided not to protect speech you don't like so you are FOR corporate censorship.
Nope I am not asking you to fight for Alex Jones. I am asking you what your principles are. Instead you have decided to be derisive and mocking when you don't want to accept the consequences of your decisions. No angst. You say corporate censorship is ok because you don't like the target.
Do you understand how you counter misinformation? With correct information. Censorship always silences people it shouldn't eventually.
Studies show that when people's beliefs are challenged with contradictory correct information, they reject the information and their beliefs get stronger. The backfire effect is a name for the finding that, given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.
https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_backfire_effect.php
backfire effect - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
My principles as far as "social media" goes is that the owners of the platforms (like DP) have the right and arguably a responsibility to ban assholes from their platform to make it a place millions of others want to spend time on, so the platforms get eyeballs to sell ads. Alex Jones is more than that - among other things he effectively targeted the families of slain children as liars and cons. That's not harmless, and it's not just what Alex Jones did directly, but what he encouraged his followers to do.
On what principled basis does someone like him deserve a presence on a free, PRIVATELY OWNED platform like Twitter or Facebook? If we had a user on Debate Politics that lost a family member to a shooting, and another DP member started calling him a liar and a fake and his children fake, why would DP have an ethical or principled obligation to allow that nonsense? And if not DP, why Twitter, or Facebook?
Yes, I'm for corporate censorship. One thing that makes DP a good place is they don't put up with a bunch of racist crap, and they ding people and will ban them for targeting, or insults, etc. So they censor, and that's a GOOD THING.
Twitter has a bunch of bots and trolls and they pollute the threads of just about anyone high profile. I wish Twitter did a better job of purging those accounts. They shouldn't ban or 'shadow' ban based on viewpoint, and I just don't believe they have. Someone mentioned Cruz - the odds that Twitter targeted his account are roughly zero, if nothing else because targeting a high profile conservative Senator is bad for business in lots of ways. I suspect if he was shadow banned, it was because of behavior of some of his followers, the bots and trolls. Who knows, but I can't believe it's intentional because it makes no business sense at all, and at the end of the day Twitter is a public company, and they need people including conservatives on the platform.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?