|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Future of social media /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1667132760 Message started by pg on 10/30/22 at 05:26:00 |
|
Title: Future of social media Post by pg on 10/30/22 at 05:26:00 The twitter deal is done and Elon walked into the building with a kitchen sink. Evidently, he is going to let many of the banned users back including Trump. Dorsey is looking to launch a rival service and Kanye is buying Parler. Pretty interesting stuff considering how powerful those entities have become. How do you think it is going to play out? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 10/30/22 at 12:56:57 My understanding is Twitter is going to use a similar model to Rumble. It will be fun!! Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 10/30/22 at 15:14:26 Just what we need... a new home for more Right Wing conspiracy theories. This is the misinformation that fed David DePape. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 10/30/22 at 17:59:08 Well Musk has a tight line to walk on considering ad revenue is over 85% of the income for Twitter, but many companies will want to distance themselves from what could be perceived as an ungoverned free-for-all. This is why he immediately addressed one of the common misconceptions people have about his intentions. Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences! Anyone that has been following Musk would know he is not exactly intent on allowing anyone to say anything on Twitter, but instead wants to reduce the echo chamber. The other guys always have the advantage and your side is always the victim it seems. For instance Twitter is bad for banning Trump, but it's ok for Lindell to not allow Biden. So hopefully Musk can figure it out before Twitter falls off the fiscal cliff they seem to be moving towards. In addition to adhering to the laws of the land, our platform must be warm and welcoming to all, where you can choose your desired experience according to your preferences, just as you can choose, for example, to see movies or play video games ranging from all ages to mature |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 10/31/22 at 04:07:57 283E29342C39342F5B0 wrote:
What misinformation fed Nicholas Roske? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 10/31/22 at 07:35:49 Muskie boy just had to moderate himself after posting a ridiculous Right-Wing conspiracy theory about the Pelosi attack. Twits rejoice ::) |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by MnSpring on 10/31/22 at 08:01:33 6771667B63767B60140 wrote:
Please provide a link to that in information. All I could find is Roske's 'threatening to kill Kavanaugh'. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 10/31/22 at 08:16:45 2137203D25303D26520 wrote:
He was responding to a ridiculous left-wing conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton was putting on her Twitter feed. She can do that with no fear she’ll be forced to take it down cause she’s on the same side as Pravda. The truth is neither of them know what the hell happened but only one pulled down when he said while the other will leave her nonsense up. Her conspiracy BS will be celebrated however. And it will be celebrated as the truth when no one knows. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/31/22 at 09:18:45 4553445941545942360 wrote:
Plenty of room to offer the Other Side . The Official Stomping of Any idea that runs counter to Leftyville is over. Now you will have the opportunity to discover just how pervasive your position is. Just how many people agree with the Leftyville approach to making America what you people believe is right? You lefties have been lied to. The crushing of everything that runs counter to wokeness is only teaching people that wokeness and all things lefty are Very Popular. It's been a false environment. Now, people like me, maybe Even Me! Will be twitting,,tweeting, and Sayin stuff that people like you hate and would censor. Heads will explode. I hope there are No bots, zero.. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 10/31/22 at 09:25:25 Social Networks are really anti-social networks,... home of twits and Kardashians. Less the better. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/31/22 at 09:57:10 Society is and has always been full of contention. Argumentative, people pushing Their ideas,trying to get their idea of what is good accepted. Diminishing the ideas of those they disagree with is just the nature of people. Remember how it was gonna be Blood in the Streets when they opened up restaurants with bars for concealed carry? Did you not argue against that? Social media, as it's called, is antisocial, and it's through rubbing different attitudes and ideas together and arguing the points that shape society. And we have seen that the Official position has been pushed while the Misinformation/Disinformation position has been censored. That is Not how things are meant to work and for a private company to work hand in hand with the government to suppress ideas is Wrong. Period. Full stop. The problem lefties have is their track record of failed ideas, held onto, never admitting to having been wrong. Even after it's been made painfully obvious. Here's Your Sign, which every gun toting murderer read and dropped his guns and went home, defeated, because the sign said it's illegal to have a gun here. No Law will ever stop a criminal who has decided to That Thing that is illegal. A murderer knows murder is illegal before he decides to kill. The ONLY way to stop a murderer intent on killing is to meet them with deadly force. Making the intended victim able to protect themselves is the best way to accomplish that. Please note the stark difference between the places where the People are not restricted from their RIGHT to defend themselves versus the Utopias of Gun control. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 10/31/22 at 10:42:40 392620273A3D0C3C0C34262A61530 wrote:
States with the most gun violence share one trait https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/gun-violence-data-what-matters/index.html But there's one thing that is indisputable in the available data on gun violence -- and the data is limited since until recently the federal government was effectively barred from gathering it. The indisputable fact is that where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths. The top states by gun death rates are: Mississippi -- 28.6. Louisiana -- 26.3. Wyoming -- 25.9. Missouri -- 23.9. Alabama -- 23.6. Alaska -- 23.5. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/31/22 at 11:23:12 I'm surprised. I don't understand how, with the constant news about Chicago, knowing they aren't The Worst, still, Illinois is pretty low on the list. I looked up 2017 stats, because my first thought was the reason for the current stats was possibly linked to business closings, lockdowns, people angry about being bankrupted by policy. https://vpc.org/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2017/ It's Not good. I don't understand the why,because I have not even had a reason to try to understand what I did not know was going on. And None of this makes a Sign outside of a school in any way effective in stopping even one murderer. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 10/31/22 at 11:37:48 States with the most gun violence share one trait Yes, the overwhelming majority of the same demographic is committing the crimes. Jackson, Mississippi -- 69 gun homicides per 100,000 people. St. Louis -- 50. New Orleans -- 48. Memphis, Tennessee -- 47. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/31/22 at 11:40:54 Huh..!!, And here I was thinking it was frikken Guns doing it. So, maybe Gun control isn't the answer. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 10/31/22 at 15:45:43 I can speak for St Louis and Missouri. The vast, vast majority of gun crimes are clustered in a few zip codes in St Louis and KC. Very large populations distort the statistics. Just got back from Boston for a wedding and went up into Maine. Boston metro area has 4 times the population as the entire state of Maine. You can’t make comparisons between the two, that’s ridiculous. Look at the states on Sew’s list. They all have large rural areas with practically no gun deaths but are home to populated cities where crime occurs. Overall, they are not states with huge populations. That’s why gun control freaks use stats like this. They support am predetermined argument, but they don’t illuminate much truth. The poorest counties in Missouri have high gun ownership rates and little crime. It’s not necessarily the gun, it’s the culture. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by MnSpring on 11/01/22 at 07:56:57 2137203D25303D26520 wrote:
Once you lay down, manipulate, use parts of, 'statistics', they are just like a lady of the night. You can do anything you want with them ! |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 11/01/22 at 17:35:43 Back to the topic of the thread. Why do you think Elon really bought Twitter? I don't think it as to do with humanity. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 11/02/22 at 03:57:55 7166606C6373010 wrote:
I think he did it because the idea popped in his head, he said it out loud so followed through. It’s like us getting an idea to put a pool in the backyard. It sounded like a great idea at the time, but in 9 out of ten cases, we end up regretting that! |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/22 at 06:56:37 The Not for the sake of Humanity suspicion is understandable. So, Why? It's a Wait and See thing for me. There are some things About him that bug me, rumors, like involved in some globalist operation, young world leaders? Something along those lines. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 11/02/22 at 17:27:41 Well that didn't take long........ NAACP President Derrick Johnson met with Musk on Tuesday “to express our grave concerns with the dangerous, life-threatening hate and conspiracies that have proliferated on Twitter under his watch,” according to an NAACP statement. Can I say it for you E? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 11/02/22 at 17:29:28 The Not for the sake of Humanity suspicion is understandable. Ahh shuckkkkssss, it is only 44 BILLION.......... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 11/07/22 at 11:27:23 Here is an interesting thought. Now that Elon owns Twitter, he also owns all the communications, e-mails, and DM. He will likely have a treasure trove of evidence regarding the suppression of conservative thought & speech up until and including government collusion. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/07/22 at 14:25:56 Oooo! That sounds delicious..! |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 11/07/22 at 15:14:27 Here is an interesting thought. Now that Elon owns Twitter, he also owns all the communications, e-mails, and DM. He will likely have a treasure trove of evidence regarding the suppression of conservative thought & speech up until and including government collusion. Considering he hasn't taken even one step towards modifying the Twitter/Government intelligence interactions I would say I'm not going to hold my breath on a lot being done in that regard. What people don't understand is all the information is already available,. If I post on Twitter and they remove it, this doesn't mean it disappeared, it is just not on active Twitter. I have multiple posts that were removed and still have a record of every one of them, so do the watchdog groups. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 11/08/22 at 03:32:52 I was thinking of internal communications, private direct messages, e-mails to and from executive personnel, so on. I suspect some of these will be leaked and it will reflect the hostile environment to conservative affairs. Nothing will come out of it, but it will serve as a confirmation of sorts. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 11/08/22 at 05:19:44 I was thinking of internal communications, private direct messages, e-mails to and from executive personnel, so on. I suspect some of these will be leaked and it will reflect the hostile environment to conservative affairs. Nothing will come out of it, but it will serve as a confirmation of sorts. I agree. Twitter has not exactly been subtle about what they are removing from their system. No matter what the data says people will always say their side is the victim anyway. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/08/22 at 10:23:15 You think lefties believe their voices have been censored? On Twitter? If that is true then it certainly supports my belief that they are unreasonable. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 11/08/22 at 10:37:48 You think lefties believe their voices have been censored? On Twitter? A ton of people that have their post(s) removed trend towards thinking it's only them, or only people in their category of though process combined with communication medium no matter what their political affiliation is. The problem is that so many people don't realize that your online activity, unless you take steps to maintain it, is intentionally corralled into like-minded groups, search results and websites for ad revenue. What people typically don't do is analyze 3rd party metrics to see what Twitter actually removes. Then when they are confronted with evidence that doesn't conform to their belief that came exclusively from anecdotal personal experience, they say the metrics are wrong. Feelings are more reliable than millions of verifiable data points, unless you have no feelings about it in the first place. Then it's just evidence. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/08/22 at 11:37:49 The only time I have ever tweeted was when I had gas and was trying to sneak one by. I was Wishing for it to be censored. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/02/22 at 23:35:30 7760666A6575070 wrote:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/elon-musk-releases-twitter-files-how-twitter-collaborated-biden-team-cover-hunter-notebook [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RsedoC_PN4[/media] This is necessary to restore public trust........................ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/22 at 06:00:51 I read all the info Musk put out last night and it’s not a surprise. Twitter management intervened and prevented the Washington Post story detailing Joe Biden’s involvement with the his brother and son’s business of which he was fully involved, from being posted. They even went so far as to prevent direct messages on the top from one person to another which was a step previously only taken in cases such as spreading child porn. But the best comment I read was from someone who said “Yes, Twitter management stepped in and lied to protect Joe Biden from his criminal dealings but it’s important to remember with a very few notable exceptions, major network news and print publications were just as complicit. They went out of their way to lie and even fabricate fake news to deflect away from Biden and turn an illegitimate focus on to Trump.” That means you Lester Holt. So, bottom line question: is Joe Biden an illegitimate President? Was the election tainted? The only answer is yes. I believe I’ve read it would only had taken 23000 votes over 4 states to change the outcome. If Twitter (and Facebook) had let people freely exchange information, if the major news stations had at least pretended to act out their 4th estate role, no way Biden gets elected. No way. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/03/22 at 06:26:35 "The only answer is yes. I believe I’ve read it would only had taken 23000 votes over 4 states to change the outcome. If Twitter (and Facebook) had let people freely exchange information, if the major news stations had at least pretended to act out their 4th estate role, no way Biden gets elected. No way." It's called strategy. These private companies have no obligation to preserve your 1st Amendment rights, so continually looking for ways to say they should do that is not going to help. I get it that Twitter and Facebook have an outstanding level of influence, but that is literally capitalism at work here. If the Left is using Twitter more efficiently the Right needs to find plausible counters to this or disrupt the efficiency - like what is being done now. Complaining that private companies aren't supporting the politician you like is pointless. Twitter doesn't have to let you post what you want on their property. They can support Biden just like TGP and other platforms support Trump and only post negative information about one party. Where are the complaints that Tucker Carlson isn't letting pro-Biden guests use his show to talk poorly about Trump? If Twitter has to let Conservative users say whatever they want shouldn't FOX have to let Left-leaning guests on their shows to say what they want? You know, to be fair. Official Journalism is a different beast however and there should be accountability for publishing knowingly false material. Leaning one way or the other is fine, but intentional false information is another. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 12/03/22 at 06:42:54 For all the emphasis on Hunter's laptop,... it will never be used as evidentiary in a court of law. FBI has determined that the chain of custody cannot be verified and there has been tampering to the files both additive and subtractive. No one can know what is original and what has been planted. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/22 at 06:56:51 Company decides, Meh. Company decides because a government agency said Make that go away? Way past Meh. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/22 at 07:54:49 6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:
You are so completely wrong on this. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/22 at 08:00:14 7563746971646972060 wrote:
#1 That’s bull$hit. That’s how OJ got away with killing two people. #2 that’s not the point anyway. No one disputes the information on the laptop. Joe Biden lied about selling his VP office. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/03/22 at 10:10:11 Company decides because a government agency said Make that go away? According to Musk Twitter approached the Government. So if I go to you and ask if you want control of part of my property, did you come to me? If Twitter were a public utility I'd see the argument. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/22 at 10:38:06 This is what you’re not getting. The widespread and universal use of social media and it’s influence basically makes it a de facto public square. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/03/22 at 12:14:45 "This is what you’re not getting. The widespread and universal use of social media and it’s influence basically makes it a de facto public square." Then why is it ok for Truth or Parler? Where's the complaints about their unfair treatment of people who choose to use their property? If Twitter had banned Biden and still had Trump on it would be having this discussion even? Until Constitutional law changes, or alterations are made to the 1st Amendment, these private companies do not have to protect your rights. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/22 at 12:29:44 IDK anything about the other sites.Exactly nothing. Twitter sold itself to the people with the general attitude of This is a place to connect. This is where you can be heard. Within a not unreasonable set of guidelines. Then Someone decided to Label what they didn't Like as something they Could ban. Funny how it was just what threatened democrats. Or the Official government position. Laws follow wrongdoing. Just because they don't Have to protect the rights of the people, doesn't mean they shouldn't. And since it's so obviously so one-sided, they look like an arm of the democrat party and the PR firm for big pharma. What they did was WRONG. And I seriously Don't GAF that it was not illegal. And if it benefited the other side, I would still call it wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/03/22 at 15:19:17 When a partnership is formed, and collaboration & cooperation exists. An argument can be made they are participating in the capacity of a state actor. In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/03/22 at 15:47:44 "When a partnership is formed, and collaboration & cooperation exists. An argument can be made they are participating in the capacity of a state actor." Not according to multiple court rulings, thus my interpretation that law would need to change since the argument has been made, and has always lost. Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc. rules against social media companies being "State Actors" The Supreme Court decision in Packingham v. North Carolina creates precedent, but not in the direction you want. Loomers list of losing cases includes calling Twitter a "State Actor" and lost, twice. Multiple cases exist all, so far, with the same outcome: Social Media companies aren't State Actors. So far the argument has been made, but it's a losing one. Maybe someone will figure it out and Social Media companies will someday be forced to let everyone use their platforms. So Obama and Hillary and Biden and Trump and Alex Jones can all go sit on Lindell's FS platform tossing pointless remarks at one another. On the other end the ruling in Halleck v. Manhattan Community Access Corp. this would mean anyone could have access to all websites, including this one. Restricting access would be illegal. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/22 at 16:30:15 Maybe that is the next step. Government using corporate to further their agenda is government taking away our rights, using a third party. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the GOP ranking member on the Committee, made the remarks in a Friday appearance on Fox News after Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk dropped part one of the so-called “Twitter Files,” an expose of the inner workings of Twitter’s censorship machine. “Every employee at Twitter who was involved in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story will have an opportunity to come before Congress and explain their actions to the American people,” Comer told program host Sean Hannity. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/03/22 at 16:30:41 IDK anything about the other sites.Exactly nothing. Twitter's competitors because we live in a free capitalist society where companies can compete. Don't like how Twitter treats the people on their property that choose to use Twitter's property? Use another platform that aligns with your ideals. Or keep complaining that Twitter doesn't do what we think they should with their property. If it's wrong don't support it. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/03/22 at 16:33:14 Maybe that is the next step. Government using corporate to further their agenda is government taking away our rights, using a third party. That actually would be illegal. The Government can't take away your rights by using a third party, but in this case that third party is a Private Company. A private company doesn't have to protect your rights on their property. You can not just say you have rights where you don't. Like on somebody's private property for instance. You don't have rights there. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/22 at 04:49:10 Elon Musk agrees with you Eegore. His point is Twitter, acting by itself to suppress free speech, is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government, is. I disagree with the first part of that and everyone should agree with the 2nd, even a TDS infected deranged Sew. But Twitter presented itself as a free speech platform, with exceptions for dangerous speech, but there was no understanding this included reposting or commenting on articles published in major publications ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE CONTRARY TO THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of the company. That’s where they are liable. There’s a very good possibility they changed the outcome of an Presidential election. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/04/22 at 07:30:50 So the thing here is proving that Twitter didn't request guidance from the Government and was instead "ordered" under penalty, to do what they did. Since Twitter went to the Government and literally asked for guidance, it is going to be an uphill battle for Musk or whoever to criminally pursue the Government for an attack on anyone's rights. My issue is people keep trying to throw their "rights" into a situation where they have none. For instance: "Government using corporate to further their agenda is government taking away our rights, using a third party." You don't have rights on the third party property. It's illegal for the Government to take away your rights - where you have rights. For instance if Twitter was being used to keep you from speaking at a public forum, or somebody else property. As for Twitter's property, to bad, it's not yours, you have no right to use it - move on. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/04/22 at 08:15:40 You don't understand how I mean that. And I am finished trying. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/04/22 at 10:21:14 The issue would be of more concern if the Government was doing this across the board or at least in a larger capacity, so far we only have evidence that the Government tosses directive to companies that ask for it. They ask for it. We don't see Conservative voices being limited or revoked over on Truth or Parler. Trump just remarked about suspending the Constitution over there with no problems. If the Government was over on these platforms trying the same antics then there would be immediate concern, but so far that's not the case. This needs to be monitored for sure, but we also don't need to drag the 1st Amendment into arguments where it doesn't apply. These people suing Twitter because it is a Government Actor are barking up the wrong tree. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 12/04/22 at 11:57:15 Can you go on Truth Social or Parlor and say Trump is a tax cheating, racist, rapist, insurrectionist, liar, with micro mushroom thingy? (EDIT)... Thingy?...apparently you can't here either.. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/04/22 at 15:39:10 6646444C5146230 wrote:
I briefly looked at the first two cases. Rutenburg couldn't prove that Twitter passed the threshold that infringed on their rights. The Packingham case involves the same stakeholders but isn't really a fair comparison. I don't dispute the position you are making to a point. I believe there is a threshold where they are in fact acting as a state actor. This is extremely difficult to prove and or get a favorable ruling based on the jurisdiction of the court. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/04/22 at 15:44:44 1C3C3E362B3C590 wrote:
That is a very slippery slope. If someone asks you to participate in unlawful conduct on their property or using their property, the behavior is still unlawful. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/04/22 at 16:23:17 That is a very slippery slope. If someone asks you to participate in unlawful conduct on their property or using their property, the behavior is still unlawful. I agree but that is different than saying you have the Right to free speech on somebody else's property. Twitter asked the Government to participate and is exclusively using it's own property where no 1st Amendment protections exist. If the Government asked Twitter to let child p orn on Twitter then Twitter is breaking laws for sure. False advertising would be a closer application of Twitter claiming Free Expression than saying they are violating 1st Amendment rights. Saying the Government is infringing on our rights by banning speech exclusively on Twitter is useless, because you have no rights on that property. If somehow the Government used Twitter to ban your speech somewhere else like on a public forum or mediums where you actually have 1st Amendment rights - then they broke the law. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/04/22 at 16:35:42 I don't dispute the position you are making to a point. I believe there is a threshold where they are in fact acting as a state actor. This is beyond that threshold................ An FBI agent testified to Republican attorneys general this week that the FBI held weekly meetings with Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley ahead of the 2020 presidential election to discuss "disinformation" on social media and ask about efforts to censor that information. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent-testifies Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/22 at 03:45:30 1304020E0111630 wrote:
The key to that Pg is why they asked. Did they ask in the course of fulfilling the scope of their duties as domestic law enforcement or to influence a presidential election towards one particular outcome? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/22 at 05:04:29 Wall Street Journal this mo Elon Musk’s release of internal emails relating to Twitter’s 2020 censorship is news by any definition, even if the mainstream media dismiss it. There will be many threads to unspool as more is released, but a couple of points are already worth making. The first is that Mr. Musk would do the country a favor by releasing the documents all at once for everyone to inspect. So far he’s dribbled them out piecemeal through journalist Matt Taibbi’s Twitter feed, which makes it easier for the media to claim they can’t report on documents because they can’t independently confirm them. A second point is an huzzah for Rep. Ro Khanna, the California progressive Democrat, who warned Twitter in 2020 about the free-speech implications and political backlash of censoring the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. That was good advice, even if Twitter didn’t take it. A third point is the confirmation of the central role that former spies played in October 2020 in framing the Hunter Biden story in a way that made it easier for Twitter and Facebook to justify their censorship. Recall that former Democratic intelligence officials James Clapper and John Brennan led the spooks in issuing a public statement suggesting that the laptop may have been hacked and its content was Russian disinformation. On Oct. 16, 2020, Mr. Clapper told CNN that “to me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work.” On Oct. 19, 51 former spooks released their statement claiming that the arrival of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” (The statement and signers are published nearby.) We now know that the Clapper-Brennan claims were themselves disinformation and that the laptop was genuine and not part of a Russian operation. CBS News recently waddled in two years later with a forensic analysis of its own and concluded it is real. But the claims by the spies gave an excuse for the media to ignore the Hunter Biden story and even to dismiss Hunter’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who went on the record before the election to confirm much of the content on the laptop with documentation in the form of voluminous text messages. We examined those messages ourselves at the time, and our Kimberley Strassel spoke with Mr. Bobulinski and put it all on the record before the election. We also wrote an editorial. But nearly all of the rest of the press ignored or trashed the story. The Twitter documents published by Mr. Taibbi include part of what appears to be a memo from James Baker, the Twitter deputy general counsel. “I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked. At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted,” Mr. Baker wrote. He continued that “there are some facts that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned and/or the owner consented to allow the repair shop to access it for at least some purposes. We simply need more information.” With an election so close, any delay helped the Biden campaign, which was trying to squelch the Hunter Biden story that raised questions about what Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s foreign business dealings. Twitter went ahead and suppressed the story across its platform, going so far as to suspend the New York Post’s Twitter account. Readers may recall that Mr. Baker was director Jim Comey’s general counsel at the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the Russia collusion fiasco in 2016. He was the main FBI contact for Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign lawyer who spread falsehoods about the Trump campaign regarding Alfa Bank, among other things. Mr. Baker’s ties to the former intelligence officials who signed the “Russian information operation” statement may have influenced his Twitter memo and the censorship decision. All of this is likely to be fodder for House Republican hearings into the FBI’s role in the Hunter Biden story. The partisan foray by current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the last two elections should be deeply troubling to Americans on the left and right. They have authority by dint of access to information that isn’t confirmable by the press, which takes their spin as gospel. This is a form of political corruption that needs to be exposed, and perhaps the Twitter documents will help to unlock the story |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/05/22 at 06:00:43 "The key to that Pg is why they asked. Did they ask in the course of fulfilling the scope of their duties as domestic law enforcement or to influence a presidential election towards one particular outcome?" This I agree with. So do you prosecute Twitter for violating your 1st Amendment rights because of the FBI's intent, or the FBI? If Twitter was impeding your access to public forums by means of FBI guidance I'd see an avenue towards saying Twitter intentionally impacted your rights. Maybe if there were correspondence where Twitter approached the FBI with intent to stop you from using other means of communication. Or maybe if Twitter was aware of the FBI's intent and agreed. There has to be a nexus of known intent to make them a State Actor. When it comes to changing election results, a private company has no obligation to be neutral, or honest. Twitter is not violating your rights if they try to get Biden to win by controlling how you use their private property - unless they impact your ability to use a public forum. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/22 at 09:55:52 When it comes to changing election results, a private company has no obligation to be neutral, or honest. I don’t think that’s true. Libel laws. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/22 at 10:00:11 And 50 years ago, the Supreme Court created a right known as the right to privacy. That’s how they allowed women to kill their babies. So can we create a “right to fairness” on public free-speech platforms? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/05/22 at 10:20:22 Who isn't Fukkin sick to death of some assshole protecting everyone from misinformation? How convenient, don't agree, call it misinformation, censor it,doing society a favor. Ohh,SHUT UP! |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/05/22 at 17:07:59 When it comes to changing election results, a private company has no obligation to be neutral, or honest. I don’t think that’s true. Libel laws. This is a good point. Not sure how one could get 1str Amendment prosecution involved but I am sure there are multiple cases where people tried. "So can we create a “right to fairness” on public free-speech platforms?" We already do. What we need to do to achieve your goal is make private property also be under the same protections as actual public property. Again Twitter isn't a public free speech platform (even if they claim it is) that has 1st Amendment protection responsibilities, it is a private platform that is displayed to the public. They own the platform, not the public. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/05/22 at 17:14:27 "Who isn't Fukkin sick to death of some assshole protecting everyone from misinformation? How convenient, don't agree, call it misinformation, censor it,doing society a favor. Ohh,SHUT UP!" This is part of why I consistently say social media is not actual information. Its overwhelmingly opinions spread as fact with zero credibility or reference. First - anyone can post anything without evidence. Second - the type of information sent forward can be selective. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/22 at 17:21:20 The issue, again, is the government was essentially acting as an editor-in-chief for perhaps the largest and most widely read “soapbox”. And that’s a good way to look at it. When you hear this story, just imagine the FBI pulling the soapbox out from under a guy questioning the actions of his government and tell me if you’re good with that. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/05/22 at 18:05:01 And that’s a good way to look at it. When you hear this story, just imagine the FBI pulling the soapbox out from under a guy questioning the actions of his government and tell me if you’re good with that. If he's on a soapbox that is a Private Company's property of a Company that asked the FBI to go grab that soapbox, I would question the Company's values and not support that company. I definitely would not cry about my "Rights" being violated on their soap box on their property. I'd go to their competitor before I would try to control their actions by exercising rights I don't have there. Now if a private company asked the FBI to go pull out somebody else's soapbox, I would have an issue with that for sure from both the Company and the FBI. Most important of all I wouldn't use the soapbox in exclusivity to make important decisions anyway since we all know what opinions are like. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/22 at 19:58:41 Actually, a better analogy is to imagine the FBI telling the owner of the soapbox company to pull soapboxes out on people who were about to reveal the head of the FBI was a crook. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/22 at 05:00:11 From Jonathan Turley article this morning: What Censorship? One of the old saws of censorship apologists is that without a government directing the suppression of free speech, it is not censorship. That is clearly untrue. Many groups like the ACLU stress that "censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups." The same figures insist that if, there is not a violation of the First Amendment (which only applies to the government), there is no free speech violation. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/22 at 05:11:00 And remember, the real story here is direct, absolute evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in business deals with foreign nations who gave his completely under qualified son a lucrative job. One of those nations is involved in a war and we’re sending billions of dollars to some of which may have just been found “invested” in a crypto-pyramid scheme. And Barrack Obama is no dummy and unlike Trump, surrounded himself with shrewd advisors. it’s impossible to believe they weren’t aware of what Biden was doing while he was vice president and it’s likewise is impossible believe they did not tell Obama about it. One question I’ve always had is, if Obama knew, did he let it happen thinking it was relatively harmless or was he somehow involved? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 12/06/22 at 07:23:45 It was pointed out, on Fox News The Five of all places, that Biden's request to Twitter was to remove Hunter's nude pic's which break Twitter's rules against revenge porn, and Biden was a private citizen at the time of the request. Trump on the other hand, also made censorship requests, and was President at the time. Which one is a 1st amendment breach? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/22 at 08:07:35 That’s BS. The FBI didn’t tell Twitter Hunter’s d!ck pictures were Russian disinformation. They told them evidence of Joe being involved in criminal activity was. The pictures never came into the discussion and is being used a convenient excuse to cover his involvement in corruption. You’re being used as a patsy, you’re cover, you’re a human shield. Yes, Trump was wrong if his request to censor information was for political gain. What specifically did he tell them to remove? Did he do it or did he have the FBI act as his secret police? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/22 at 09:46:15 Ok, so I looked and can’t find any published accounts of what Trump asked Twitter to censor. The fact is of course they never would’ve done what he has anyway but I’d like to know specifically, assuming he did, what are you ask them to withhold from the public sharing with others? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/22 at 09:50:23 The only thing I’ve seen is Trump asked them to reinstate his press secretary’s Twitter account which they froze. That’s kind of like the opposite of restricting free speech isn’t it?…. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 11:08:40 Actually, a better analogy is to imagine the FBI telling the owner of the soapbox company to pull soapboxes out on people who were about to reveal the head of the FBI was a crook. So how is the Company violating your 1st Amendment rights? You don't have the right to use that soapbox to begin with. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/06/22 at 17:21:48 Nope, nothing to see here Twitter CEO Elon Musk announced on Tuesday that he has fired deputy general counsel James Baker after the release of the first installment of the Twitter Files, which revealed the details behind the company’s decision to suppress the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Musk’s move comes after it was revealed that Baker played a critical role in that decision. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/06/22 at 18:01:30 Isn't that the same James Baker.................. https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/04/james-baker-hunter-biden-laptop-fisa-censor/ Move along....................... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/06/22 at 18:37:53 "Isn't that the same James Baker.................." It is the same James Baker. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/22 at 19:56:47 5777757D6077120 wrote:
Why are you not getting this? The government is using Twitter to restrict speech for a political reason. It’s the government doing it, not Twitter, they’re just the stick that the FBI is swinging. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/07/22 at 05:19:12 Why are you not getting this? The government is using Twitter to restrict speech for a political reason. It’s the government doing it, not Twitter, they’re just the stick that the FBI is swinging. I understand that. So it's an FBI issue when it comes the the 1st Amendment protections. Twitter as a private company can work with the Government if they want, and not be a State Actor by definition. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/07/22 at 07:57:26 All Good,then! E said it is okay. I'm happy. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/07/22 at 10:09:00 426260687562070 wrote:
No, I don’t believe they can. This is not the government asking social media companies to put out a PSA. They were asking them to withhold information (during a specific time right before an election) which they knew to be true and they asked for it to be withheld to specifically benefit one of the candidates. And they lied about the reason why the information should be withheld. They fabricated a story they had intelligence that indicated foreign governments would release false stories about Joe Biden’s son Hunter. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/07/22 at 13:30:17 They were asking them to withhold information (during a specific time right before an election) which they knew to be true and they asked for it to be withheld to specifically benefit one of the candidates. As far as I know this is not illegal for a private company to do, unless it is an actual journalism organization, and even at that there is still some freedoms to choose what you distribute as long as it is not intentionally false. Social Media companies can withhold information on their property. A newspaper can only publish information about Democrats. A magazine can only publish information about Republicans. "And they lied about the reason why the information should be withheld." I assume you mean the FBI. If Twitter was aware that the intent of the FBI was to sway the election then this is an issue. But if the FBI were lying to Twitter, not so much a Twitter problem. None of these things make Twitter a State Actor unless Twitter knowingly collaborated with the FBI with the intent of swaying an election. Otherwise they are just a private company with huge influence displaying what they approve of on their property. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/07/22 at 16:01:00 So, you approve? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/07/22 at 16:08:57 So, you approve? So you approve of every law that you can read and decipher as factual? I don't really care what Twitter does since I don't use social media as a fact finding tool nor recommend anyone else do this. Also they have competitors that literally do the exact same thing, just for an opposing political party. If next election Trump wins and Truth starts collaborating with the FBI and doesn't let non-conservatives post on their property, I wouldn't care. I don't care if a magazine won't publish Conservative articles, I don't care that The Gateway Pundit only publishes Conservative articles. The issue here is the FBI. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/07/22 at 18:35:28 The issue here is the FBI. You finally got there! |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/07/22 at 19:33:37 "The issue here is the FBI. You finally got there!" It appeared this is being portrayed as a unified fault. A private company is not a public square: This is what you’re not getting. The widespread and universal use of social media and it’s influence basically makes it a de facto public square. That doesn't make them responsible for your 1st Amendment protections. They are free to work with the FBI if they want. Intentional strategizing with the FBI, with criminal intent, is an issue but so far the evidence provided doesn't support that. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/08/22 at 05:52:28 426260687562070 wrote:
I’m officially designating a new disease: Switzerland Syndrome. It’s a disease of the central nervous system which causes the afflicted to immediately stake out the middle between two positions at all cost, regardless of the evidence piling up on one side. Common side effects are very slight modifications to the position which seemed to indicate, at first glance, a position shift. However, a closer examination by an experienced professional (me) reveals that is just a manifestation of the disease which is thought to have evolved as a both a defense mechanism and as a method to lay out future pathways where the disease will once again manifest itself in an attempt to survive within the middle position weeks from now after being confronted with another does of antibiotics, aka Truth. Unfortunately, the survivability of the Switzerland syndrome is extremely low and that statement is based entirely on forklore as no documented case of an afflicted one stepping away from the middle and onto one side or the other. The only treatment is a combination of shaking one’s head at the illogical positions taken by the sick and a constant barrage of antibiotics, aka Truth. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/08/22 at 07:41:51 What evidence do you have that Twitter is intentionally collaborating with the FBI to sway an election? That's the largest burden of proof to meet State Actor standards. So far what I have seen is the FBI is lying to Twitter to get them to remove content. On their property only. We also have to consider how Section 230 applies to this. Twitter has protections there as well. This isn't a political issue in regards to Twitter, there are no sides. It's about pre-incident knowledge and intent. The political component is just muddying the waters with emotion. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/09/22 at 04:19:10 So far what I have seen is the FBI is lying to Twitter to get them to remove content. Why? Why would the FBI not just lied about but create an elaborate cover story for? What was their intention? Why that particular content over and over? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/09/22 at 05:54:26 Why? Why would the FBI not just lied about but create an elaborate cover story for? What was their intention? Why that particular content over and over? We already addressed this and I was under the impression you believe it was to sway the election. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/22 at 03:48:58 And you don’t think that to achieve that goal, they convinced, coerced, threatened, a social media platform to restrict posts (speech) that based on historical precedent, the users believed to be free from government interference? It’s one thing if Twitter by themselves restricted access. Conservatives are very well aware Twitter treats the political parties differently. The difference here is the government acted to restrict the public sharing of information via tweets and direct messages which is essentially email. That’s essentially speech. If we’re going to have lawsuits and laws that say campaign donations are a form of speech (which has been stated) how can we not do the same here and say that post on a social media platform everyone previously believed we’re free from government interference, we’re in fact NOT free from government interference. That rings of a first amendment violation. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/10/22 at 05:14:15 Although it is difficult to prove; it is very evident the government played a very influential role that directly affected the 2020 election. High level executives at the social media companies that had careers in the alphabet agencies, weekly meetings, so on so forth. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/10/22 at 08:33:23 And you don’t think that to achieve that goal, they convinced, coerced, threatened, a social media platform to restrict posts (speech) that based on historical precedent, the users believed to be free from government interference? I don't think Twitter is a defacto public square or a State Actor. As for the FBI, no evidence supports coercion or threats but evidence does support convincing. I think there is a possibility that threats were not necessary, but I am not going to say it did or did not happen without evidence. "If we’re going to have lawsuits and laws that say campaign donations are a form of speech (which has been stated) how can we not do the same here and say that post on a social media platform everyone previously believed we’re free from government interference, we’re in fact NOT free from government interference." Why on earth would anyone think social media posts are free from government interference? It's a private company letting you use their product so they can sell ads. This forum is a less efficient version of that. I have no reason to believe this forum would be "free" from any type of interference. The owner/operator could easily go contract or volunteer to share information with the Government tomorrow. "That rings of a first amendment violation." Perhaps from the FBI, but not from Twitter. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/10/22 at 15:39:50 "That rings of a first amendment violation." Perhaps from the FBI, but not from Twitter. That’s what I’ve been saying. The government used Twitter. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/10/22 at 16:28:40 I thought you were saying Twitter is culpable as well since it is a defacto public square. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by WebsterMark on 12/11/22 at 05:55:01 I would say users have a civil case against Twitter since, regardless of its Terms and Conditions, the years long presentation as a free speech platform, with whatnot portrayed as common sense restrictions for dangerous or child endangerment speech, opens it up to some type of legal recourse although the owners and management responsible have changed. The government, the FBI, restricted free speech by purposely manipulating social media platforms. Now, the next question is, did they have contact and influence over widely viewed news programming? Like Twitter management, they had already long ago abdicated their 4th estate responsibilities and we’re all in on doing what they could to help one party win the upcoming election, but it would interesting to see if there’s any record of contact and collusion to restrict speech in the form of purposely withholding key facts in a story or evidence of making up or reporting events as facts when they were known to be false. Again, Twitter, Facebook etc are going to take the blunt of the fallout but major corporate news lied every single hour of the day for years. Don’t forget that |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/15/22 at 02:00:27 5641474B4454260 wrote:
Or how about this? Twitter allowed government officials and other “stakeholders” to use a secret portal called, “Partner Support Portal” to report anything they believed to be “misinformation.” https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/elon-musk-reacts-america-first-legal-uncovers-darning-evidence-revealing-secret-twitters-partner-support-portal-used-government-censor-dissenting-covid-19-viewpoints/ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/22 at 12:35:34 Molding the narrative, protecting One Party kinda sorta Looks Like a donation. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/15/22 at 21:07:27 This is beyond that threshold................ According to multiple cases this is not true. I already used the full interview from the FOX source as part of my assessment. The FBI lying to Twitter in meetings to alter their publishing behavior - on their own property - does not make them a State Actor. This does not mean Twitter is obligated to protect your first amendment giving you the right to use their property. "In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms." "Twitter allowed government officials and other “stakeholders” to use a secret portal called, “Partner Support Portal” to report anything they believed to be “misinformation.”" That doesn't make them a State Actor that has to protect your first amendment rights. Having a portal that is secret or not, to communicate with the US Government, does not make any business a State Actor. This portal does require Twitter protect your first amendment, therefore you do not get the right to use Twitter. If a voluntary private portal was all you needed to become a State Actor, every private contractor handling classified information is a State Actor and is now obligated to protect your 1st Amendment. Great reading on the subject: Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority - 365 U.S. 715 Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association - 535 U.S. 971 Shelley v. Kraemer - 334 U.S. 1 Rendell-Baker v. Kohn - 457 U.S. 830 |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/16/22 at 02:24:32 If a voluntary private portal was all you needed to become a State Actor, every private contractor handling classified information is a State Actor I'm glad you agree with me. Moreover, the federal government has a legal obligation to protect fair and free elections. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/16/22 at 06:19:37 "I'm glad you agree with me." I don't agree with you and removing the last part of my statement removes context. Let me clarify: IF a voluntary private portal was all you needed to become a State Actor, and it is NOT, every private contractor handling classified information would then become a State Actor allowing all US citizens access to the classified information since all US citizens would have the right to use the company assets. So if I have a company that decrypts Iranian communications on nuclear refinement and deployment of radioactive emitters in the US - every US citizen should have the "right" to that information if the company has an online portal - like email - to communicate with the Government? Boeing has a private "portal" to the US Government to build military aircraft. Since they have a "portal" they are a State Actor and now every US citizen has the right to know what top-secret warhead they are developing for the new stealth bomber. That sounds right to you? A portal is enough to justify State Actor requirements on a private company? "Moreover, the federal government has a legal obligation to protect fair and free elections." I agree, but that does not mean you have the "right" to use Twitter or any other company's private property. Government misconduct does not give you rights to the private property they used to do it. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/16/22 at 16:23:15 68484A425F482D0 wrote:
I didn't say I had the 'right', my position is they are a state actor. In addition, the government are violating peoples rights. If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)); If the government merely enters into a contract with an individual or organization for the goods or services, the actions of the private party are not state action, but if the government and the private party enter into a "joint enterprise" or a "symbiotic relationship" with each other it is state action (Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)); Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/16/22 at 19:16:08 I didn't say I had the 'right', my position is they are a state actor. And if they are a State Actor then they have an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, not from the government in exclusivity, but upon their own actions. This means you get to sue Twitter for violating your first Amendment rights when they ban you from using their property because that is the only way they can protect your 1st Amendment in this course of actions. If you don't have the right to use it, then they can't be a State Actor. "In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments" That underlined part means they can't ban you from their services. Nothing about this implicates Twitter for violating First Amendment rights. If anything they falsely advertised, or are colluding with the Government to alter an election. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/17/22 at 03:23:37 If anything they falsely advertised, or are colluding with the Government to alter an election. It has been clearly established there was collusion. Combined with fb and youtube, it was likely material enough to alter the election. Do you believe people's rights were not violated in some capacity? I'm not referring to the users of the social media. How about the people who support free and fair elections? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/17/22 at 07:24:52 "It has been clearly established there was collusion. Combined with fb and youtube, it was likely material enough to alter the election." Agreed. This is no different than communication on paper and radio 50 years ago, its just more effective now. "Do you believe people's rights were not violated in some capacity? I'm not referring to the users of the social media. How about the people who support free and fair elections?" I think in some capacity the potential exists. My observations on "free and fair" elections regarding process is what that usually means is my guy should win and the other guy should lose. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Serowbot on 12/17/22 at 07:27:10 Twitter admits far more Russian bots posted on election than it had disclosed https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/19/twitter-admits-far-more-russian-bots-posted-on-election-than-it-had-disclosed Company says it removed more than 50,000 accounts and reported them to investigators, marking latest upward revision of figures US intelligence authorities have concluded that Russia’s government mounted an assault on the US election campaign across several fronts including social media, with the intention of aiding Donald Trump and harming Clinton, his Democratic opponent. Twitter said on Friday that more than 3,800 accounts had been traced back to Russian state operatives. It gave examples of their tweets, which included an attack on Hillary Clinton’s performance in a presidential debate. Posts by one Russian state propaganda account were retweeted by senior advisers to Trump, including his son Donald Jr and Kellyanne Conway, who is now a senior aide to the president in the White House. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/18/22 at 05:37:58 1C3C3E362B3C590 wrote:
Regardless, of whether you support the outcome of the election. Our government made vigorous efforts that likely had a material effect on the outcome of the election. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/18/22 at 05:43:28 7365726F77626F74000 wrote:
Well look who is a proponent of election integrity............ First, the article said their are links to Russia. What does that mean, hackers, kids, FSB?? Moreover, that is a significant difference between our government making efforts to affect an election as opposed to an alleged foreign entities. Also, that was 7 or 8 years ago, that is some serious 'howaabboouuttissmmm'............... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/18/22 at 10:10:22 "Also, that was 7 or 8 years ago, that is some serious 'howaabboouuttissmmm'..............." What do you mean? It didn't maybe happen, it actually happened. I know people debated it here but there's no way 1 human could send over 200,000 messages in less than a minute - that was Russian AI. Twitter is going to be constantly bombarded with organized efforts to impact US political function. It's like being able to have 30 or 40 agents working inside a newsprint agency in the 1960's to influence what Americans see, except it can be done today from a couch in Moscow. If only people would understand that nothing on Twitter is verified as being real before you can see it. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/18/22 at 12:30:08 6E4E4C44594E2B0 wrote:
Did I say it didn't happen? NNOOooo.... That was a deflection to a difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/18/22 at 12:56:22 "That was a deflection to a difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue." Ok thanks for explaining, I wasn't sure what you meant. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by MnSpring on 12/19/22 at 06:23:52 18383A322F385D0 wrote:
Wrong, there is a significant difference. Up to 2-3 years ago, one knew, what group/people’s, that POV was from. One knew if it was real, or propaganda, simply because of its source. Today, some Social Media’s, LIED. Lied by omission of Fact, Lied saying they were Fair. Lied implying no outside force/group, (like the FBI) influenced the, ‘reports’. 50 years ago no one said, ‘Don’t eat Tide Pods’, Yet today the UL FDS Socialists have to put ‘warnings’ on everything, (like shampoo labeling, ‘Do Not Drink). Years ago, the DIF’s that ‘drank Shampoo’, just cleaned up the gene pool. Today the Socialists have to, ‘protect’ everybody. So they survive, and believe the Lying Social media and the ‘Told What To Say’, major broadcast media. All for the goal to have more DFI’s, so they can vote the way they are TOLD to do, instead of thinking for themselves. The difference between then and now, is not, effectiveness, it is, Lying, Subversion, and a handful of people, TELLING YOU, what to think and how to vote. And that can be done ONLY, when there are a significant number of DFI’s, who can’t think for themselves. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/21/22 at 12:22:04 The implication that Russian bots supporting Trump is somehow a reflection on Trump is silly. It's just a statement that Russia saw how dangerous Hillary would be. Putin is smart enough to know how much more unstable the world would be with her as opposed to Trump. She would have had us in war or wars. Trump, to the amazement of the haters, did not get us into a war. If this fool keeps supporting Ukraine, Russia will eventually have to deal with that. Retweeting something that came from a Russian bot? As IF someone knew it was from a Russian bot? How does that mean anything? Agreeing with something that is true is not promoting a lie. Where it comes from means exactly nothing, if it's correct, it's correct. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/21/22 at 14:07:27 "It's just a statement that Russia saw how dangerous Hillary would be. Putin is smart enough to know how much more unstable the world would be with her as opposed to Trump." This is also silly. There is not plausible reason for anyone on this forum to know why Russia does things or what Putin thinks. There is a ton of information available to them that will never be available to us. "Retweeting something that came from a Russian bot? As IF someone knew it was from a Russian bot? How does that mean anything?" Because it influences public response. Of course believing what is on Twitter is the real problem, but it is effective and that is why countries dump all the money they do into creating false information online. "Agreeing with something that is true is not promoting a lie. Where it comes from means exactly nothing, if it's correct, it's correct." And if it's not correct? If the post is a lie, would that be promoting a lie? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/21/22 at 14:15:10 "Up to 2-3 years ago, one knew, what group/people’s, that POV was from. One knew if it was real, or propaganda, simply because of its source." I don't believe that at all. Propaganda has been effective by means of elusive source for decades. Anonymous donors, secret meetings, IP address generators, tons of false information has been available and interpreted as "real" not just the past few years. "The difference between then and now, is not, effectiveness, it is, Lying, Subversion, and a handful of people, TELLING YOU, what to think and how to vote." Yeah up until 2-3 years ago all political advertising was transparent and honest? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/26/22 at 14:23:09 https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/elon-musk-says-almost-every-conspiracy-theory-people-had-about-twitter-turned-out-be “To be totally frank, almost every conspiracy theory that people had about Twitter turned out to be true,” Musk said. “Is there a conspiracy theory about Twitter that didn’t turn out to be true? So far, they’ve all turned out to be true. If not more true than people thought.” Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/26/22 at 15:26:57 It turns out to be a Lot worse than I had thought. I figured there were some lefties just doing what they wanted. Turns out, it was a coordinated effort, using retired spooks, and Twitter was Paid,, If it's that pervasive, is it a rogue element of or is that The Government? |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by Eegore on 12/26/22 at 19:30:50 Its a private company people think is a public utility. Anyone that thinks Twitter is a fact based source deserves to be upset over the lies they see there. |
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/26/22 at 20:29:39 2C3335322F2819291921333F74460 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Future of social media Post by pg on 12/28/22 at 13:52:28 Turns out, it was a coordinated effort, using retired spooks, and Twitter was Paid,, If it's that pervasive, is it a rogue element of or is that The Government? ALL of the above............. Best regards, |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |