|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Social media question /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1667389799 Message started by WebsterMark on 11/02/22 at 04:49:59 |
|
Title: Social media question Post by WebsterMark on 11/02/22 at 04:49:59 The article linked at the bottom brings up an excellent point. For those of you in favor of laws whose stated goal is to stop misinformation as defined by some appointed group, would you be in favor of surveillance of Internet forums, mass emails or even phone calls? Let’s say I call Jog and get MnSpring and pg on the line and I start talking about how the vaccine causes adverse side effects in certain people. If I type that on Twitter or Facebook, you are in favor of that being deleted and in some countries, I could face civil or criminal penalties. I’m doing the same on the phone so am I also spreading misinformation? So those of you in favor of banning misinformation on voluntary social media sites where you have to follow someone to read what they say, am I correct in assuming you’d be in favor of a software program that listens to all phone conversations and notifies authorities if I use certain key words? For that matter, we have a ‘fair and balanced’ moderator on here but shouldn’t a government oversight committee monitor our forum and delete Jog’s anti-vaccine posts? Why or why not? https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/02/eu-moves-against-twitter-to-block-free-speech-protections-after-calls-from-clinton-and-other-democratic-leaders/ |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/02/22 at 05:31:33 "I’m doing the same on the phone so am I also spreading misinformation?" Yes but less efficiently. The primary difference of Social Media is that a robot, or human with appropriate AI programming can produce millions per minute and exponentially spread the information per-minute reaching billions within an hour. You couldn't do that on a phone and that's a big part of the censorship analysis. "So those of you in favor of banning misinformation on voluntary social media sites where you have to follow someone to read what they say, am I correct in assuming you’d be in favor of a software program that listens to all phone conversations and notifies authorities if I use certain key words?" I think the phone companies would have to restructure to get this to apply equally. Some sort of clause/contract that states that the phone, data, infrastructure and recordings are the private property of the carrier. This way if you choose to use lets say Verizon, you know by contract every communication you make with that device is now the property of Verizon and can now be given to law enforcement without your consent. Then sure, have at it. "For that matter, we have a ‘fair and balanced’ moderator on here but shouldn’t a government oversight committee monitor our forum and delete Jog’s anti-vaccine posts?" The Moderator has never claimed to be fair and balanced. As for government oversight, if they had the resources, and the forum was structured in a way that before we were given permission to post we were informed that every post is now the property of the forum owner, or the US Government and can be governed without our consent, then yeah have at it. The difference is people keep confusing privately owned social media with public utilities, public forums, tax funded etc. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/22 at 06:59:18 I'm not in the least confused. I just know the difference between good and bad. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Serowbot on 11/02/22 at 07:26:39 I'm not fair and balanced. 99% of posts here are right-wing Trumpist views. How is that balanced? I'm the only balance you have. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/22 at 07:32:34 What are you saying? You want the forum to ask for some government cog to come erase the stuff you don't have time for? Who decides what misinformation is? Starting to look like the It's safe and Effective crowd were spreading misinformation. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by WebsterMark on 11/02/22 at 08:26:25 FFS….. The fair and balanced moderator is a joke at my friend Sew. it’s not particularly relevant. So I take from Eegore’s response that if the technological obstacles were over come, you’d be fine with government misinformation board listening in on your phone conversations and auditing your emails to look for misinformation as defined by some authority appointment. Correct? |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Serowbot on 11/02/22 at 08:27:05 You read a lot into things. I'm just saying exactly what I said. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/22 at 09:10:46 IIRC, it wasn't actually happening.. But it was. Look at what they want. And they have been doing it. https://warroom.org/2022/11/02/dhs-censorship-lead-believes-big-tech-has-moral-obligation-to-suppress-populism/ And it's imperative that it be done. Of Course I see why lefties agree. pop·u·lism [ch712]päpy[ch601][ch716]liz[ch601]m] NOUN a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups: "the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment" · [more] support for populist politicians or policies: "the government came to power on a wave of populism" the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people: "art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism REEEE! A clear threat to Ahr Dmokkrusee! |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by WebsterMark on 11/02/22 at 10:08:48 697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:
Then I presume you think a government oversight to delete jogs threads about vaccine efficiency is warranted. Or my objection to the Kavanaugh rape story, I assume you believe that some government officials should be able to come in here and delete that because you think it’s true. Or if I say Trump never said Nazis were fine people, I guess you want that deleted too because it’s not the official narrative. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/02/22 at 10:37:30 Following the Tesla billionaire’s official acquisition of social media giant Twitter this week, figures in Europe have already begun demanding that Elon Musk adheres to their anti-free speech agenda. Mayor Sadiq Khan, who during his tenure in office has spearheaded efforts to criminalise more speech in the British capital rather than spending his time dealing with the actual violent crime plaguing the city, demanded that Mr Musk continue the Silicon Valley social media site’s policy of combating “digital hate”. We cannot allow children growing up today to be exposed to the vile [and] violent ideologies of some users,” the London mayor said, adding that “any decision about allowing suspended users to return must be taken incredibly carefully & in direct consultation with experts in countering digital hate [and] misinformation. the site may remain restricted in countries that do not have First Amendment protections, such as member-states of the EU. Thierry Breton, EU commissioner for the internal market, said Twitter will have to “fly by our rules” after Elon Musk’s $44 billion purchase of the company. Tech companies will face greater pressure to remove illegal content under the EU’s incoming Digital Services Act. A top European Union official had a warning for Elon Musk Friday about his $44 purchase of Twitter, telling the billionaire he will have to play by the rules. regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are worried that Musk could, for example, allow former President Donald Trump back onto the platform. Anybody have ANY Doubt that, 'the powers that be', are TELLING YOU, what to think ????? (NA, Says the Citizen) |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/02/22 at 14:10:45 "So I take from Eegore’s response that if the technological obstacles were over come, you’d be fine with government misinformation board listening in on your phone conversations and auditing your emails to look for misinformation as defined by some authority appointment. Correct?" If the phone service was altered to meet the legal definitions of private property belonging to the service provider. Not current phone conversations and emails, but ones that, if I choose to use that provider, has made clear through it's user agreement that the US Government will be auditing those communications since they are the private property of the company and the US Government. If I work for a company that provides me a phone and computer and internet service they have the authority to look through any texts and emails sent over their system on their property without a warrant. They can terminate the usage, thus fully censoring me, at any time since it is the private property of the company and part of the terms of agreement for me to remain employed there. However my job can not take my personal phone or audit/censor conversations, Tweets, emails sent on my personal phone, unless some of those messages appear on the private property of my employer. Then they can censor the messages I placed on their property. If they choose, as a private company to work with the Government, then the Government can censor information on their property as well. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/02/22 at 15:16:22 022220283522470 wrote:
AWSUM Spin/Deflection. The POINT is, (which everyone KNOWS) The Social Media/s Are CENSORING what they TELL employees TO Censor. They Hire employees, who are UL FDS Socialists. Then, HIDE THAT FACT Just like they work very hard at ‘hiding’: “… when you share, post or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content …” So one Will, post that most fantastic photo, or those cleaver words, (that they can sell), and they can Cover their Azz from lawsuits. Censoring, is more complicated. Ray Charles could see it is being done at a 10—1 ratio against Conservatives. Yet, proof ! When the Social media companies deny/lie/spin/deflect/etc/etc/etc … |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/02/22 at 18:58:25 The POINT is, (which everyone KNOWS) The Social Media/s Are CENSORING what they TELL employees TO Censor. Yes, on the private company's private property. People keep trying to act like Twitter is a public service. It's not. If you don't like what a private company does with their private property, don't use their service. Trying to say Twitter shouldn't work with the government or hire "UL FDS Socialists" is like saying a cake baker shouldn't hire Conservatives and should bake the cakes You want them to. How dare Twitter do something I don't like with the service I choose to use that they own. how dare they hire people with similar political views. Just like they work very hard at ‘hiding’: “… when you share, post or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content …” People being too lazy to read the contract they agree to for a service they choose to use is not equal to a business "hiding" that information. You found it. Millions have found it, so they aren't doing a very good job at hiding it. "Ray Charles could see it is being done at a 10—1 ratio against Conservatives." If only we lived in a capitalist country where Conservatives could go start their own social media sites. Like Trump's Truth Social. Oh it's not as successful as Twitter? Conservatives aren't using it? Trump doesn't even post? Well then let's go pretend Twitter is a public service and not a private company exactly like Truth Social and go tell them what they should do with their private property! Bottom line is "Lefties" are doing a better job at using social media. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/03/22 at 08:28:48 Twitter STARTED as a Private company. Facebook STARTED as a private company. Later they BOTH became public companies. During the time they were PUBLIC, they were censoring content, just like they were Private. Now Twitter is private again and time will tell if it is Censored like it used to be, and if so, in what direction. It is VERY CLEAR Clinton/Obama are doing everything they can to NOT allow the Truth to be told world wide. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/03/22 at 09:52:39 "Twitter STARTED as a Private company. Facebook STARTED as a private company. Later they BOTH became public companies. During the time they were PUBLIC, they were censoring content, just like they were Private." Publicly traded companies still own their property as do the private citizens, that are part of the public, own their shares. They do not become PUBLIC property once they start selling shares. It's still private property. Twitter and Facebook have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. They can censor their publicly traded property all they want. |
|
Title: Found it Post by MnSpring on 11/04/22 at 09:54:09 “…We're in regular conversation with this group and others about our content policies …” So Facebook does say it will Censor things. They just don’t have the balls to say it is a certain political view. Unlike a Baker saying "I don’t do that …”, then being sued, then winning, (after spending gobs of money), then sued again, JUST for spite, so he has to spend gobs of money again. So a ‘influencing’ Public Traded, billon dollar, company/s, does not have to tell the truth. Yet A Baker, can get sued, win, and get sued again, just because. OK, Got it. The lesson is. If one does NOT say what they will Censor, perfectly OK. If one DOES say, what they will not do, they get Sued. |
|
Title: Re: Found it Post by Serowbot on 11/04/22 at 10:41:11 0625183B3922252C4B0 wrote:
There are protected minorities. We don't protect the bullies in schools,.. we protect the bullied. What do you do? |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/04/22 at 11:48:58 The lesson is. If one does NOT say what they will Censor, perfectly OK. If one DOES say, what they will not do, they get Sued. The solution: You go sue Facebook for not telling you what political views they will censor on their private property. Then FB does get Sued. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Serowbot on 11/05/22 at 07:31:39 Should this have been banned? :-? Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/05/22 at 17:29:14 0727252D3027420 wrote:
So if the FBI 'demanded', or 'told', or 'suggested', it would be a violation of one of the PURPOSES of Existence, to PROTECT the 1st. You believe they have, 'done wrong' ? |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/05/22 at 19:39:09 So if the FBI 'demanded', or 'told', or 'suggested', it would be a violation of one of the PURPOSES of Existence, to PROTECT the 1st. In this context and only this context with the exemption of all other known words compiled into sentences of any known language, exclusively and only within the context of the specific and exact words you used in this post, and no other post, I would say "Demanded" and "Told" are equal and essentially mean the same thing. "Suggested" and only the word "Suggested" with the exemption of all other known words as You used it in this thread and no other thread, I would say is not a violation of any kind. I can suggest anything I like to my neighbor, but if I tell them, or demand that they take their political sign down from their personal physical property, or, get this... their digital property, I would be in violation. So if the FBI, as I already said many times before, is forcing, coercing or other English words synonymous with force, any company to restrict language on that companies private property without due legal process and judgement, then the FBI is potentially infringing on the 1st Amendment. Facebook however is not since you have no rights to use Facebook and they have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights. So complaining that Facebook is violating your "free speech" by working with the government voluntarily, or keeping any person or group of persons of any political affiliation from posting on Facebook property is fundamentally flawed. You don't like it, Sue Facebook and then your problem of Facebook not being sued would be solved. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/22 at 05:23:12 3325322F37222F34400 wrote:
The difference is in the case were talking about, a federal agency used its influence and told social media platforms to withhold truthful information that would have damaged Biden’s election chances and they did that because they preferred Biden as president versus Trump. That’s different than what you’re describing. If the DOJ knew those were false but specifically asked social media to post them after those companies said ‘no, we’re not going to post these because they’re false’, but the DOJ wanted them decimated because it would help Trump and the companies who also wanted Trump elected, did it, then you’d have a case somewhat equal. What you’re talking about is not even in the same ballpark. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/06/22 at 06:19:41 6646444C5146230 wrote:
Incorrect. "Suggested" and only the word "Suggested" with the exemption of all other known words as You used it in this thread and no other thread, I would say is not a violation of any kind. So the FBI, who is tasked with defending Law's. Comes to you and, "Suggested", you violate a law, (Because they cannot), You would say it: "is not a violation of any kind." OK, Got it ! |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/06/22 at 07:35:53 So the FBI, who is tasked with defending Law's. Comes to you and, "Suggested", you violate a law, (Because they cannot), You would say it: "is not a violation of any kind." OK, Got it ! You didn't say the FBI "suggested" I violate a law. The goalposts are moving again. If you state they requested a violation then there is a violation. The problem is Twitter/Facebook have no obligation to protect your rights. If the FBI requests, suggests, asks them to censor content Twitter/Facebook is not breaking any law, because the law does not require they protect your rights. Also you do not have the right to use Facebook/Twitter, so there is no violation on their part if they keep you, or any other known human, from using their property. If the FBI asks me to do something that is NOT illegal then I am not breaking any laws and I am not committing a violation. Now the FBI may be in violation of the law, but not me, not Facebook, not Twitter. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/06/22 at 07:48:06 4060626A7760050 wrote:
Perhaps you could read it again. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/06/22 at 09:52:33 Perhaps you could read it again. Perhaps you could post the entire sentence and not edit it to alter context. I have underlined the part you took out: You didn't say the FBI "suggested" I violate a law. You did not say the FBI suggested "I" violate the law. This is about the FBI making suggestions to a private company that approached the FBI for that purpose. Changing sentences to say the FBI is approaching a private citizen for the purpose of suggesting they violate law is a completely different topic. Obviously if the FBI is breaking the law it would be illegal by definition. The private company that voluntarily approached the FBI did not violate your 1st Amendment rights because they have no obligation to protect them. You have no right to use Twitter or Facebook, so free speech is not the argument to make against Twitter or Facebook. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by MnSpring on 11/06/22 at 12:59:14 Ya-Know. 'I am certain that I could be within the bounds of possibly being totally uncertain of a particular point of view, depending on the manner of the revolving opinion I have about that absolute view, which of course totally depends on the meaning of, ’view’. This is to mean no ‘view’, other that that view, and meaning only that view, at that mentioned view’s time in space' |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/06/22 at 13:45:04 Ya-Know. When you repeatedly take things out of context and edit sentences to mean things they do not, then don't expect much in means of adult conversation. I never said it is not a violation for the FBI to come to me and Suggest I do things they can not do. You had to edit my sentence to make it look that way. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/06/22 at 17:36:02 I didn't intentionally edit it to say anything. I referenced it, |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/06/22 at 17:37:01 I'm tired of it, enjoy |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by Eegore on 11/07/22 at 05:24:18 "I didn't intentionally edit it to say anything. I referenced it," I was referring to MnSprings post, the one I referenced, where he edited my sentence, which is why a section of his quote is in my response, not yours. |
|
Title: Re: Social media question Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/07/22 at 05:31:39 Hmm, maybe that's why I was confused |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |