Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Methais]

What's the point of blindly posting opinion pieces without a summarization or at least why you find it relevant? You're blatantly trolling people to watch your dumb fucking propaganda just to see what someone's blathering about.

Talk about having no self awareness, holy shit lolololololololololololololol.

[Shaps]

Good, short example of how it's done - to stifle peoples ability to communicate, and direct a narrative with only one perspective.

[Bhaalizmo]

Good, short example of how it's done - to stifle peoples ability to communicate, and direct a narrative with only one perspective.

When a platform determines that your communications regularly contain misinformation, it's their choice whether to permit it or prevent it. It's not a public forum. It's a private platform used by the public, and the platform owners can direct the moderation of it as they see fit.

Most people on the truth versus fiction side of this argument simply would call this moderation rather than trying to put a buzz word like "Shadow Banning" on it. We used to have it on this forum many moons ago, and if I said Shaps is a big ol Tyler Perry lookin mofo from Louisiana, a moderator might choose to delete what I said in the name of correctness.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want. But not necessarily in someone else's platform, because they can make their own rules there. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

[~Rocktar~]

When a platform determines that your communications regularly contain misinformation, it's their choice whether to permit it or prevent it. It's not a public forum. It's a private platform used by the public, and the platform owners can direct the moderation of it as they see fit.

Most people on the truth versus fiction side of this argument simply would call this moderation rather than trying to put a buzz word like "Shadow Banning" on it. We used to have it on this forum many moons ago, and if I said Shaps is a big ol Tyler Perry lookin mofo from Louisiana, a moderator might choose to delete what I said in the name of correctness.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want. But not necessarily in someone else's platform, because they can make their own rules there. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

When a platform gets federal protection from lawsuits as a "medium" since it is not supposed to limit or control the content of what is transmitted over it's network then it should not be limiting or controlling, i.e. editing or otherwise manipulating the content. This is the crux of the matter. If they want full control as an editor aka "Publisher" of content then they should be libel for that content and therefore lose Section 230 protections. Remove the protection and then I might agree with you on letting them do what they want.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want. But not necessarily in someone else's platform, because they can make their own rules there. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Highlighting this when you next whine that some elected official gets recalled or someone gets fired for being a Leftist douch and so on.

This of course ignores the whole "Who decides what is true" argument. After all, Russia collusion was true until it wasn't, Covid was natural until it wasn't, Hunter's laptop was fake until it wasn't and so on.

[Methais]

When a platform determines that your communications regularly contain misinformation, it's their choice whether to permit it or prevent it. It's not a public forum. It's a private platform used by the public, and the platform owners can direct the moderation of it as they see fit.

Most people on the truth versus fiction side of this argument simply would call this moderation rather than trying to put a buzz word like "Shadow Banning" on it. We used to have it on this forum many moons ago, and if I said Shaps is a big ol Tyler Perry lookin mofo from Louisiana, a moderator might choose to delete what I said in the name of correctness.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want. But not necessarily in someone else's platform, because they can make their own rules there. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Remember when Twitter censored the New York Post for "misinformation" over them breaking the Hunter Biden laptop story, and it turns out Twitter was full of shit and running cover for Biden, and the NY Post turned out to be correct the entire time, just like everyone who isn't a retard like you already knew the whole time?

Do you remember that?

[Bhaalizmo]

When a platform gets federal protection from lawsuits as a "medium" since it is not supposed to limit or control the content of what is transmitted over it's network then it should not be limiting or controlling, i.e. editing or otherwise manipulating the content. This is the crux of the matter. If they want full control as an editor aka "Publisher" of content then they should be libel for that content and therefore lose Section 230 protections. Remove the protection and then I might agree with you on letting them do what they want.

Highlighting this when you next whine that some elected official gets recalled or someone gets fired for being a Leftist douch and so on.

By all means, provide an example of me doing what you just said I did. Let's debate it. I don't believe I've ever done that here, so I challenge you to find an example.

This of course ignores the whole "Who decides what is true" argument. After all, Russia collusion was true until it wasn't, Covid was natural until it wasn't, Hunter's laptop was fake until it wasn't and so on.

It's not really up for debate, what is true and what is not with regards to CDC and WHO data. If we as humans who live in a world where dangerous diseases exist, want to combine our efforts to document and publish data on diseases through organizations like the CDC and WHO, then it stands to reason that people who publish "information" counter to what the CDC & WHO are publishing need to be censored. I don't really see the problem, unless you just don't accept the CDC or WHO as organizations publishing information that is the result of the scientific process, based in facts and evidence.

Your other topics suggested at the end there are pretty off topic, and not really relevant to the above, so I'm disregarding so as to stay on topic.

[Gelston]

so I'm disregarding so as to stay on topic.

The topic is "Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)"....

[Bhaalizmo]

The topic is "Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)"....

Thanks for not contributing anything at all to the conversation as usual.

You see an active debate going on, and all you've got to say is the name of the thread.

Good job.

[Gelston]

Thanks for not contributing anything at all to the conversation as usual.

You see an active debate going on, and all you've got to say is the name of the thread.

Good job.

ok karen

[joeyb]

The topic is "Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)"....

lol