MAGAThread XX: A Journal of the Plague Year

[Necroghastia]

The only "social media" which will ever allow you absolute Freedom of Speech would be so popular with advertising-spammers, DOS-spammers, hate speakers, doxxers, hackers, terrorists and pornographers of every vile sort imaginable.

If that sounds like heaven to you, go find it. But be aware that spending time in a place like that (getting content in your cache) may itself be illegal in your country. And there are cops there.

Social media censorship is like this

"I support Obama" - not banned

"I support Trump" - banned for hate speech or something

Facebook and Twitter would be infinitely more tolerable to look at if this was true. At least put some effort in when you lie, c'mon.

[Diarcesia]

Tip: Do you consider that it would be less "bloggy" if you asked a question, and then asked others what do they think? Many people would think it's cringe, but it won't get locked for being bloggy.

Threads where I have asked questions like that, unfortunately, same thing happened.

I hope I'm setting a counterexample.

[Jedi Council]

The only "social media" which will ever allow you absolute Freedom of Speech would be so popular with advertising-spammers, DOS-spammers, hate speakers, doxxers, hackers, terrorists and pornographers of every vile sort imaginable.

If that sounds like heaven to you, go find it. But be aware that spending time in a place like that (getting content in your cache) may itself be illegal in your country. And there are cops there.

Social media censorship is like this

"I support Obama" - not banned

"I support Trump" - banned for hate speech or something

Really? Because I see a hell of a lot of Trump supports on both Twitter and Facebook.

Maybe those people who were actually banned breached site rules in some way, rather than just being censored for their opinions.

I do understand that conservatives often have a persecution complex, possibly inherited from their cousins in the religious right, but do try to make your claims at least somewhat plausible or defensible.

[Cannot think of a name]

Nor do such crony corporations have a right to be feeding themselves off our tax money, and then censoring our views as it is.

If these were truly private corporations, that would be one thing. But if they are so deeply interlinked and enmeshed into government surveillance funding and structures, that means they have no moral right to suppress the people forced to pay them.

That was a conspiracy-ception. I almost admire it.

[San Lumen]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

If you have evidence kindly share it. All you have done is give anecdotal statements with no concrete evidence of fraud. I am a poll worker and I can tell you the kind of fraud you allege does not happen.

[Albrenia]

The only "social media" which will ever allow you absolute Freedom of Speech would be so popular with advertising-spammers, DOS-spammers, hate speakers, doxxers, hackers, terrorists and pornographers of every vile sort imaginable.

If that sounds like heaven to you, go find it. But be aware that spending time in a place like that (getting content in your cache) may itself be illegal in your country. And there are cops there.

Social media censorship is like this

"I support Obama" - not banned

"I support Trump" - banned for hate speech or something

Despite what the Persecution Complex folks might tell you, it's usually from people expressing opinions that break social media rules that gets people banned. Social Media companies get money from slapping ads on the screens of conservatives as much as liberals, and earn the same money from selling your info as they do selling mine.

If you want true freedom of speech on social media (minus the illegal stuff) get your government to start up its own network with measures to stop it from devolving into a propaganda network.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Uh... is Bolsonaro threatening war on a nation with first and second strike capabilities and the first two biggest air forces on the planet because it elected the "wrong" head of state?

[Nakena]

Uh... is Bolsonaro threatening war on a nation with first and second strike capabilities because it elected the "wrong" head of state?

Trump is still President and in charge of the bureaucracy and hes quickly rotating staff at the Pentagon. Should it come down to it, he would have an important ally and potentially a nation where he could be lead a trumpian government in exile from and as well his followers.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The only "social media" which will ever allow you absolute Freedom of Speech would be so popular with advertising-spammers, DOS-spammers, hate speakers, doxxers, hackers, terrorists and pornographers of every vile sort imaginable.

If that sounds like heaven to you, go find it. But be aware that spending time in a place like that (getting content in your cache) may itself be illegal in your country. And there are cops there.

Social media censorship is like this

"I support Obama" - not banned

"I support Trump" - banned for hate speech or something

Neither of those is true. And did you mean to imply "8 years ago it was acceptable to support the incumbent President, but now it's not?"

There may well be partisan bias in social media NOW. Or it could be anti-government bias to serve the commercial interests of social media.

In favor of the latter, they are in it to make money, and exhibiting bias drives away some customers, so why assume they're opting for more political influence and less money? That the bias they choose might be politically savoury for them, does not rule out the main motivation being to increase future earnings.

See my other post where I describe a plausible motive of social media to be biased against the President whoever the President is.

[Nakena]

As for social media censorship and those who doubt it:

Do you know who this strange man is?:

No? Perhaps you should. Protip: its not Luke Skywalker

Because if you think something he doesn't likes, you'd have to think something different!

And why? Because this man is Jack Dorsey, owner of twitter. He build this place. Over there he makes the rules and there he's a god.

[Myskatonia]

i hope future generations realize social media is just a bunch of old people shaking their fists at people on their digital lawns and let it die out.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

i hope future generations realize social media is just a bunch of old people shaking their fists at people on their digital lawns and let it die out.

It will evolve rather than dying out. Probably a hierarchy of who's worth listening to and who's not, distributing opinion from the few to ...

You know what? I hope you're right. That sounds too much like the Old Media.

[Albrenia]

As for social media censorship and those who doubt it:

Do you know who this strange man is?:

(Image)

No? Perhaps you should. Protip: its not Luke Skywalker

Because if you think something he doesn't likes, you'd have to think something different!

And why? Because this man is Jack Dorsey, owner of twitter. He build this place. Over there he makes the rules and there he's a god.

Excuse me for sounding like a Boomer, but who cares? He owns Twitter, he makes the rules there, if his rules are shit go somewhere else.

Unlike a lot of things in life, Twitter is avoidable. Had a certain President not made it his speech platform, it wouldn't matter at all.

Now if you want to talk about breaking up monopolies and mega corporations in social media, I'm all for that shit, but that's another issue.

[Kexholm Karelia]

As for social media censorship and those who doubt it:

Do you know who this strange man is?:

(Image)

No? Perhaps you should. Protip: its not Luke Skywalker

Because if you think something he doesn't likes, you'd have to think something different!

And why? Because this man is Jack Dorsey, owner of twitter. He build this place. Over there he makes the rules and there he's a god.

Excuse me for sounding like a Boomer, but who cares? He owns Twitter, he makes the rules there, if his rules are shit go somewhere else.

Unlike a lot of things in life, Twitter is avoidable. Had a certain President not made it his speech platform, it wouldn't matter at all.

Now if you want to talk about breaking up monopolies and mega corporations in social media, I'm all for that shit, but that's another issue.

Twitter should then be a publisher, not a platform

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The only "social media" which will ever allow you absolute Freedom of Speech would be so popular with advertising-spammers, DOS-spammers, hate speakers, doxxers, hackers, terrorists and pornographers of every vile sort imaginable.

If that sounds like heaven to you, go find it. But be aware that spending time in a place like that (getting content in your cache) may itself be illegal in your country. And there are cops there.

Social media censorship is like this

"I support Obama" - not banned

"I support Trump" - banned for hate speech or something

Where, in the alternate universe Trump lives in?

[Alvecia]

Excuse me for sounding like a Boomer, but who cares? He owns Twitter, he makes the rules there, if his rules are shit go somewhere else.

Unlike a lot of things in life, Twitter is avoidable. Had a certain President not made it his speech platform, it wouldn't matter at all.

Now if you want to talk about breaking up monopolies and mega corporations in social media, I'm all for that shit, but that's another issue.

Twitter should then be a publisher, not a platform

If I understand the law (and that's a big if), then Twitter being a publisher would make them legally culpable for the content that is "published" on their site. As a platform, they can disavow themselves of any law breaking content and "takes steps" to remove it.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Twitter should then be a publisher, not a platform

If I understand the law (and that's a big if), then Twitter being a publisher would make them legally culpable for the content that is "published" on their site. As a platform, they can disavow themselves of any law breaking content and "takes steps" to remove it.

If Twitter is banning content based solely on political opinion, what they’re doing is curating, which makes then a publisher. If they want to be a platform, they should stop censorship

[Alvecia]

If I understand the law (and that's a big if), then Twitter being a publisher would make them legally culpable for the content that is "published" on their site. As a platform, they can disavow themselves of any law breaking content and "takes steps" to remove it.

If Twitter is banning content based solely on political opinion, what they’re doing is curating, which makes then a publisher. If they want to be a platform, they should stop censorship

To the best of my knowledge, they're banning content based on violation of their ToS, which is apolitical.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Excuse me for sounding like a Boomer, but who cares? He owns Twitter, he makes the rules there, if his rules are shit go somewhere else.

Unlike a lot of things in life, Twitter is avoidable. Had a certain President not made it his speech platform, it wouldn't matter at all.

Now if you want to talk about breaking up monopolies and mega corporations in social media, I'm all for that shit, but that's another issue.

Twitter should then be a publisher, not a platform

You want to destroy their business model, leaving them with nothing but the name to operate a website.

Why do you hate private enterprise so much?

[Zurkerx]

"He plans to wreck Fox. No doubt about it": Trump eyes digital media empire to take on Fox News.

Ohh, can you please take the likes of Hannity, Tucker, Ingram, and others as well and then watch as so-called "Trump TV" fails like his steaks and vodka? Unfortunately, he does have access to a large userbase (the Campaign does have peoples' emails and phone numbers) so it won't drop as fast.

But you all are wondering: he's just doing this for the money? It's more than that. He's pissed that Fox called Arizona for Biden (the right call), as well as the network interviewing more Democrats than it used to apparently. Yeah, he's salty.

[Alvecia]

"He plans to wreck Fox. No doubt about it": Trump eyes digital media empire to take on Fox News.

Ohh, can you please take the likes of Hannity, Tucker, Ingram, and others as well and then watch as so-called "Trump TV" fails like his steaks and vodka? Unfortunately, he does have access to a large userbase (the Campaign does have peoples' emails and phone numbers) so it won't drop as fast.

But you all are wondering: he's just doing this for the money? It's more than that. He's pissed that Fox called Arizona for Biden (the right call), as well as the network interviewing more Democrats than it used to apparently. Yeah, he's salty.

Turns out when time bombs explode, they're pretty indiscriminate about who and/or what they damage.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Twitter should then be a publisher, not a platform

You want to destroy their business model, leaving them with nothing but the name to operate a website.

Why do you hate private enterprise so much?

Because they practice censorship, corporate censorship is no better than government censorship

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If Twitter is banning content based solely on political opinion, what they’re doing is curating, which makes then a publisher. If they want to be a platform, they should stop censorship

To the best of my knowledge, they're banning content based on violation of their ToS, which is apolitical.

Where it gets political is that they make judgements about whether content is factual or not.

If it's promoting Biden but has obvious porkies about Trump ... X
It it's promoting Trump but has obvious porkies about Biden ... X

Guess which one happens more often?

[Alvecia]

You want to destroy their business model, leaving them with nothing but the name to operate a website.

Why do you hate private enterprise so much?

Because they practice censorship, corporate censorship is no better than government censorship

Basically all companies practice some sort of censorship. There are very few where you can say anything to anyone and it won't get you fired

[Alvecia]

To the best of my knowledge, they're banning content based on violation of their ToS, which is apolitical.

Where it gets political is that they make judgements about whether content is factual or not.

If it's promoting Biden but has obvious porkies about Trump ... X
It it's promoting Trump but has obvious porkies about Biden ... X

Guess which one happens more often?

Oh is that the stuff I saw recently about some tweets having warnings in front of them?