Free Speech

[baldgye]

It looks like people just like to get angry and social media isn't helping.

https://arcdigital.media/outrage-is...epest-core-value-it-shouldn-t-be-db777f41d208

The Network really was, ahead of its time...

 

[Famine]

Are you a member of, or interested in, the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)? I think I am.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html

Aside from the fact that the article contains, literally once, the phrase "free speech", what on Earth compelled you to put it in here as a resurrection of a thread dormant for 13 months and not relevant to the topic instead of creating a new one for it?

 

[Dotini]

Aside from the fact that the article contains, literally once, the phrase "free speech", what on Earth compelled you to put it in here as a resurrection of a thread dormant for 13 months and not relevant to the topic instead of creating a new one for it?

Did you find it interesting and worthwhile? I considered putting it in the political correctness thread. Do you think the questions raised in the article actually merits a new thread?

edit: It also might have fitted in the Postmodernism thread.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would love to know how big this #walkaway thing actually is. Those vids are all over my youtube. But, I have watched a few. And I do subscribe so some of those conservative dark youtubers.

I'm not sure how one determines how popular a movement is on social media, YT etc. Given their political bent I don't think you'll get the information from YT. I find it fascinating that it would become a movement at all assuming it's a real thing. It doesn't take much of a swing to change the face of American politics. The Republicans control many of the political offices in the land that matters other than a smattering of coastal states and a handful of cities. A small shift to the right or even the centre among Democrats could spell doom for their party, if it isn't doomed already. Also fascinating that this movement seems to be fueled by largly conservative or centrist speakers and speech makers on YT and other social media, whose focus is on such exciting topics as U.S. history, free speech, equality of opportunity, the Constitution etc.

 

[baldgye]

lso fascinating that this movement seems to be fueled by largly conservative or centrist speakers and speech makers on YT and other social media, whose focus is on such exciting topics as U.S. history, free speech, equality of opportunity, the Constitution etc.

What's fascinating about that? They are just perpetuating a narrative (regardless of how true or accurate it is) that benefits their cause...

 

[Johnnypenso]

What's fascinating about that? They are just perpetuating a narrative (regardless of how true or accurate it is) that benefits their cause...

It's fascinating to me that any movement on social media that is formulated essentially on intellectual discourse and discussion on the most boring of topics, could gain traction in a medium that is mainly focused on titillation and exhibitionism.

 

[baldgye]

It's fascinating to me that any movement on social media that is formulated essentially on intellectual discourse and discussion on the most boring of topics, could gain traction in a medium that is mainly focused on titillation and exhibitionism.

But, that isn't really what is happening here?
It seems like, a person 'switched sides' for want of a better term, it gained traction and then was pushed by spam bots and Trump supporters. There seems to be very little evidence that it's even a real thing.

How does that, become a;

movement on social media that is formulated essentially on intellectual discourse and discussion on the most boring of topics

Though, thinking about it, I think that sentence is so vague you could probably apply it to viral Love Island memes

 

[Johnnypenso]

But, that isn't really what is happening here?
It seems like, a person 'switched sides' for want of a better term, it gained traction and then was pushed by spam bots and Trump supporters. There seems to be very little evidence that it's even a real thing.

I'm not talking about the walkaway movement. I'm speaking more generally, about the walkaway movement, the conservative movement, the Intellectual Dark Web I just learned about, all of it. The content is essentially boring and dry, there's little that's titillating and exciting about it. And yet hundreds of thousands or millions of people are clicking that mouse button or pressing the screen. Dennis Prager the conservative talk radio host put out a 5 minute video last week on the life of Ulysses S. Grant and it garnered 1.3 million views in a little over a week. Ulysses S. Grant. He put out a video on Walt Disney two months ago that has the same number of views. I find that utterly fascinating.

 

[baldgye]

I'm not talking about the walkaway movement. I'm speaking more generally, about the walkaway movement, the conservative movement, the Intellectual Dark Web I just learned about, all of it. The content is essentially boring and dry, there's little that's titillating and exciting about it.

That's quite a bit, it seems like the walkaway movement, isn't actually a movement at all but pro-Trump propaganda. The conservative movement? And then the self titled Intellectual Dark Web, that isn't on the dark web at all.
Dennis Prager is (apparently) a nation talk radio show host, it therefore seems unsurprising that he can garner over a million views on topics that I imagine (given the that you pointed out he was a conservative) have a political agenda.

What's so interesting? Sorry if I'm banging on a bit, I'm just confused as it seems like there isn't anything to any of these things, other than it all appears to come largely from the right.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's quite a bit, it seems like the walkaway movement, isn't actually a movement at all but pro-Trump propaganda. The conservative movement? And then the self titled Intellectual Dark Web, that isn't on the dark web at all.
Dennis Prager is (apparently) a nation talk radio show host, it therefore seems unsurprising that he can garner over a million views on topics that I imagine (given the that you pointed out he was a conservative) have a political agenda.

What's so interesting? Sorry if I'm banging on a bit, I'm just confused as it seems like there isn't anything to any of these things, other than it all appears to come largely from the right.

As has happened many times, I've already explained it and I'm not interested in continuing to repeat the same things over and over with different words. It's boring.

 

[baldgye]

As has happened many times, I've already explained it and I'm not interested in continuing to repeat the same things over and over with different words. It's boring.

I thought boring things fascinated you?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I thought boring things fascinated you?

And this is why I don't repeat myself over and over with the different words because you didn't read them the first few times and I hold no hope the next time will be any more successful.

 

[baldgye]

And this is why I don't repeat myself over and over with the different words because you didn't read them the first few times and I hold no hope the next time will be any more successful.

To be fair, that was a joke.

But I do read everything you type, even if I only quote a section.
The reason I asked you to clarify was because it seems the only reason you find these subjects/topics interesting, is because of your right leaning political views (which is fine).
I didn't/don't want someone to come across these things, see someone say how interesting they are and have that, give them merit or credibility (outside of it just being more right-wing silliness).

Hope that helps

 

[Johnnypenso]

To be fair, that was a joke.

But I do read everything you type, even if I only quote a section.
The reason I asked you to clarify was because it seems the only reason you find these subjects/topics interesting, is because of your right leaning political views (which is fine).
I didn't/don't want someone to come across these things, see someone say how interesting they are and have that, give them merit or credibility (outside of it just being more right-wing silliness).

Hope that helps

Someone has to look after the weakminded and gullible I suppose. Keep up the good work:tup:

 

[UKMikey]

My new pal Mark Pukita is lobbying government to force social media to unblock him and his pals.

Ironically I'm not sure whether this was a free speech issue until he involved the government.

 

[Swagger897]

My new pal Mark Pukita is lobbying government to force social media to unblock him and his pals.

Ironically I'm not sure whether this was a free speech issue until he involved the government.

He’s not wrong though.

 

[Northstar]

He’s not wrong though.

Actually he is as the government has no say in what private companies choose to censor or promote.

Plus he apparently doesn’t know the meaning of “monopoly”.

 

[Joey D]

Imagine complaining that social media is treating you "unfairly". That's some serious basic white girl "influencer" who got a temp ban from Instagram level stuff.

 

[Swagger897]

He’s not wrong though.

“In the sense that these companies are indeed censoring and promoting certain targeted individuals.”

Christ, does everything need to be spelled out...

 

[TexRex]

“In the sense that these companies are indeed censoring and promoting certain targeted individuals.”

Christ, does everything need to be spelled out...

Apparently.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From the very first word, the First Amendment is clear in that it's about what's [not] permissible of government and not of private entities...you know...like businesses.

 

[Swagger897]

That's not what the point of their argument is however. There is a very clear understanding that there are individuals/groups/organizations that are being targeted and silenced on these platforms of which are not violating TOS. IE: YouTube censoring select channels/content creators and hiding their content/making it nearly impossible to find. Facebook is not alone on this front either. And it's one thing that these companies are doing such things, it's another when their heads of leadership actively state that they are not when there is verifiable evidence.

 

[Joey D]

That's not what the point of their argument is however. There is a very clear understanding that there are individuals/groups/organizations that are being targeted and silenced on these platforms of which are not violating TOS. IE: YouTube censoring select channels/content creators and hiding their content/making it nearly impossible to find. Facebook is not alone on this front either. And it's one thing that these companies are doing such things, it's another when their heads of leadership actively state that they are not when there is verifiable evidence.

It might not be the point of his argument, but his argument is based on a misconception of the First Amendment. The First Amendment only protects you from the government trying to censor you. It's perfectly legal for a private (or public company for that matter) to censor its customers/users. It might not be ethical or good business practice, but an entity like Facebook isn't breaking any laws by saying who can/cannot use their site. Even if Zuckerberg came out and said, "no one named Tim is allowed to use Facebook" it's all perfectly legal.

I agree certain organizations and individuals are being targeted, but seriously, how lame do you have to be to bitch about being censored on social media? Just find a new platform, or if you're really passionate about it, create your own. Hell, anyone can create their own website where they can deliver their message as they see fit.

 

[UKMikey]

Notice how Pukita complains about his loss of followers even as he accuses anyone who criticises him who doesn't have hundreds of followers themselves of being a "#demtrollbot". His priorities are clear. It's as if he were blowing his own Trump pet.

 

[TexRex]

There is a very clear understanding that there are individuals/groups/organizations that are being targeted and silenced on these platforms of which are not violating TOS. IE: YouTube censoring select channels/content creators and hiding their content/making it nearly impossible to find. Facebook is not alone on this front either. And it's one thing that these companies are doing such things, it's another when their heads of leadership actively state that they are not when there is verifiable evidence.

"Things to consider when deciding whether or not to utilize services that a private entity provides."

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is a very clear understanding that there are individuals/groups/organizations that are being targeted and silenced on these platforms of which are not violating TOS. IE: YouTube censoring select channels/content creators and hiding their content/making it nearly impossible to find. Facebook is not alone on this front either. And it's one thing that these companies are doing such things, it's another when their heads of leadership actively state that they are not when there is verifiable evidence.

So what, why do Facebook have to be honest? And if you think they're not honest then don't trust them with personal things, or make a balanced judgement about how much you trust them with. We go round and round this. For example, if you post something here that @Jordan, @Famine or the mods don't want published on the site in the name of GTPlanet then they remove or edit it. That's their right - and there is zero responsibility on their part to be transparent about it or to give any notice.

 

[Imari]

That's not what the point of their argument is however. There is a very clear understanding that there are individuals/groups/organizations that are being targeted and silenced on these platforms of which are not violating TOS. IE: YouTube censoring select channels/content creators and hiding their content/making it nearly impossible to find. Facebook is not alone on this front either. And it's one thing that these companies are doing such things, it's another when their heads of leadership actively state that they are not when there is verifiable evidence.

These companies can do whatever they like. The TOS is a courtesy to let you know what to expect. There is nothing stopping them from randomly banning you and deleting your content tomorrow, with no explanation or warning at all. That's distressing if you're one of the people who essentially make their livelihood from operating on such platforms, but it's as it should be.

 

[Swagger897]

For example, if you post something here that @Jordan, @Famine or the mods don't want published on the site in the name of GTPlanet then they remove or edit it.

The specific issue mentioned by those affected however is that they are not being fairly treated compared to others who share differing opinions of the same subject. It's obvious to see that if they were doing something against some sort of policy, that they should deserve some sort of reprimands for it, but what is happening is they are being silenced through hidden coding, known by that of their leadership, and leadership openly admitting they know nothing of. It's shady work.

These companies can do whatever they like. The TOS is a courtesy to let you know what to expect. There is nothing stopping them from randomly banning you and deleting your content tomorrow, with no explanation or warning at all. That's distressing if you're one of the people who essentially make their livelihood from operating on such platforms, but it's as it should be.

Completely agree. After working with some eastern European and Russian business myself, I've seen what could happen to individuals/groups. I don't think anyone should be immune but fairness should be considered when there are multiple parties within the same discussion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The specific issue mentioned by those affected however is that they are not being fairly treated compared to others who share differing opinions of the same subject.

Oh, that's tragic. Why do Facebook have to treat anybody according to that person's idea of "fair"? Or anybody's idea of "fair"? Do I have to? Do you have to?

 

[Swagger897]

Oh, that's tragic. Why do Facebook have to treat anybody according to that person's idea of "fair"? Or anybody's idea of "fair"? Do I have to? Do you have to?

I mean, if double standards are you're thing, then I would say you're welcome to endorse them?

 

[TexRex]

It's heartbreaking to observe in real time someone discovering how the world actually is, not just in distant lands only seen through a magical box but even at home. It's like the fire scene in Bambi.