Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Maybe this'll be a Big Tech censorship megathread... I dunno. But for right now...


Twitter is "fact checking" the President's tweets as if they are a news organization or "publisher" on their platform despite the fact there are dozens of news and media outlets and countless groups and individuals who could independently fact check the President instead of Twitter's so-called platform.
 
Last edited:

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Big Tech, for various reasons, has staked the future of their companies on the Democrats winning back the presidency; and they will do just about anything to achieve that goal. Especially considering the fact that no matter what they do, the consequences should they lose will be the same; so why hold back, if it will gain them nothing in the end?
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Big Tech, for various reasons, has staked the future of their companies on the Democrats winning back the presidency; and they will do just about anything to achieve that goal. Especially considering the fact that no matter what they do, the consequences should they lose will be the same; so why hold back, if it will gain them nothing in the end?

Thing is they positively have to be crushed because so many of them have crossed massive red lines.

Project dragonfly by google is one of those things that crosses the line right into freaking treason.
 

Tzeentchean Perspective

Well-known member
This EO was rolled out because twitter decided to jump in and enforce faux fact checking on Trump.
Over a supposedly false statement surrounding Vote by mail of all topics.
All they had to do was just not say anything...
Instead they took the bait.
But they're certainly just a mere platform guys. :rolleyes:
(Edit): They fact-checked someone from the PRC on the same day. Low-hanging fruit, too little, too late.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
This EO was rolled out because twitter decided to jump in and enforce faux fact checking on Trump.
Over a supposedly false statement surrounding Vote by mail of all topics.
All they had to do was just not say anything...
Instead they took the bait.
But they're certainly just a mere platform guys. :rolleyes:
(Edit): They fact-checked someone from the PRC on the same day. Low-hanging fruit, too little, too late.

Some people are wondering whether or not Trump set a trap and baited Twitter into it. I wouldn't put it past him as he is clearly an intelligent man.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
This EO was rolled out because twitter decided to jump in and enforce faux fact checking on Trump.
Over a supposedly false statement surrounding Vote by mail of all topics.
All they had to do was just not say anything...
Instead they took the bait.
But they're certainly just a mere platform guys. :rolleyes:
(Edit): They fact-checked someone from the PRC on the same day. Low-hanging fruit, too little, too late.
That seems less like a trap and more like idiot getting bored looking at a fire and deciding to try put out the fire by sitting on it.
Maybye they will get away with it, but its also possible that the weird smell is burning pants.

So instead of officially starting to do it with more people and then fact checking Trump over something where he words something wrong and/or unusually...

They go "fact checking" over a widely recognized and hot political controversy that will have lots of GOP activists and politicians take Trump's side, the former probably slinging their own fact checking at Twitter at the moment, while due to the choice of this topic, timing and targets Twitter has made itself very vulnerable to an accusation that this is purely political.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Well with Twitter and YouTube covered, here's another story from about a week ago when PragerU apparently made a post/video about Polar Bears not going extinct due to climate change and Facebooks "Independent" Fact Checkers apparently finding those facts to be very disagreeable.



Thankfully experts in everything are a surplus nowadays and PragerU apparently consulted some before (and now after) Facebook censored them for wrongthink.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Also I'd like to point out... as much as Facebook rightfully gets shat on for its censorship.... Mark Zuckerberg was absolutely right when he was in Congress saying this:

(starts around 1:47)


If you can't bear to listen to her... I made a transcription.



AOC: Do you see a problem here with the complete lack of fact checking on political advertisements?
Zuckerberg: Well Congresswoman I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad. That's different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you lied and-
AOC: *interrupting him again* So you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? It's just a pretty simple yes or no.
Zuckerberg: Congresswoman. In a democracy I think people should see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying so they can-
AOC: *interrupts again* So you won't take them down.
Zuckerberg: -judge their character for themselves.
AOC: So you may flag that it's wrong but you won't take them down?
Zuckerbeg: Congresswoman it depends on the context that it shows up, organic posts, ads, the-
AOC: *interrupts some more*



So this whole statement:

"I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad. That's different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you lied and in a democracy I think people should see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying so they can judge their character for themselves." - Mark Zuckerberg

It seems actually... pretty agreeable to me when it comes to political speech and probably should be the policy of social media PLATFORMS in regards to political speech.

And with what was reported recently, apparently Mark Zuckerberg reiterated those claims in an interview that will air on Fox News later this week.


"You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think, in general, private companies probably shouldn’t be, or especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that." - Mark Zuckerberg

Keep in mind... while Facebook is partially responsible for the mess they're in, a lot of the impetus for them to change is due to politicians and while there's bipartisan pressure in some regards depending on the issue and with things like foreign interference some definitely legitimate concerns, it's still the government and mainly the US Congress that pushes for regulation of Big Tech Platforms to censor speech for *reasons.*



It's always beautiful to see intelligent and ambitious entrepreneurs de-evolve into crony capitalists!
 
Last edited:

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Also I'd like to point out... as much as Facebook rightfully gets shat on for its censorship.... Mark Zuckerberg was absolutely right when he was in Congress saying this:

(starts around 1:47)


If you can't bear to listen to her... I made a transcription.



AOC: Do you see a problem here with the complete lack of fact checking on political advertisements?
Zuckerberg: Well Congresswoman I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad. That's different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you lied and-
AOC: *interrupting him again* So you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? It's just a pretty simple yes or no.
Zuckerberg: Congresswoman. In a democracy I think people should see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying so they can-
AOC: *interrupts again* So you won't take them down.
Zuckerberg: -judge their character for themselves.
AOC: So you may flag that it's wrong but you won't take them down?
Zuckerbeg: Congresswoman it depends on the context that it shows up, organic posts, ads, the-
AOC: *interrupts some more*



So this whole statement:

"I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad. That's different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you lied and in a democracy I think people should see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying so they can judge their character for themselves." - Mark Zuckerberg

It seems actually... pretty agreeable to me when it comes to political speech and probably should be the policy of social media PLATFORMS in regards to political speech.

And with what was reported recently, apparently Mark Zuckerberg reiterated those claims in an interview that will air on Fox News later this week.


"You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think, in general, private companies probably shouldn’t be, or especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that." - Mark Zuckerberg

Keep in mind... while Facebook is partially responsible for the mess they're in, a lot of the impetus for them to change is due to politicians and while there's bipartisan pressure in some regards depending on the issue and with things like foreign interference some definitely legitimate concerns, it's still the government and mainly the US Congress that pushes for regulation of Big Tech Platforms to censor speech for *reasons.*



It's always beautiful to see intelligent and ambitious entrepreneurs de-evolve into crony capitalists!

The best one could assume about Zuckerberg is that he's not in control of the monster he created; personally though, I remember what his attitude towards censorship used to be, and it just looks like he saw the writing on the wall for big tech, and started saying what he could to cover his own ass.
 

Tzeentchean Perspective

Well-known member
He and Jack are Figureheads at this point.
(EDIT): Someone at Human events claiming their article helped inspire the EO. Thoughts?



I also keep hearing that Google will be hit with antitrust probes. Gee, it's almost like this push has been in the works for a while with more steps in the future, and random people on the internet don't have the slightest understanding of the inner workings of government beyond the usual tropes and canards.
 
Last edited:

7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise

The First Weeaboo
Founder
trump-its-happening-gif.256041
 

Cherico

Well-known member
How polite of them to publicly justify their designation as terrorists just in the right moment.

Antifa worked really hard for the last 4 years to justify their designation as a terrorist group, I mean they bent over backwards, they put in the time. Every time there was a protest they were out there ready to attack innocent people. You have any idea how time consuming that is? But after 4 years of hard work they finally got the reconition they truly deserved.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Also I'd like to point out... as much as Facebook rightfully gets shat on for its censorship.... Mark Zuckerberg was absolutely right when he was in Congress saying this:

(starts around 1:47)


If you can't bear to listen to her... I made a transcription.



AOC: Do you see a problem here with the complete lack of fact checking on political advertisements?
Zuckerberg: Well Congresswoman I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad. That's different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you lied and-
AOC: *interrupting him again* So you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? It's just a pretty simple yes or no.
Zuckerberg: Congresswoman. In a democracy I think people should see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying so they can-
AOC: *interrupts again* So you won't take them down.
Zuckerberg: -judge their character for themselves.
AOC: So you may flag that it's wrong but you won't take them down?
Zuckerbeg: Congresswoman it depends on the context that it shows up, organic posts, ads, the-
AOC: *interrupts some more*



So this whole statement:

"I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad. That's different from it being, in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you lied and in a democracy I think people should see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying so they can judge their character for themselves." - Mark Zuckerberg

It seems actually... pretty agreeable to me when it comes to political speech and probably should be the policy of social media PLATFORMS in regards to political speech.

And with what was reported recently, apparently Mark Zuckerberg reiterated those claims in an interview that will air on Fox News later this week.


"You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think, in general, private companies probably shouldn’t be, or especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that." - Mark Zuckerberg

Keep in mind... while Facebook is partially responsible for the mess they're in, a lot of the impetus for them to change is due to politicians and while there's bipartisan pressure in some regards depending on the issue and with things like foreign interference some definitely legitimate concerns, it's still the government and mainly the US Congress that pushes for regulation of Big Tech Platforms to censor speech for *reasons.*



It's always beautiful to see intelligent and ambitious entrepreneurs de-evolve into crony capitalists!


Whether he’s Left or Right, I think it’s safe to say that Mark Zuckerberg was severely tempted to do a facepalm, he’s probably really wondering why a former bartender of all things who went to college but wasn’t at a higher class job before somehow getting into politics

Is talking to him like that and rephrasing him or gaslighting him

Probably also wanted to bang his head on the wall too, perhaps he’s had prior experience with people like her in college
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Antifa worked really hard for the last 4 years to justify their designation as a terrorist group, I mean they bent over backwards, they put in the time. Every time there was a protest they were out there ready to attack innocent people. You have any idea how time consuming that is? But after 4 years of hard work they finally got the reconition they truly deserved.
They worked damn hard to front as gansta. Now we get to see just how gansta they are.(spoiler not gansta at all,just weak ass rich boy) :ROFLMAO:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top