Free Speech and (Big Tech) Censorship Thread

[TheRejectionist]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vivian-bercovici-black-cube-1.6034555

CBC of all MSM posted this.

I mean she really did fuck up so bad even those cunts couldn't possibly defend her @Jormungandr

 

[Jormungandr]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vivian-bercovici-black-cube-1.6034555

CBC of all MSM posted this.

I mean she really did fuck up so bad even those cunts couldn't possibly defend her @Jormungandr

I know. It was hilarious to see her sputter on camera, have that simp try to defend her, then panic-quit the call... and now her Twitter has been deactivated.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yeah, I’ve heard this trotted out quite a lot but haven’t seen any evidence to justify the point. The more conservative leaning twitter personalities are still finding content and growing their follower base.

Is this another case of “this person hasn’t given me a hundred percent of what I wanted, therefore he is my enemy?”

I've seen one or two people say they are being shadowbanned. But then I still see the tweets, so I dunno about it. But note that even that is leagues better than before.

Twitter would ban you from posting stuff. Now X allegedly limits the reach of stuff, but you are still better than before. Also, note that there is certainly legacy code that does this that hasn't been found yet, simply because twitter/X is a big ass code base.

On top of that, Musk owning the company gives us a single person to pressure, which is useful, because he listens (sometimes).

X > Twitter.

I will tag you @Abhorsen because I have seen you commenting and sharing subjects about police and justice in the US.

The only take I can give is my hunch is that Leo Frank's wikipedia page looks or feels HEAVILY doctored.

Eh, I'll press X to doubt Leo Frank's guilt. A lot of people have binary worldviews, where "Thing is bad, therefore everything it's ever done is bad and it was wrong on everything." Leo Frank was likely guilty, then did what a number of people have done: turned fake eye witness testimony against another for a lighter sentence.

It's also an irrelevant conversation in the modern day, IMO. Who cares what it was founded on? What matters is what it does today. And today, it advocates against the first amendment in practice. And that's an issue that most Americans can get behind. Arguing about an old obscure case won't help, nor will someone else arguing about Jews controlling the world. Just stick to the message of this group being an anti-free speech group, and that's the extent of the issue with them.

The key way to win in the public eye would be to say that "Hey, if you stopped advocating for speech controls, we'd be fine with the ADL." The focus on an action, not a group further isolates the group (as the ADL is unable to agree to this), by making the request so reasonable.

 

[DarthOne]

This is not a comment of mine but I thought it was interesting :

lijahherstal776


From another one :

loganryoung2384



I will tag you @Abhorsen because I have seen you commenting and sharing subjects about police and justice in the US.

The only take I can give is my hunch is that Leo Frank's wikipedia page looks or feels HEAVILY doctored.

Fun fact, you know its bad when they couldn't get a Black man arrested in GEORGIA.

In 1915.

When racism central is calling out your nonsense, things have gone horribly wrong.

 

[ShieldWife]

For a while I wasn’t sure how serious Elon Musk was about fighting for freedom of speech, but I think the fact that he’s even talking about opposing the ADL shows that means business. The fact that he is being investigated on BS charges is also a good sign in his favor.

Obviously he’s not perfect, but he is an ally and a powerful ally at that - something that we dissidents don’t have many of.

 

[Cherico]

If people believe a black man over you in 1913 your ass is guilty as sin

 

[Bacle]

Musk is taking on the ADL because they are they are the one's who are pressuring companies to drop adverts with X, if X doesn't do what the ADL-via-advertiser wants regarding content.

Musk says he has the receipts of this pressure as well, which is why he is suing the ADL over it.

I'm not sure how much the WEF lady factors in to all this, but maybe it was the pressure to appoint her that tripped the flags in Musk's mind that led to the discovery of the ADL communications with advertisers.

The ADL's lack of reach into the Asian space was part of the tip-off to Musk when it came to which advertisers were vulnerable to pressure from it or not.

However, this ADL-Twitter advertiser link existed pre-Musk purchasing the site, and seems to be rather deeply embedded, necessitating the suite.

 

[Abhorsen]

Fun fact, you know its bad when they couldn't get a Black man arrested in GEORGIA.

In 1915.

When racism central is calling out your nonsense, things have gone horribly wrong.

Sure, but then there's the chance to get a Jew. Look, is it odd? Sure. But odd things happen all the time (For just one example, the other murder suspect Conley's lawyer had recently gotten a black man acquitted of raping a white woman). I think that Leo Frank probably didn't do it, on the balance.

But again, caring about this case is not how you win. The way you win is with a laser focused attack on actions the ADL are taking now, and how they restrict speech.

 

[ShieldWife]

I don’t know if Leo Frank was guilty or not. Even if he was unquestionably guilty, lynch mobs are still bad and dangerous.

In any event, I don’t really care if he was guilty or if the ADL used to be good or justified. It’s been bad for a while now and I’m concerned with the ADL of 2023 not 1923.

 

[Jormungandr]

The ADL are nothing but extortionists and thugs, and they really should drop the A from their name/acronym. The sooner they crash and burn, the better.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If Musk can pull this off, he strikes a blow every bit as devastating as his purchase of twitter: he’d have humiliated one of the most powerful progressive pressure groups, which would somewhat break the spell for a lot of advertisers.

Edit: I’m serious. He is one of the most effective culture warriors out there.

 

[ShieldWife]

Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely he’ll pull this off. His lawsuit will likely be thrown out and the powers that be will step up their attacks against him. Though it might still be good for the world be raising awareness.

 

[S'task]

Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely he’ll pull this off. His lawsuit will likely be thrown out and the powers that be will step up their attacks against him. Though it might still be good for the world be raising awareness.

Why do you say this? While defamation is notoriously difficult to prove if he has the receipts it should give him a solid chance against them.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Why do you say this? While defamation is notoriously difficult to prove if he has the receipts it should give him a solid chance against them.

Its very hard to prove. A smarter strategy will be to go for tortious interference.

 

[Abhorsen]

Why do you say this? While defamation is notoriously difficult to prove if he has the receipts it should give him a solid chance against them.

More, he has one of the key elements: actual damages. The big issue will be the opinion part. A lot of stuff is opinion. "Rittenhouse is a murderer"? Opinion. "X has racist stuff"? Opinion. And I could go on.

He does have a chance through through tortious interference:

https://www.kktplaw.com/business-corporate-law/what-is-tortious-interference-with-a-business-relationship/

This is what I think he is going for. I don't know how this works with protected speech though, tbh.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The ADL have acted like a bloody mafia shaking down businesses for protection money. Damn their “protected speech.”

 

[Abhorsen]

The ADL have acted like a bloody mafia shaking down businesses for protection money. Damn their “protected speech.”

No. Because damning their protected speech is how you lose your protected speech. There's a very good reason that the ACLU stood for the KKK's speech rights when it was worth something, and we now know they are worth nothing because they don't stand for the rights of people they disagree with.

Seriously, that's a win for the ADL, if they lose but have compromised speech rights for everyone in the process.

 

[Skallagrim]

No. Because damning their protected speech is how you lose your protected speech. There's a very good reason that the ACLU stood for the KKK's speech rights when it was worth something, and we now know they are worth nothing because they don't stand for the rights of people they disagree with.

I disagree, @Lord Sovereign has arrived at the correct conclusion-- and your own argument (esp. "they are worth nothing because they don't stand for the rights of people they disagree with") hints towards that same conclusion.

Why? Because the ADL (which is much worse than the ACLU, as far as I'm aware) doesn't just fail to stand for the rights of certain others; they outright attempt to destroy those rights.

And, as you almost certainly know, in a consistent moral framework, one cannot claim rights that one denies to others. It's a performative contradiction (and, if applied in practice, it is evidently what one might call "the initiation of force").

As such, in your kindness, you have been too charitable to the ADL. Crushing their acts of violation isn't subsequently also a violation of their rights, because they have forfeited those rights by violating the rights of others. To compare: shooting someone who shoots at you isn't aggression, either. And that is why silencing someone who is trying to silence others (by force) also isn't aggression.

Destroying the ADL is an act in the defence of free speech.

 

[Cherico]

I disagree, @Lord Sovereign has arrived at the correct conclusion-- and your own argument (esp. "they are worth nothing because they don't stand for the rights of people they disagree with") hints towards that same conclusion.

Why? Because the ADL (which is much worse than the ACLU, as far as I'm aware) doesn't just fail to stand for the rights of certain others; they outright attempt to destroy those rights.

And, as you almost certainly know, in a consistent moral framework, one cannot claim rights that one denies to others. It's a performative contradiction (and, if applied in practice, it is evidently what one might call "the initiation of force").

As such, in your kindness, you have been too charitable to the ADL. Crushing their acts of violation isn't subsequently also a violation of their rights, because they have forfeited those rights by violating the rights of others. To compare: shooting someone who shoots at you isn't aggression, either. And that is why silencing someone who is trying to silence others (by force) also isn't aggression.

Destroying the ADL is an act in the defence of free speech.

As a jew...

yeah I have no choice but to second this, what the ADL is doing is called extortion, and that is not cool. Going to have to roundly condem them for such fuckery.

 

[Skallagrim]

As a jew...

yeah I have no choice but to second this, what the ADL is doing is called extortion, and that is not cool. Going to have to roundly condem them for such fuckery.

In practice, the ADL is one of the most anti-Jewish organisations you can find in America. In the same way that BLM is one of the most anti-black organisations. They are ludicrously harmful to the people whose supposed interests they pretend to serve.