|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 14, 2021 12:00:20 GMT 10
How does everyone feel about the current FB and Twitter rules? And more to the point, their actions against the alternative parler platform?
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you are only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Jan 14, 2021 12:49:50 GMT 10
There's "free speech" and then there is damaging, dangerous crap spewed forth.
I'm in favour of a social media platform ruling that the vile ratbags be no longer heard.
There are moves here in Australia to get on top of posts wishing people dead for example. A $100,000 fine will apply to social media sites failing to take down such posts. Not before time IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 14, 2021 14:19:47 GMT 10
Hate speech is not free speech and only the RW would think it is right to preach hate with the backing of their American god.
As one eg; it wasn't so long ago in the USA that a 14 year old black American boy was beaten to death by 2 angry white males on the claim a white woman said he whistled at her...it went to court and they were acquitted, though some months later they did say they bashed the youth to death...they were not charged. This is the America Trump would want to return to, the RW get away with murder and if anything or anyone deemed LW is stomped upon....its called fascism.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 14, 2021 22:20:52 GMT 10
Then I guess the question is,
Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community?
It's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. That is pernicious nonsense. If you are saying specifically, that we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." Then you fail to see the leftists hypocrisy in this debate, as they are doing just that. YOU BOTH ARE CURRENTLY DOING JUST THAT!
Ponto, how often has my nationality, religion or political views come up as a central point in your arguments with me? Every time you respond to me there is at least one unprovoked reference to it. No doubt if you knew what my race was you'd reference that too. You defended KTJ when 80% of his posts are patently hate speech.
People are being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. Anyone who questions the almighty narrative, is branded a 'conspiracy theorist', and is subsequently dismissed from the exchange of Ideas.
Does that not too, go against the Liberal idea of inclusiveness?
I better shut up now... I wouldn't want the liberal thought police to show up and silence me!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 14, 2021 23:29:49 GMT 10
Occam we have this flakey dude Down Under named Craig Kelly. He’s on FB and uses it to peddle his climate change denialism, his anti vaccine prejudices (he prefers the very discredited hydroxychloroquine as the magic cure for COVID-19) and every alt right cause you can think of. So what you might ask. A crackpot has the right to peddle his crackpottery and superficially I can’t argue with that. But what makes Craig Kelly stand out is that he’s an elected member of the Australian parliament representing a constituency in south eastern Sydney for the Liberal Party which is the mainstream conservative party and which also happens to be the party in government. Even then you might argue that the guy is entitled to promulgate his anti-science redneck opinions in the great “marketplace of ideas” with its “level playing field” and if his constituents find that his extremist views are unrepresentative of them, why then the democratic process should sort him out and he gets given the flick by the voters at the next elections. And that might happen! He represents a conservative district but he is anything but “conservative”. Not in the classic country club sense of “conservative” which, while it opposes the Labor Party because of its links to the trade unions and likes the idea of small government and a free market economy, nevertheless is not comfortable with right wing extremism with its racism and its science denialism. So there are moves afoot within Craig Kelly’s constituency to unseat him with a local moderate independent. But back to Craig Kelly’s FB page. Kelly posted views about the Washington 1/6 riots and invasion of the Capitol in which he said that it was all a left wing stunt. Since Kelly is a member of the party in government, naturally the media asked the prime minister if Mr Kelly spoke for the Australian Government when he expressed those views. Scott Morrison ducked for cover and Kelly bleated “Censorship! Help I’m being oppressed by left wing political correctness!” And even then I might still shrug my shoulders and write him off as a crackpot if that was all there was to it. But that’s not all there is to it, as the following Guardian article shows. Craig Kelly is very quick to impose a rigorous censorship of his own ... Craig Kelly decries censorship but blocks dissenting voices from his Facebook page, constituents sayLiberal MP may face challenge as angry residents from his electorate mobilise to run independent candidateResidents in Craig Kelly’s electorate of Hughes say the Liberal MP routinely blocks people who do not agree with his Facebook posts, including ‘a professor of bushfire dynamics who disputed [his] posts about bushfires’Anne Davies Thu 14 Jan 2021 www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/14/craig-kelly-decries-censorship-but-blocks-dissenting-voices-from-his-facebook-page-constituents-sayResidents in Craig Kelly’s Sydney electorate of Hughes have reacted angrily to their MP accusing Facebook of censorship, saying he regularly blocks constituents from his page when they disagree with his climate change denialism and advocacy of unproven treatments for Covid-19. A group called We are Hughes has formed to run an independent against Kelly at the next federal election, saying his views, particularly on climate change, do not represent those of his constituents. One organiser of the group, Linda Seymour, said she was blocked after she questioned whether he really believed some of the views he was posting. A poll by another anti-Kelly page, Kick Kelly Out, recently received responses from 23 Hughes constituents when it asked if anyone had been blocked from Kelly’s site. “It was OK while I took part in the argy bargy,” Seymour said. But I was blocked in a heartbeat after I tried to question whether he really believed the things he was posting or was simply trying to create a controversy.” Another former constituent, Josh McConnell, said he was blocked a few years ago for “barely daring” to contradict Kelly’s opinions on climate change. “I have a double degree in microbiology and biotechnology, and honours in biotechnology. I feel I have a bit of a basis for finding the insanity in the open source journal articles that he often quotes,” he said. Kelly regularly posts studies that he claims reinforce his view that global warming is not happening and is not manmade, and more recently has championed the use of the drugs hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19. NSW Health has said there is insufficient data to support ivermectin’s use to prevent or treat Covid, with the evidence “mixed”. In December, it warned “the necessary concentrations for in vivo effect are unlikely to be attainable in humans”. On Wednesday the chief health officer, Paul Kelly (no relation), said there was “no evidence at the moment that it has any benefit or use in the prevention or treatment of Covid-19”. The largest trial of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 found in June that it did not work. “This is an incredibly important result, because worldwide we can stop using a drug that is useless,” said the leader of the study, Martin Landray, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Oxford University. Craig Kelly, who was a furniture salesman before entering parliament, has no medical qualifications. Kelly revealed on Sunday he had “received a call from a representative of Facebook ‘requesting’ that I remove a post that contained comments … made by Australia’s Prof Tom Borody commenting about Ivermectin as a treatment [for] Covid – otherwise my Facebook would have ‘restrictions’ placed upon it”. He said he had removed the post under protest. “We have entered a very dark time in human history when scientific debate and freedom of speech is being suppressed,” Kelly said. But Seymour said Kelly regularly blocked constituents who disagreed with him. She said typically people had not used intemperate language, but had disputed his posts. “He’s blocked doctors and professors,” she said. “He blocked a professor of bushfire dynamics who disputed posts about bushfires on his site.” When Nicola Maher, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Colorado, objected to Kelly’s use of her paper as “evidence” that the world was cooling, he responded with ridicule. Her paper, which is about the impact of temperature variability on climate models, did not support his claim that the world was cooling, she said in a reply to his post. “We find that while we are much more likely to observe warming, each individual location on the globe could experience cooling over the next 15 years because of internal variability. This does not mean that global warming is not happening, it just means that what we observe over short timescales is not just global warming, but global warming combined with internal variability.” she wrote. Kelly replied: “Talk about a bet each way. You write, it may warm, but it may cool – and what will happen depends on natural variability. The average punter is laughing at such conclusions.” Maher told the Guardian Kelly had refused to apologise and that in her view Kelly had “wilfully misrepresented science for his own personal agenda”. “In my interaction with him, he refused to acknowledge my expertise, even though he was quoting my own words, and tried to spin everything I said back against me.” She has since spoken at an online gathering of the We are Hughes group about climate change and the dangers of politicians such as Kelly. Another Hughes resident, Jonathan Prendergast, said he had been blocked after criticising Kelly’s posts on renewable energy and his take on climate change. In 2016 Kelly told parliament that renewable energy policies would drive up the cost of electricity, which meant public pools would raise the prices of swimming lessons and therefore fewer children would be taught to swim, causing more drownings. Prendergast, who has worked in the clean energy sector for 14 years, told the Guardian that he considered he had a firm grip on the economics of renewables and the science of climate change and had taken issue only with Kelly’s “facts”. Anneliese Alexander, who has lived in Hughes for eight years and describes herself as a passionate environmentalist, said she also was blocked last year. She began commenting on Kelly’s Facebook site after he described the British TV presenter Laura Tobin as an “ignorant Pommy weather girl”. The spat with Tobin developed after Kelly did an interview on Good Morning Britain during the bushfires last January and Tobin labelled him a climate denier. Tobin, who is 39, holds degrees in physics and meteorology, and was a former aviation forecaster for the Royal Air Force. Alexander said she then began commenting on Kelly’s page. But she was blocked when she asked him if he would be OK with millions of people dying, after he compared Covid-19 to the seasonal flu. A few weeks later, she said, she met Kelly at a local shopping centre and politely asked him to unblock her. He agreed, but she remains blocked. Seymour said the latest controversy about Kelly had driven a surge in people to the We are Hughes page, with nearly 100 new people signing up in 24 hours. She said they now had more than 400 people willing to don T-shirts and actively help in the campaign to run an independent against Kelly, as well as many more who had voiced support. “Do we have a candidate? Yes we do [have several], we just don’t know who it will be yet,” she said. Comment has been sought from Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 15, 2021 4:35:18 GMT 10
So now its contrived poor white honkie victimhood status as a defense for Trumpism.
Inciting people to violence by law is a criminal offense and your arguing its OK because its conservative free speech.
QAnon built a myth that the democrats are part of a global pedophile ring which is all lies and Trump played along with this conspiracy because QAnon and his spiritual advisers promoted him as the messiah going to drain the swamp.
What a ridiculous basis for a political ideology based on lies and deceit,....as the above article of Pim's shows that is conservative values today, deceit and lies of alternative truths, that misleads the people whether that be covid or climate change or matters of racism as with BLM movement.
While perhaps not all conservatives share the ideology of deception it is ever expanding, and its dangerous misleading the people turning them into a angry frothing at the mouth mob with violence on their mind.
Basically it amounts to fascism, while promoted by Murdoch who has Jewish heritage in the end it will not bode well for Jewish people when fascism is the political power...ironic but if the rise of fascism sells newspapers and books the almighty dollar wins...don't let truth get in the way of a story that sells.
On KTJ...I agree with his opinion on the Palestinians getting the rough end of the pineapple, how he expresses that opinion could have been better said, his offense language to women members isn't something I agree with, yet he wasn't inciting people to violence...consider Trump gets a fair trial in front of his peers with impeachment for his behaviour that was criminal, KTJ was offensive but not quite criminal intent as such my argument has been KTJ should have received a trial by peers before being banned in a dictatorship ruling by mod(s) who at the time were rarely seen.....and would not have noticed his behaviour unless GortMo had not been on a crusade to find mods busy of their FB page.
And so Sporko you fail to see the differences in speech....what is dangerous harmful opinion and what is not, blinkered by your political and religious preference.
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Jan 15, 2021 10:09:29 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 15, 2021 11:21:18 GMT 10
Inciting people to violence? Do you even know the comments they were banning him for? He was not Inciting violence. As for inciting violence, ANTIFA says "hi""
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Jan 15, 2021 20:09:47 GMT 10
There are moves here in Australia to get on top of posts wishing people dead for example. A $100,000 fine will apply to social media sites failing to take down such posts. Not before time IMHO. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the need for capital punishment for paedophiles, child murderers and terrorists. You could add drug dealers and violent gang members to that list. Is that wishing people dead? Does that mean I can be fined $100k?
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Jan 15, 2021 20:39:20 GMT 10
There are moves here in Australia to get on top of posts wishing people dead for example. A $100,000 fine will apply to social media sites failing to take down such posts. Not before time IMHO. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the need for capital punishment for paedophiles, child murderers and terrorists. You could add drug dealers and violent gang members to that list. Is that wishing people dead? Does that mean I can be fined $100k? The new law is about online attacks on individuals. e.g. Telling someone they are a loser and should kill themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 15, 2021 21:15:40 GMT 10
Then I guess the question is, Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community? It's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. That is pernicious nonsense. If you are saying specifically, that we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." Then you fail to see the leftists hypocrisy in this debate, as they are doing just that. YOU BOTH ARE CURRENTLY DOING JUST THAT! Ponto, how often has my nationality, religion or political views come up as a central point in your arguments with me? Every time you respond to me there is at least one unprovoked reference to it. No doubt if you knew what my race was you'd reference that too. You defended KTJ when 80% of his posts are patently hate speech. People are being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. Anyone who questions the almighty narrative, is branded a 'conspiracy theorist', and is subsequently dismissed from the exchange of Ideas. Does that not too, go against the Liberal idea of inclusiveness? I better shut up now... I wouldn't want the liberal thought police to show up and silence me! That is utterly ridiculous Spork, people are not being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. That is an incredible exaggeration. Trump, and people that have been inciting violence have been banned from social media platforms in the wake of last weeks violence because that violence was so shocking, and because that violence was brought about in no small part because of the things that Trump and a lot of his supporters have been saying and perpetuating on those social media platforms. There was no fraud found in the US elections, yet Trump and his supporters kept claiming there was, they lied, and they used those lies to whip themselves and others into a frenzy and then they unleashed that fury on the US Congress the Senate and Vice President Pence. So when you lie, and you use those lies to incite illegal acts and violent behaviour it is appropriate you have your ability to use Twitter, Facebook or other platforms to further those aims curtailed. We place gag orders on people held on Control Orders because of extremist behaviour to prevent them from inciting violence and whilst I agree that it's a little different when the Courts make an order to when Facebook or Twitter make a decision like this, the simple fact is that they are a commercial operation, not a State, and they have the right to do what they did. Facebook and Twitter are not subject to the 1st Ammendment. In any event, Trump is not gagged, the media still report on him and if he has something to say they broadcast or document it. How can that be described as being silenced? Secondly, people who question the narrative are not branded conspiracy theorists. People who make crazy claims about the mainstream narrative are. There's nothing wrong with having concerns about the COVID Vaccine, there is something wrong with claiming that the Vaccine is a delivery vehicle for a mind control chip built by Bill Gates I hope you can comprehend the difference.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 16, 2021 7:21:54 GMT 10
There is a limit to how much a sociopath needs to be heard....as certain speech such as inciting hate speech doesn't need to go on and on and on under the banner of free speech.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 16, 2021 9:05:33 GMT 10
Then I guess the question is, Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community? It's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. That is pernicious nonsense. If you are saying specifically, that we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." Then you fail to see the leftists hypocrisy in this debate, as they are doing just that. YOU BOTH ARE CURRENTLY DOING JUST THAT! Ponto, how often has my nationality, religion or political views come up as a central point in your arguments with me? Every time you respond to me there is at least one unprovoked reference to it. No doubt if you knew what my race was you'd reference that too. You defended KTJ when 80% of his posts are patently hate speech. People are being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. Anyone who questions the almighty narrative, is branded a 'conspiracy theorist', and is subsequently dismissed from the exchange of Ideas. Does that not too, go against the Liberal idea of inclusiveness? I better shut up now... I wouldn't want the liberal thought police to show up and silence me! That is utterly ridiculous Spork, people are not being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. That is an incredible exaggeration. . ...Is it? Let's keep in mind that action wasn't taken exclusively against Trump rather the whole platform of Parler itself, was singled out first by Android and Apple, and then by Amazon. And before you go on a tirade about the content of its users. Let remind you of the endless infractions of Paedophiles using Gmail accounts, and yet no move has been made against Google. Curious, ain't it? You still think this isn't about control of the information? You better pull your head out of your ass! In these days of Covid-19, I'm almost certain your brains are being washed, more often than your hands.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 16, 2021 10:00:53 GMT 10
That is utterly ridiculous Spork, people are not being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. That is an incredible exaggeration. . ...Is it? Let's keep in mind that action wasn't taken exclusively against Trump rather the whole platform of Parler itself, was singled out first by Android and Apple, and then by Amazon. And before you go on a tirade about the content of its users. Let remind you of the endless infractions of Paedophiles using Gmail accounts, and yet no move has been made against Google. Curious, ain't it? You still think this isn't about control of the information? You better pull your head out of your ass! In these days of Covid-19, I'm almost certain your brains are being washed, more often than your hands. And there we have the compulsive response of the Conspiracy Theorist, if you don't subscribe to my views then you've been brainwashed. No Spork, that is simply silly. As is your comparison to Google. Yes I'm sure that pedophiles and child abusers use Gmail, but I think it is safe to say that a miniscule percentage of Gmail accounts are used for that purpose. The overwhelming majority of Gmail accounts are, I'm sure used for perfectly normal, legal pursuits. If you have data that disproves that position then I'd welcome you to provide it. Parler on the other hand, like 4Chan and other similar platforms is overwhelmingly used by extremists, and has been shown to have been used to plan and publicise the illegal actions of extremists. Further to that Apple is a commercial venture, they have the right to refuse access to their App Store to developers. In this case I think they looked at their potential reputational damage from allowing that App to continue to be used and made a commercial decision. I'm a little perplexed by your comment regarding COVID-19. Can you expand further on that? Do you believe that it's not real or that it's some sort of trojan horse?
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 16, 2021 10:51:56 GMT 10
While there would be % of Trump supporters who believe the QAnon conspiracies of pedophiles in the White House and Capitol Hill, and Trumps stolen election narrative with covid a mere flu, what they really like about Trump is the disruption to government and the chaos that disruption brings.
All the while in the chaos Trump is lining his own pockets.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2021 0:55:59 GMT 10
And there we have the compulsive response of the Conspiracy Theorist, if you don't subscribe to my views then you've been brainwashed. Or conversely, if I don't subscribe to your views, or think the social media is being less-than-objective in their filtering of information it's because I am an "Irrational Trump- Supporting conspiracy Theorist". Labels aren't nice, I agree, but if only one political view is allowed to be voiced, that is called propaganda. I don't subscribe to that. My point is, mega platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc are protected as they claim not to be responsible for the content of its users. And yet, those same conglomerations seek to shut down Parler, on that very premise. It's nothing more than. Big business shitting on the little guys. You should read this: www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/14/violent-antipolice-memes-surge/*caution*: It will alter your polarized leftist view. (Btw: Antifa says, "Hi".) The better question to ask is why does this group feel so ostracized that they need to move to an alternative platform? ...🤔 You think they care about your opinion?! Lol, They have a monopoly. Who is their competitors, really? Where are you going to run to, if they piss you off? I think covid is a real 'thing', but I think it's been blown up to be something far more prevalent than it actually is. I am disturbed at how easily people are being manipulated by the fear-mongering media (and it is fear-mongering, if you carefully examine their word choices) , to freely give control to their governments that they were never meant to have. Even after this covid thing has ended, things will never go back to 'normal, because no government has ever freely just 'given away' control. So yes, I am cautious about it but can you just imagine being afraid of it like a little bitch?😆
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 17, 2021 6:33:22 GMT 10
When American people fail to see how Trump who condemns mainstream media as fake news and flouted the idea of being president for life then not liking the results of a fair election in a democracy used social media to incite his followers to acts of treason and sedition chaos under the guise of patriotic free speech is dangerous for democracy then what hope is there for America when history repeats itself with RW fascist political ideology breeding domestic terrorist.
ReAP WhAt you sow.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 7:43:04 GMT 10
How does everyone feel about the current FB and Twitter rules? And more to the point, their actions against the alternative parler platform? "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you are only telling the world that you fear what he might say."Twitter (or facebook, youtube, etc) has zero obligation to continue to let someone use their free platform, particularly when said platform is being used to spread lies and incite violence. Zero obligation. Corporate groups are not 'banning information'. Corporations like Twitter are PRIVATE BUSINESSES, they are private enterprise and as such, choose who they do business with. So I don't get the complaints from people who say they are anti-communist/socialist/globalist, but yet attack a private entity for making business decisions in the free market. You either want a free market with private enterprise, or you want a communist system. One or the other. People seem to forget the paragraphs that start with we reserve the right to..... which Twitter, Amazon etc have in their Terms Of Service. These are private businesses. Why do people assume they have a right to anything from these private entities? As I saw on a meme yesterday: "To anyone complaining about a PRIVATE MEDIA COMPANY kicking Trump off THEIR platform; think of twitter as a Christian bakery and Trump as a gay wedding cake". cake Also from a meme: I’m so sick of the ‘freedom of speech’ argument. There is no god given right to lie. There is no god given right to incite violence. There is no god given right to slander and degrade. Having a platform is a privilege and when it’s abused it should be taken away. As I said, if you don't stick to the TOS you can be banned. Quite a simple concept. The people who are making claims of censorship are making them live on Fox News or from the House Chamber. They still very much have a platform and the right to speak from it. Trump has a BRIEFING ROOM where he can hold press conferences whenever he wants! He is not silenced. He never has been.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 7:50:23 GMT 10
Then I guess the question is, Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community? It's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. That is pernicious nonsense. If you are saying specifically, that we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." Then you fail to see the leftists hypocrisy in this debate, as they are doing just that. YOU BOTH ARE CURRENTLY DOING JUST THAT! Ponto, how often has my nationality, religion or political views come up as a central point in your arguments with me? Every time you respond to me there is at least one unprovoked reference to it. No doubt if you knew what my race was you'd reference that too. You defended KTJ when 80% of his posts are patently hate speech. People are being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. Anyone who questions the almighty narrative, is branded a 'conspiracy theorist', and is subsequently dismissed from the exchange of Ideas. Does that not too, go against the Liberal idea of inclusiveness? I better shut up now... I wouldn't want the liberal thought police to show up and silence me! We are not talking about 'every day conservative speech' (unless you are putting across the point that every day conservative speech is actually hateful and nasty). We are talking about horrifying death threats, incitement to violence, sedition, and pushing dangerous misinformation. Now, if you are going to say that is 'everyday conservative speech', then that says a lot about conservatives that that is how they talk in their daily life. People are not banned for expressing an opinion that goes against normal narrative. They are banned for making death threats, inciting violence, encouraging sedition and pushing dangerous misinformation. Most conservatives on twitter haven't been banned. Why is that? Because they don't engage in the above behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 7:57:02 GMT 10
Inciting people to violence? Do you even know the comments they were banning him for? He was not Inciting violence. As for inciting violence, ANTIFA says "hi"" Oh here comes the ultra far right YouTube 'clips' (which can be made, edited, photoshopped and uploaded by any man, his dog and his cat) as 'proof' of something. The only people who use YT as a 'reference' for anything tend to be the ultra far right extremists, anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy theorists. It is beyond absurd that a rational and thinking grown man would lower themselves to proffer a clip from an extremist as 'proof' of anything. As to antifa, come back to us when they have incited the act of sedition.
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Jan 17, 2021 8:19:09 GMT 10
That is utterly ridiculous Spork, people are not being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. That is an incredible exaggeration. . ...Is it? Let's keep in mind that action wasn't taken exclusively against Trump rather the whole platform of Parler itself, was singled out first by Android and Apple, and then by Amazon. And before you go on a tirade about the content of its users. Let remind you of the endless infractions of Paedophiles using Gmail accounts, and yet no move has been made against Google. Curious, ain't it? You still think this isn't about control of the information? You better pull your head out of your ass! In these days of Covid-19, I'm almost certain your brains are being washed, more often than your hands. Paedophiles who use Gmail or social media are banned immediately. Google acts. That is why no move has been made against them. THAT'S the difference. Amazon asked Parler to remove and ban posts and users that promote violence, death threats and criminal content. Parler REFUSED to take down the content. Unlike Google. Parler was given chances by Amazon and the like to remove the posts (and the posts are truly absolutely horrible, planning bombings and inciting murders, I attach a photo of a post that Paler REFUSED to take down - hence leaving Amazon et al liable to be sued, so they were LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE than to save their arses and remove Parler. That, is the difference. Google and twitter act and delete/remove. Parler refuses to act, allows abhorrent (and clearly unChristian) posts to stand. Parler was given chance after chance after chance and warning after warning after chance to remove these ILLEGAL and vile posts. They did nothing! Parler has no one to blame but themselves, ALL they had to do was remove the offending posts. That.....is.....all. They wouldn't even do that. And I want you to read the screenshot I have included, and tell me why you are defending a satanic, unChristian and utterly abhorrent platform that refuses to delete THAT post, and how you feel you can possibly, as a Christian man, lower yourself to not just defend Parler, but to tell us they are a victim and hard done by. How can you reconcile that, and that screenshot, it's message, AND Parler's endorsement of it and refusal to remove it, as a Christian man? It seems to me that with some Christians' (many, or most, from having read twitter and facebook posts by 'Christians') Christian morals are the first to be sacrificed and thrown overboard when politics comes into it. Certainly not speaking or acting as Jesus would have them do.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jan 17, 2021 8:25:04 GMT 10
Free speech is speech that causes no harm.
Expressing a free opinion is opinion without malicious dangerous dogma.
In a democracy the election result should not incur violence and an assault on a government house, as with Capitol Hill with rioters defecating in the offices of representatives and senators as like primates marking their territory with piss and turds.
The inauguration of a President of the USA should not be celebrated with the need for the protection of the National Guard, police and military to guard against an angry mob/militia who were lied to by Trump proclaiming the election was stolen from him...Sporko failing to see how that Trump thinking is flawed shows us he more interested in dogma than freedom of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 17, 2021 8:45:34 GMT 10
I think covid is a real 'thing', but I think it's been blown up to be something far more prevalent than it actually is. I am disturbed at how easily people are being manipulated by the fear-mongering media (and it is fear-mongering, if you carefully examine their word choices) , to freely give control to their governments that they were never meant to have. Even after this covid thing has ended, things will never go back to 'normal, because no government has ever freely just 'given away' control. So yes, I am cautious about it but can you just imagine being afraid of it like a little bitch?😆 You think COVID has been blown up to be something far more prevalent then it really is? And you somehow believe that it's been done so we give up Control and further to that you believe that no Government has ever freely returned Control to the people after they've given it up. You are incorrect in belief and in fact Spork. Governments have put temporary controls and restrictions in place in the past and then lifted them once the need has passed plenty of times over our recent and not so recent history. Wartime censorship during the 2nd World War is a case in point. You believe that COVID isn't as bad as everyone thinks and we're being manipulated by the media? That is exactly the attitude that has led America to the point they are at today in relation to COVID. Where are they now? Something like 4 times the US Death toll from the Vietnam war except the US Involvement in the Vietnam war was over 10 years and COVID has done four times that in 1. That is the same attitude that leads to people refusing to wear masks because they believe it infringes upon their human rights. Your beliefs are wrong Spork, they are wrong, and they are dangerous. Yet no one has shut you down have they?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2021 8:59:51 GMT 10
Then I guess the question is, Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community? It's patently absurd to contend that everyday conservative speech is "hate speech" and that it leads to violence. That is pernicious nonsense. If you are saying specifically, that we shouldn't protect speech that insults whole groups in an effort to discredit and delegitimize them "as less worthy of participation in the public exchange of ideas." Then you fail to see the leftists hypocrisy in this debate, as they are doing just that. YOU BOTH ARE CURRENTLY DOING JUST THAT! Ponto, how often has my nationality, religion or political views come up as a central point in your arguments with me? Every time you respond to me there is at least one unprovoked reference to it. No doubt if you knew what my race was you'd reference that too. You defended KTJ when 80% of his posts are patently hate speech. People are being banned simply for expressing any opinion that goes against the mainstream narrative. Anyone who questions the almighty narrative, is branded a 'conspiracy theorist', and is subsequently dismissed from the exchange of Ideas. Does that not too, go against the Liberal idea of inclusiveness? I better shut up now... I wouldn't want the liberal thought police to show up and silence me! We are not talking about 'every day conservative speech' (unless you are putting across the point that every day conservative speech is actually hateful and nasty). We are talking about horrifying death threats, incitement to violence, sedition, and pushing dangerous misinformation. Now, if you are going to say that is 'everyday conservative speech', then that says a lot about conservatives that that is how they talk in their daily life. People are not banned for expressing an opinion that goes against normal narrative. They are banned for making death threats, inciting violence, encouraging sedition and pushing dangerous misinformation. Most conservatives on twitter haven't been banned. Why is that? Because they don't engage in the above behaviour. So by that same token, would you shut down an entire library for having a copy of 'Mein Kampf', because it inspires hate groups like Neo Nazis? When does the subsequent book burning begin? I love how the left supports free speech... for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Jan 17, 2021 9:32:58 GMT 10
For someone decrying the apparent exaggeration of COVID you certainly aren't adverse to exaggerating the impact of shutting down Parler on the Apple and Google App Stores.
Nobody has shut down conservative speech Spork, Parler is still there. You just can't download the App for it on the Apple App Store or the Google App Store.
So how do you come to the conclusion that it's been shut down?
|
|