Reply to: Oh Dear: Facebook bans 'dangerous individuals'

[AtW]

"He never wanted the truth. It was all just for clicks, and the more inflammatory, the better," a former employee said. "I felt dirty writing the stuff.”"

Veteran Crowdfunding Trump’s Wall Used Fake News To Get Rich, Former Employees Say

SOURCE: Wall GoFundMe sponsor just paid for a ‘nearly’ $1 million yacht (UPDATED II)

Who could have known

[AtW]

Fooking morons the lot of 'em

[darmstadt]

Here's a reason why people shouldn't believe Infowars:



There's a gigantic difference between a 'public company' and a 'public SECTOR company'. There's almost no overlap between them at all. The idiot just doesn't realise it. A public company is just one that has shares freely available on the stock market. That's it. It's still almost certain to be a private firm though, it's still almost certain to be in the private sector.

BTW, Millie is a reporter for Infowars

[Zigenare]

241m Europeans 'may have received Russian-linked disinformation' | World news | The Guardian

The Grauniad? FFS, the ironing!

[AtW]

241m Europeans 'may have received Russian-linked disinformation' | World news | The Guardian

[meridian]

I believe The Donald is on the case with this.

Four words that don’t go together very often....

[Jog On]

There are laws in the U.K., and presumably in the USA, to deal with interference in politics. If there is “meddling” then it will go before the relevant authorities.

I believe The Donald is on the case with this.

[BR14]

Not all news delivered by the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Propagandaministerium) were fake news.

Joseph Goebbels made even smarter move - he created radio which supposedly was against Nazies, so people were fooled to listen in and that radio was telling a lot of the truth, but not the whole truth and certainly not the truth that was very important to the Nazi regime - Putin copied it in a form of RT and useful idiots in the West created their own channels of fake news, mostly for financial reasons rather ideology.

Sadly education system in the West has been systematically undermined by Tory Scum and Republicans, which is why there are so many gullible Mor Ons ready to consume utter tosh.

where as russian draft dodging immigrants know the TRUTH!
hear ye, hear ye...........
the TRUTH is with squirrel molesters YAY!

[AtW]

Not all news delivered by the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Propagandaministerium) were fake news.

Joseph Goebbels made even smarter move - he created radio which supposedly was against Nazies, so people were fooled to listen in and that radio was telling a lot of the truth, but not the whole truth and certainly not the truth that was very important to the Nazi regime - Putin copied it in a form of RT and useful idiots in the West created their own channels of fake news, mostly for financial reasons rather ideology.

Sadly education system in the West has been systematically undermined by Tory Scum and Republicans, which is why there are so many gullible Mor Ons ready to consume utter tosh.

[meridian]

It's not it's their bias- what they call 'hateful' and 'dangerous' is people saying things that criticise liberal identity politics - example:



What is 'hateful' and 'dangerous' about that?

As I said, your bias is that it is not hateful or dangerous. Theirs is that it is. Both are opinions. Clearly there is a discrepancy in the opinions.

They own the platform. You are free to use or not use it.

I'd like an open platform that doesn't have one side filtered out so I can make my mind up without Facebook attempting to influence my decision next time there is a vote over here on something important.

No such thing exists. As I’ve already pointed out, even CUK has moderators.

Don’t use the platform if you don’t want them to influence your views. Or use it to balance out Zero Hedge and Breitbart....

Apparently election meddling is a bad thing - or is it OK for one side to do it and not the other?

There are laws in the U.K., and presumably in the USA, to deal with interference in politics. If there is “meddling” then it will go before the relevant authorities.

Is the content of the article fake? Like all this acceptable non-hateful behaviour from democrats:

Yeah that's from Brietbart - does that mean it's immediately discounted as fake? Did any of the above not happen?

Being from Breitbart doesn’t automatically mean that it’s fake, but it does raise red flags as to the bias and/or completeness of reporting.

Regardless, it doesn’t matter whether it happened or not. If someone’s First Amendment rights have been infringed, or if they have been libelled, then they can sue.

[Jog On]

The irony is, this is your bias. They say it’s hateful, you say it’s not. Its opinion either way, the difference though is that they own the company.

It's not it's their bias- what they call 'hateful' and 'dangerous' is people saying things that criticise liberal identity politics - example:



What is 'hateful' and 'dangerous' about that?

You say they’re valid political voices. Opinion. What do you care about US elections, that’s for the American people to decide. If they want far-right commentary there are plenty of other places for them to get that (Fox, Breitbart, etc)

Is it only political commentary you want to see? What about other extreme views?

I'd like an open platform that doesn't have one side filtered out so I can make my mind up without Facebook attempting to influence my decision next time there is a vote over here on something important. Apparently election meddling is a bad thing - or is it OK for one side to do it and not the other?

Zero Hedge? Now I see where the problem might be....

Is anything actually fake? Yes - is the writer’s name real or fake?

Is the content of the article fake? Like all this acceptable non-hateful behaviour from democrats:

According to Breitbart's James Caruso, Twitter appears to have two sets of standards, and has given many on the left a pass for much, much worse behavior. Via Breitbart:

• Twitter allowed a number of verified accounts to participate in doxxing and violent threats against teenagers from Covington Catholic high school in January.
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was on the receiving end of vicious sexist Twitter abuse after she defended Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
• Actor Peter Fonda said that Barron Trump should be taken away from his Melania and put in a cage with pedophiles. Fonda also called for Kirstjen Nielsen to be whipped. He later apologized.
• Hollywood star Jim Carrey posted a drawing of Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. getting bludgeoned to death by an elephant last year. The tweet is still up.
• In 2016, various accounts called for and cheered on the shooting of police officers.

Yeah that's from Brietbart - does that mean it's immediately discounted as fake? Did any of the above not happen?

[meridian]

I think we can all agree that extreme views and actual hate speech should be subject to consequences.

Okay, great.

The issue here is private companies using hate speech moderation to silence non-hateful political opinions that are on the other side of their bias.

The irony is, this is your bias. They say it’s hateful, you say it’s not. Its opinion either way, the difference though is that they own the company.

Yes Facebook/Google etc are all private companies but as was pointed out they have grown to be so big that they could be considered public platforms.

So? Anything outward-facing could be considered “public” but they are not. Pubs, shops, concert venues, CUK, your own personal website, etc. All of them are in reality private. Wanting something to be public so that you get to decide who goes in or who has a say, doesn’t make it so.

If you want to try to change U.K. law, go for it. They’re American companies.

The key point being made here is using 'hate speech' laws to silence valid political voices with the intention of trying to influence the outcome of democratic elections (2020 US election).

You say they’re valid political voices. Opinion. What do you care about US elections, that’s for the American people to decide. If they want far-right commentary there are plenty of other places for them to get that (Fox, Breitbart, etc)

Is it only political commentary you want to see? What about other extreme views?

This kind of thing

Say what you like about the source of the above link but before you start crying "Fake news" - is anything in the above article actually fake?

Zero Hedge? Now I see where the problem might be....

Is anything actually fake? Yes - is the writer’s name real or fake?

[Jog On]

“Technically correct”
“Within the law”

What you appear to be proposing is a change to the law, to force private companies to provide platforms to extreme views?

I’m sure there are no unintended consequences there, and that it will all end well.

I think we can all agree that extreme views and actual hate speech should be subject to consequences. The issue here is private companies using hate speech moderation to silence non-hateful political opinions that are on the other side of their bias. Yes Facebook/Google etc are all private companies but as was pointed out they have grown to be so big that they could be considered public platforms.

The key point being made here is using 'hate speech' laws to silence valid political voices with the intention of trying to influence the outcome of democratic elections (2020 US election).

This kind of thing

Say what you like about the source of the above link but before you start crying "Fake news" - is anything in the above article actually fake?

[meridian]

Yes I'm proposing a change to the law.

Could there be any unintended consequences? Maybe, and to be fair I haven't thought it through.

Possibly.

A brief period of thought would probably lead to the realisation that even CUK is moderated. If you host your own website, you’ve possibly turned off comments, or you at least moderate for spam or unrelated comments on any blog post or web page. How far down the rabbit hole would you want to go in forcing private companies and individuals to provide a platform?

Any law would also only be relevant to the U.K. Presumably in the USA anyone affected can already sue under infringement of their First Amendment?.....

[AtW]

You should also fook off to Russia where there is indeed no private property when State gets involved