Amazon

pstmstr said:

The problem with that is Twitter says they enforce their rules equally. They don’t. If they were honest about saying we can just refuse service to anyone it would be more palatable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

I’ve never seen anyone I follow get banned. I also don’t follow the extremes on either side. I’ve also never seen proof of them only banning one side over the other. I have read complaints from the far left and far right, but never seen actual proof from either. It very well could be the data they used to train their ai is biased. I just haven’t seen any proof yet.

paul0731 said:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections

I’ve never seen anyone I follow get banned. I also don’t follow the extremes on either side. I’ve also never seen proof of them only banning one side over the other. I have read complaints from the far left and far right, but never seen actual proof from either. It very well could be the data they used to train their ai is biased. I just haven’t seen any proof yet.

Click to expand...

Laura Loomer is a prime example. Michael Flynn. If you make an effort to look there are many others who have been banned but did not threaten or plan insurgency. I’m not going to try to convince anyone of anything. The facts are there for anyone interested enough to look. If you think there isn’t a concerted effort to ban conservatives on social media I can’t help you. You can see from my posts I think what happened last Wed was not good for America. Neither is censoring free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The free-enterprise model does not apply in this situation. They are not bakers. These are monopolies that are shutting down competition and free speech at the same time. They manipulate politicians and politics with money to accomplish their ends. They are major trading partners with a totalitarian regime that rules millions through force, using forced labor in factories and harvesting organs from political prisoners. Yet these same major corporations say they are all about human rights and enlightened points of view.

pstmstr said:

Laura Loomer is a prime example. Michael Flynn. If you make an effort to look there are many others who have been banned but did not threaten or plan insurgency. I’m not going to try to convince anyone of anything. The facts are there for anyone interested enough to look. If you think there isn’t a concerted effort to ban conservatives on social media I can’t help you. You can see from my posts I think what happened last Wed was not good for America. Neither is censoring free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

Laura Loomer, questionable. I'd have to do a lot more research than my 30 second google check.

Flynn kept posting or retweeting videos featuring QAnon symbols. He was caught in the purge of QAnon. I'll have to look to verify that. If it's true he was doing that, I have zero issues with it.

Thank you for giving me concrete things to look at. Most just post conservatives are being banned/censored. Which I just don't find helpful. The left says the opposite.

I don't think conservatives are being targeted over everyone else. As mentioned I just haven't seen proof to that yet. It very well could be true. AI's can be biased based on what data you provide it. I prefer to go off concrete evidence. I'm not looking for anyone to convince me. I just want evidence I can verify myself. Way too much false info flying around being presented as the truth.

Yes, Wed was horrible for the US. Sadly, I think we are far closer to the beginning than the end.

Rez said:

117 words --- well, I said something. You missed it but it was there. If OSA censors dirty language, we're censoring speech. Are YOU okay with that? If so, why?

Click to expand...

It's not censoring speech. You can say what you want but you can't use cukky words to do it.

If you can't get your point across without foul language, it's not a problem of censorship but a problem concerning decency and the inability to express one's self plainly.

Woody

Dale00 said:

The free-enterprise model does not apply in this situation. They are not bakers. These are monopolies that are shutting down competition and free speech at the same time. They manipulate politicians and politics with money to accomplish their ends. They are major trading partners with a totalitarian regime that rules millions through force, using forced labor in factories and harvesting organs from political prisoners. Yet these same major corporations say they are all about human rights and enlightened points of view.

View attachment 188042

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of that young lady . . . but she does make an excellent point IMO.

Rez Exelon said:

117 words --- well, I said something. You missed it but it was there. If OSA censors dirty language, we're censoring speech. Are YOU okay with that? If so, why?

Click to expand...

I'm fine with it, as the constitution doesn't protect me from OSA censoring my speech. I'm only protected by censorship from the government. Private companies are free to censor, in most cases, as much as they want.

ConstitutionCowboy said:

It's not censoring speech. You can say what you want but you can't use cukky words to do it.

If you can't get your point across without foul language, it's not a problem of censorship but a problem concerning decency and the inability to express one's self plainly.

Woody

Click to expand...

Google censorship and see if the definition agrees. By the textbook it's removing speech that is considered "obscene" amongst other stuff.

It's really not that much different than the 2A. Sure, people can say things like NICS checks, or needing CCW's or whatever are just trying to enforce decency and standards, but the hive mind here tends to call those infringements. The case that applies to "bleeping" dirty words like "-----" applies to bleeping people of inherent rights to self defense.

paul0731 said:

I'm fine with it, as the constitution doesn't protect me from OSA censoring my speech. I'm only protected by censorship from the government. Private companies are free to censor, in most cases, as much as they want.

Click to expand...

I agree with you --- but fair warning, throughout this thread it seems like some people are okay with censoring as long as it's done equally. Or others say no but only because it's big tech company monopolies that do it. Either way they are private so they can do what they want as much as they want as long as it doesn't violate the ToS agreement they have with the people on the platforms. Even the whole "apply it equally" argument is kind of BS since, again it's private and legal they can do what they want. Kind of like how our employers (unless self employed or government) could fire us for almost anything. (Almost.)

Don't trust everything Google tells you. @paul0731 is correct. Private sites, such as this one, as well as other social media sites can remove content if it violates the terms of service or the rules.

Rez Exelon said:

Google censorship and see if the definition agrees. By the textbook it's removing speech that is considered "obscene" amongst other stuff.

...

Click to expand...

I was responding to the prohibition on using foul language on OSA. You can still express an opinion but must not use foul language.


Woody