#46 President Joe Biden

1…233234236238239…600

Comments

  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,594
    edited March 2022
    I'd be more concerned about actual state governments (looking at you Florida and Texas among others) banning books and restricting what teachers can and cannot say when thinking about censorship, as opposed to something a private company does on their own website.
    www.myspace.com
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,829
    edited March 2022
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    DewieCox said:
    mace1229 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    tbergs said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    JB16057 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JB16057 said:
    dankind said:
    Do you have evidence that they are not?

    So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 
    I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

    The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

    Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 
    People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
    Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

    As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 
    even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported. 
    I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
    But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
    And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
    Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail. 
    Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
    Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
    Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
    No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,385
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    DewieCox said:
    mace1229 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    tbergs said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    JB16057 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JB16057 said:
    dankind said:
    Do you have evidence that they are not?

    So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 
    I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

    The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

    Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 
    People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
    Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

    As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 
    even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported. 
    I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
    But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
    And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
    Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail. 
    Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
    Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
    Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
    No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media.

    precedent on wet market jump.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,594
    "Heavily mocked" is in the same category as censorship (by private companies) too?
    www.myspace.com
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,829
    The Juggler said:
    "Heavily mocked" is in the same category as censorship (by private companies) too?
    Being called xenophobic and anti-vaxxism for questioning the lab theory is. Just searching for Covid leak in the forums this article was shared.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins


     The Lancet,among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism.

    Are you pretending that people weren’t called conspiracy nuts for suggesting the lab leak a year ago?
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,401
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    Entertain me for a minute, I haven't delved in to this a lot outside the general complaints, but what has been removed/blocked? I remember certain Tweets getting a disclaimer when not verified or outright inaccurate. I mean, Alex Jones and Joe Rogan seemed to be spreading misinformation just fine.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    tbergs said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    Entertain me for a minute, I haven't delved in to this a lot outside the general complaints, but what has been removed/blocked? I remember certain Tweets getting a disclaimer when not verified or outright inaccurate. I mean, Alex Jones and Joe Rogan seemed to be spreading misinformation just fine.
    Biden orders review of Covid origins as intel weighs Wuhan lab leak theory (cnbc.com) - May 26th, 2021

    Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made | Facebook | The Guardian   - May 27th, 2021

  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,146
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    If you could flip a switch and disable the social media companies you seem to be afraid of, what would happen? Not a 45 minute black out but a 30 day black out? How would people get information? What would happen? Besides heavy social media withdrawal? Seriously, think about it. People would call their friends, pick up a newspaper or magazine, turn on their televisions and radios and maybe checkout, buy or borrow a book. It wouldn't be a bad thing and it wouldn't be the end of civilization.

    If the general public is relying on "social media tech giants" for their information and news, they deserve everything that happens to them. And everything that has been brought up as being "censored" or deplatformed in this argument, has been anything but. If you want to know about the Wuhan lab theory and subscribe to it, there's plenty of information to be had. If you can't spell Wuhan in a Google search and rely on tweets or Faceturd for accurate, or any, information regarding the Wuhan lab leak, then good luck to you.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,594
    mace1229 said:
    The Juggler said:
    "Heavily mocked" is in the same category as censorship (by private companies) too?
    Being called xenophobic and anti-vaxxism for questioning the lab theory is. Just searching for Covid leak in the forums this article was shared.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins


     The Lancet,among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism.

    Are you pretending that people weren’t called conspiracy nuts for suggesting the lab leak a year ago?
    Paywall on the first link. No idea what Lancet is on the second link. 

    I'm just confused how being mocked for something is the same thing as censorship. I'm also confused by how a private company removing some videos on their own website is considered censorship as well.
    www.myspace.com
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    bootlegger10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    DewieCox said:
    mace1229 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    tbergs said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    JB16057 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JB16057 said:
    dankind said:
    Do you have evidence that they are not?

    So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 
    I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

    The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

    Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 
    People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
    Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

    As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 
    even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported. 
    I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
    But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
    And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
    Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail. 
    Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
    Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
    Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
    Google, YouTube and Facebook are part of the top 5 visited websites in the world (based on a quick Google search).  Most people are not going to dig to find news sources.  Are you okay if the top viewed websites prevent people from posting articles, stories, views that do not fit the political narrative that the company supports?  I get the argument that these are private businesses.  I just want to know if you have any concerns about a few companies have that much power.  If everyone was discerning about their news sources, dug in to various sources, etc... than I wouldn't be concerned about it.  But that is not how the public is (or at least my thinking).  So a situation where the top 5, 10 15, or 20 news sources online all preach from the same hymnal or bow to political or social pressure to prevent certain thoughts or ideas is scary to me.   

    Posting complete nonsense is also scary so it is a slippery slope.  
    Am I okay with top websites stopping people from posting certain things?  Yeah, I think I've made that clear.  This is not the government's business.  This isn't 1951 when there were 3 TV stations.  There is no scarcity of information or scarcity of channels in which to communicate.  The fact that right wing people all know about Hunter Biden is proof that the gov't doesn't need to intervene.  You want FB, Instagram and Twitter to be neutral.  Why do they have an obligation to be neutral?  Fox doesn't have that.  CNN doesn't.  "Truth" social media doesn't.  You to impose an onerous gov't requirement on them ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL.  But they didn't corner the market.  They didn't buy out all possible competition.  It's not a monopoly.  This makes zero sense.  
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    DewieCox said:
    mace1229 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    tbergs said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    JB16057 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JB16057 said:
    dankind said:
    Do you have evidence that they are not?

    So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 
    I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

    The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

    Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 
    People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
    Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

    As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 
    even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported. 
    I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
    But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
    And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
    Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail. 
    Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
    Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
    Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
    No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
    So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here.  That's the difference.  
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,829
    edited March 2022
    The Juggler said:
    mace1229 said:
    The Juggler said:
    "Heavily mocked" is in the same category as censorship (by private companies) too?
    Being called xenophobic and anti-vaxxism for questioning the lab theory is. Just searching for Covid leak in the forums this article was shared.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins


     The Lancet,among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism.

    Are you pretending that people weren’t called conspiracy nuts for suggesting the lab leak a year ago?
    Paywall on the first link. No idea what Lancet is on the second link. 

    I'm just confused how being mocked for something is the same thing as censorship. I'm also confused by how a private company removing some videos on their own website is considered censorship as well.
    The second was just a quote from the first link that I got from the AMT.  Showing you that the lab theory was unacceptable for a year.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,829
    edited March 2022
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    DewieCox said:
    mace1229 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    tbergs said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    JB16057 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JB16057 said:
    dankind said:
    Do you have evidence that they are not?

    So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 
    I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

    The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

    Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 
    People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
    Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

    As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 
    even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported. 
    I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
    But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
    And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
    Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail. 
    Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
    Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
    Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
    No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
    So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?
    I don’t think the govt has a place to interfere and I’m not just wondering. A comment was made that the two different theories received vastly different responses at first. I was just agreeing and pointing out examples of why I agree. Wet market theory was pushed and accepted by many, you were often called a conspiracy theorist for believing it could be the lab and your comments sometimes deleted. That doesn’t mean government needs to be involved. It doesn’t make sense to me that it happened, it didn’t have to. The only reason I could think of is that Trump supported the lab leak theory, so half the country felt the need to criticize anyone who thought it was plausible. Just a month or 2 after him leaving office it became an acceptable theory.

    **because I know it’s coming, not literally half the country.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mace1229 said:
    DewieCox said:
    mace1229 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    tbergs said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    JB16057 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JB16057 said:
    dankind said:
    Do you have evidence that they are not?

    So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise.  Okay.  I feel like you're not even trying here. 
    I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.

    The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.

    Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media. 
    People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
    Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.  

    As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it. 
    even fauci said it was possible, but that it was unlikely and until it's proven, it's useless to speculate, and not only useless, it's dangerous from what we already saw of racists and how asians were being treated simply because that's where the virus was first discovered/reported. 
    I don’t think lab vs wet market makes any difference to someone willing to commit a hate crimes against Asians.
    But fot a year you were labeled a conspiracy nut for even considering the lab was a source. Posts were removed from social media for suggesting it. But no one had a problem spreading the wet market theory. But if the lab is possible, then we can’t know for sure it was the wet market either. I just don’t understand how one theory was acceptable to spread and the other labels you as a right wing nut.
    And the irony to me is the wet market theory seems much more offensive .You’re saying the culture embraced unsanitary conditions that created a global virus, vs a research lab had a leak. If it does actually make a difference, I bet the wet market theory is going to spread more hate and fear. I just don’t understand the reasoning for trying to silence the lab theory so much while embracing the wet market one, what’s to gain from it?
    Give me an example where the mere suggestion was censored. I’ve asked several times on various platforms and have been met with shady sources, outright hard claims with no truth, and various whataboutisms without fail. 
    Supposedly videos were removed from YouTube and other social media that had people, even doctors, who promoted the lab theory. I don’t have links to show you, they were removed.
    Im not going to scroll through a year’s worth of comments here, but I would be shocked if there weren’t several members who mocked anyone considering the lab theory.
    Can you show me any indication where the wet market theory was censored or removed from social media? I’ve never heard of one. So the two theories didn’t receive equal treatment. One was accepted and one labeled you as a nut case, but in reality neither was proved and both are probably equally likely.
    Just to be clear, are you suggesting that You Tube does not have teh right to remove videos, or should otherwise be prohibited by the gov't to remove videos?
    No, I’m not suggestion that. Just pointing the different treatments the different theories got. One was accepted, the other censored and heavily mocked if you even brought it up. Neither have been proven and both are probably just as likely. I was also pointing out I don’t understand the reasoning behind holding into the wet market theory so tightly. The wet market doesn’t seem any more likely that a lab leak, especially considering where the virus first came from, the research lab being right there, China’s lack of cooperation, etc. But yet for a year it was unacceptable to question the wet market theory. And by unacceptable I mean you were mocked by many and sometimes censored by social media and accused of spreading misinformation.
    So to be clear, are you like Bootlegger and think that gov't has a place to interfere in this, or are you just generally wondering, etc.?
    I don’t think the govt has a place to interfere and I’m not just wondering. A comment was made that the two different theories received vastly different responses at first. I was just agreeing and pointing out examples of why I agree. Wet market theory was pushed and accepted by many, you were often called a conspiracy theorist for believing it could be the lab and your comments sometimes deleted. That doesn’t mean government needs to be involved. It doesn’t make sense to me that it happened, it didn’t have to. The only reason I could think of is that Trump supported the lab leak theory, so half the country felt the need to criticize anyone who thought it was plausible. Just a month or 2 after him leaving office it became an acceptable theory.
    There is a Trump phenomenon here, that he created.  He had such a habit of lying for his own benefit, it became reflexive to disagree with him because there was a deep suspicion that everything he said and did only benefitted him or tore down a political enemy.  
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    don't be concerned about tech companies making decisions on what information you get. be concerned if some far right republicans get what they ask for, and that the government regulates what the tech companies can decide what information you get. 

    these tech companies are basing their decisions on public pressure. nothing more. so they are giving the public what they want.

    *Tin Foil Hat Guy says they are telling you what you want, but make you think it was your choice*.

    STFU, Tin Foil Hat Guy. 

    I mean, these guys are no different than fox news. they censor (by omission) everything about reality. people who understand that either just sit and laugh or turn the channel or turn it off. like anyone with facebook and twitter. eventually it go so fucking stupid I turned it off. we still have that ability. 

    this ain't orwellian like people like rogan want you to think it is. it only turns that way if the government gains control of it, which is exactly what Trump wanted to do. 

    this is just the digital version of telling some nutcase to stop shouting bullshit through a megaphone on your storefront property. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,256
    mrussel1 said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here.  That's the difference.  
    We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good.  Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it?  Should it be regulated like an public utility?  Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:

    Where people get their news:
    Facebook - 30%
    Google-30%
    Youtube-30%
    Other sources-10%

    Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc...  From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses.  We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.  

    You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up.  You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?  

    I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation.  It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information.   Ignorance is bliss.  If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine.   I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.  
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,473
    bootlegger10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here.  That's the difference.  
    We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good.  Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it?  Should it be regulated like an public utility?  Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:

    Where people get their news:
    Facebook - 30%
    Google-30%
    Youtube-30%
    Other sources-10%

    Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc...  From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses.  We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.  

    You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up.  You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?  

    I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation.  It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information.   Ignorance is bliss.  If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine.   I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.  
    all media companies do this now. it's no different, whether fox or cnn chooses to report on it or chooses to remove content they don't like. again, this isn't russia where the government is blocking the flow of information. it's private companies. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    bootlegger10 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    The Juggler said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    Let’s legitimize the further dumbing down of the globe, either by excusing intellectual laziness or allowing misinformation or disinformation to be promoted as “truth and/or fact.”
    Pretend you live in Russia.  Pretend you live in 1930's/40's Germany.  Right now you feel like the news agencies and tech firms are in sync with your viewpoints so who cares if they discredit stories or not allow certain views to be discussed until the party in charge deems it okay (which happened with the Wuhan lab theory).  There may be a time where that isn't the case.  

    I would think spoon feeding and only allowing popular/accepted viewpoints would contribute to the dumbing down as well.   
    You're comparing some private company banning some videos to living in Nazi Germany?
    Exactly, I'm equating Nazi Germany to YouTube suppressing Wuhan lab theories.  Don't be ridiculous.

    I just don't understand how cavalier some of you are about how large and influential these massive tech companies are.   They are making decisions about our futures that far exceeds any influence that government has had on our lives and futures.  Some are good, some are bad.  Ozark - Good!  Season 3 of Bloodline - Bad!  

    Some of you think the general public is going to go to the library and research 10 different news organizations.  That isn't realistic and it isn't because of laziness.  It is because some people are busy or some are more trusting and don't feel they need to look at 10 different news outlets.  Right now the tech companies are on the side of liberals and liberal causes so you don't care and gladly would back the private company argument (when it suits you).  Most of the time though to this group on here they are evil corporations that don't pay enough tax, pollute the planet, need to be regulated, etc... and who gives an F if they are a private business.    But what I meant by Russia or Germany, is that it isn't unthinkable (because it has happened and will happen again) for times to change and these large tech/media companies that control most of the web visits may push a narrative that you may not like, or perhaps you think you like but it is lies, and there is no room for dissent.  

    I don't know the right answer, I'm just surprised that people on here are so accepting of censorship by these large social media companies.  

    Your definition of censorship is vastly different than mine and probably others here.  That's the difference.  
    We are disagreeing on the role of the tech companies and whether they are essentially a public good.  Yes, they are owned by private companies, but at some does it become bigger than the shareholders that own it?  Should it be regulated like an public utility?  Here is a scenario I could see happening as consolidation happens over time:

    Where people get their news:
    Facebook - 30%
    Google-30%
    Youtube-30%
    Other sources-10%

    Let's say the CEO's, etc.. of these businesses side with a certain ideology and perhaps political party at some point in time, and start to label things as fake news that don't match their agenda, act like state owned media, etc...  From what I gather from your comments, this is perfectly okay as they are privately owned businesses.  We will just trust that the other 10% of media gets listened to and everything will be fine.  

    You clearly believe these companies have huge influence as you want them to take down fake stories or put disclaimers up.  You aren't on the flip side concerned about the "negative" influence they would have if all of sudden they started taking down stories or putting disclaimers up about information you believed was true?  

    I understand what censorship is, and I'm not saying I know how to prevent misinformation.  It is just a slippery slope as we live in the West and are fortunate to have access to all sorts of information.   Ignorance is bliss.  If you lived in Russia right now where all the news is the same, you might believe all sorts of lies about Ukraine.   I just can't fathom how people here have so much faith in the influence of these unelected tech elites to do the right thing.  
    No, it's not a utility.  People generally lack choices in utilities or there may be one other option (maybe for waste, or cable but not electricity).  There are nothing but choices when it comes to news and information.  That's a really big difference.  

    I read false, misinformation and incomplete information all the time.  I read Fox, Breitbart, the NY Post.  Breitbart in particular posts nothing but misinformation.  But I don't care.  I laugh, I get annoyed.  But I don't expect them to post what HuffPo posts.   

    And we don't live in Russia, but your recommendations that there is some government body that forces private companies to post or remove information gets us one step closer to Russia.  Your quest for neutrality leads to government overreach and eventually censorship.  

Categories