SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,622
I think your well aware that Facebook will never reveal stats on this. One of the reasons their First Amendment RIghts are under question. Just bloody google it and you will see thousands of reports on it, just a few below:

Survey results like this article talks to.


Literally so many cases of bans, suppression and demonetization on Google, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook. Even recently Youtube has been called out for banning, demonetizing or de-listing in searches creators content, mostly conservatives. it's also why a lot of content makers are abandoning the platform to safer havens. But they lose out monetarily by doing so.

When the social platforms do get caught or called out, they just explain instances away as an error. Anyway, the way it is going there will be another Senate hearing after the next election which unfortunately Orange Man will win with a majority in both houses. Once that happens I believe they will go after the social media platforms and rewrite their rules for them with oversight.
There are NO First Amendment issues here, never have been and people who claim there are have never read the Constitution.

Everything else is just noise (and FWIW the most likely reason for demonitization or a ban on any social media site, by a country mile, is IP or copyright violation).

Here's the thing; if you want to pay for it, Facebook ans Twitter's stats are an open book; you can find out about bans etc. through Open Graph etc. f you're prepared to pay the money and do the legwork (Google not so much), and I have no doubt that the Republicans and the Dems and anyone else with an axe to grind and deep pockets has done just that, and found....noise, no statistically significant political banning trends whatsoever. This is the flipside of the cognitive reinforcement bubbles that Facebook creates; just like anything you don't like/agree with gets forced out of your feed, any transgressions by Facebook that affect your interest group seem overly magnified, because you're simply not seeing any other experiences. Facebook is an extremely bad thing for public discourse but its not because they're going around banning opinions they don't like.
 

Hawkwind

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
7,179
There are NO First Amendment issues here, never have been and people who claim there are have never read the Constitution.

Everything else is just noise (and FWIW the most likely reason for demonitization or a ban on any social media site, by a country mile, is IP or copyright violation).

Here's the thing; if you want to pay for it, Facebook ans Twitter's stats are an open book; you can find out about bans etc. through Open Graph etc. f you're prepared to pay the money and do the legwork (Google not so much), and I have no doubt that the Republicans and the Dems and anyone else with an axe to grind and deep pockets has done just that, and found....noise, no statistically significant political banning trends whatsoever. This is the flipside of the cognitive reinforcement bubbles that Facebook creates; just like anything you don't like/agree with gets forced out of your feed, any transgressions by Facebook that affect your interest group seem overly magnified, because you're simply not seeing any other experiences. Facebook is an extremely bad thing for public discourse but its not because they're going around banning opinions they don't like.
So if nothing fishy is going on why soo many examples of things happening, even to senators. There are many who think First amendment rights are an issue. Mainly due to the fact that Social Media giants control most of the political discourse and influence. Even the Democrats believe that. Heck they partially blamed the last election on foreign influence and Cambridge Analytica etc. The social media sites, in general, have become the debate arena and so banning people from those could be seen as detrimental to one side if not controlled and fair policy employed. That is in essence the First Amendment issue, which I'm damned sure you know.
 

Hawkwind

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
7,179

First Amendment issues of social media. Many cases and questions.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,622
So if nothing fishy is going on why soo many examples of things happening, even to senators. There are many who think First amendment rights are an issue. Mainly due to the fact that Social Media giants control most of the political discourse and influence. Even the Democrats believe that. Heck they partially blamed the last election on foreign influence and Cambridge Analytica etc. The social media sites, in general, have become the debate arena and so banning people from those could be seen as detrimental to one side if not controlled and fair policy employed. That is in essence the First Amendment issue, which I'm damned sure you know.
The power of the social media companies, and their corrosive influence on public discourse is a concern, as I already said in a previous post, but it's not a First Amendment issue; the First Amendment only refers to government-imposed prohibitions on speech; it's very clear.

If Congress wants to do something about the de facto monopolies that Google etc represent, that would be great, but they won't do that because they're up to their eyeballs in campaign contributions.

As for "why are there so many examples", c'mon, you know the actual numbers are tiny; a third of the human race is on Facebook. It's fake news.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,060

First Amendment issues of social media. Many cases and questions.
I think that what you say on Facebook or Twitter is not protected free speech under the first amendment - facebook and twitter are private companies and they can delete with impunity.

The issue is with private corporation control over public discourse. Conversations controlled by private companies are "in their house" so to speak - and if you don't like what someone says in your house you can boot them out.

I had a few fights with @Gwadien over this - like a lot of people he insisted he was a champion of free speech but the idea of the us government stepping in and regulating what twatter was allowed to delete under first amendment laws was abhorrent to him - he'd rather have control with the corporations, probably because they do delete racist and sexist tweets, which "people shouldn't be free to speak" (thus negating his support of actual free speech).

Unfortunately, he found the fact that people have opposing ideas so offensive he dropped off Freddyshouse (and actually de-friended me on steam) - which is a shame because a lot of people had levelled the accusation that he was a snowflake (another 'offensive' term) - and that pretty much proved it.

That makes me sad :(

But yeah - it's not a first amendment issue until the US government decides to extend those protections into the private sphere - which as @DaGaffer points out, they won't because the government is knee deep in campaign donations.

You do have to watch the Democrats though - they're likely to want to criminalise some forms of speech, just like in Blighty...
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
Obviously the end game for Twatter is just to be a platform for corporations agree with the minority dept and virtue signalling HQ.

Everyone of any worth will be banned.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,060
Obviously the end game for Twatter is just to be a platform for corporations agree with the minority dept and virtue signalling HQ.
No, the endgame for twitter is to make money.

Corporations can't make money if they're on the receiving end of outrage, so they're banning where there are political hotspots. If it was the 1980's it'd be gay rights stuff which would be the subject of outrage so bans would be occuring there.

The way around this is to legisltate that US first amendment rights must apply to all forms of speech on all platforms.

That's highly unlikely to happen, for obvious reasons.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
Its not about what can be done legally.

Its the fact that banning offence and argument is the first port of call, there are several memes based on the humour of these being the first no smack generation and their utter disbelief and people not agreeing with everything they say.

So much debate is online with a nanny state overseeing offence, this has spilled onto the street.
Its perfectly normal for drunk people at a party say something offensive and everyone acts like the conversation is part of some overseeing censorship.

'You cant say that'

Almost looking over their shoulder to see if the twatter mob are there.

And to an extent it is, one quick video and youre cancelled in the virtual world.

Its fucking madness.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,060
I think there's a lot in what you are saying about the consequences of the current environment on social discourse but this:
Its not about what can be done legally.
I disagree with.

The fact that corporations edit the forms of speech that people are exposed to (not just by deleting and no-platforming people but also, mainly, through the algorithms that make the echo chambers that are mentally rewarding but socially retarding that form the basis of twatter and facebook) has had a noticeable effect because, largley, social discourse has moved online.

If they legislated to ensure all forms of speech, even disagreeable speech, was protected online, like it is in the "real world" in the states, then the potential for people to be exposed regularly would make it less shocking. (Although the algorithms would still take care of most of it - and they're clearly the much bigger problem).


It's like the old lady who lived near a place I'd park my car when I went for an after-work ride. She'd be apoplectic that I'd park near her house - first time she came out literally screaming at me to move the car as she could see it out of her window. It was intensely upsetting to her because it wasn't part of her regular norm. And that is what facebook and twatter is bringing about - a curated social sphere reinforcing a comfortable echo chamber norm with just the right amount of "outrage" thrown in because people love it. Driven by how people like to feel themselves - righteous (echo chamber) and angry at the world (outrage) and, most importantly, that their voice is being heard (it isn't, it's drowned out).

The corporations don't care as long as they can sell advertising. Some forms of speech are a threat to that advertising and income revenue and that's why they get blocked - and that's why they need legislative protection.

Hard ask of the dumb public to support legislation that protects racists and arseholes (i.e. the people you love) isn't it? - the result is that important minority concerns can easily be pushed aside - the very unpopular but important opinions that the First Amendment is there to protect against (tyranny of the majority being a lot of it).
 

Hawkwind

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
7,179
The power of the social media companies, and their corrosive influence on public discourse is a concern
That is exactly what I was pointing at. I am well aware of the supreme court ruling - Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled in Packingham v. North Carolina that social-media platforms are the new “public square,” and access to them is protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. I did not state they were breaking First Amendment rights just that it could be an issue. I just find it an interesting subject personally. I hate the influence has over society and as you stated the corrosive influence is a concern. I would go further and say it has absolutely been detrimental to society and culture. However, the US Govt can't do anything about it right now. The senate as is simply won't allow it but I do think they want to.

Although there is no massive blanket banning of conservative voices they do seem to target influential ones. Crowder on Youtube getting demonetized is a prime example whilst left winger's like Samantha Bee is left untouched despite extremely hateful content. I actually watched some Crowder's Change my mind videos after the demonetization earlier this month and did not think any of it was that controversial. On the few that I did watch they seemed to be reasonable discourse allowing both sides of a complex issue to be aired.

We will see where it goes after the election, I would predict if Trump wins big in both houses Social Media will appear again in Senate Hearings and the likely outcome would be further changes to law ( Section 230 etc.) or Govt. oversight.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,060
That is exactly what I was pointing at. I am well aware of the supreme court ruling - Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled in Packingham v. North Carolina that social-media platforms are the new “public square,” and access to them is protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. I did not state they were breaking First Amendment rights just that it could be an issue. I just find it an interesting subject personally. I hate the influence has over society and as you stated the corrosive influence is a concern. I would go further and say it has absolutely been detrimental to society and culture. However, the US Govt can't do anything about it right now. The senate as is simply won't allow it but I do think they want to.

Although there is no massive blanket banning of conservative voices they do seem to target influential ones. Crowder on Youtube getting demonetized is a prime example whilst left winger's like Samantha Bee is left untouched despite extremely hateful content. I actually watched some Crowder's Change my mind videos after the demonetization earlier this month and did not think any of it was that controversial. On the few that I did watch they seemed to be reasonable discourse allowing both sides of a complex issue to be aired.

We will see where it goes after the election, I would predict if Trump wins big in both houses Social Media will appear again in Senate Hearings and the likely outcome would be further changes to law ( Section 230 etc.) or Govt. oversight.
The problem is - in this day and age, Trump would skew the rules to protect what he likes and what the Dem's don't - and vice versa.

I think the constitution was a big fluke.


BTW - in Nottingham today (to ensure my house insurance remains valid) - and Half Life Alyx is fucking brilliant :D
 

Lamp

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,205
Half way through watching Bulletproof Season 1.

The main characters are likeable but shallow, and impossible to take seriously. The actors are wooden. Every police cliché is there. The action sequences look like they were made with no imagination and zero budget. The back story running through the episodes is weak, and each episode is predictable and poorly scripted.

Having said that, I'm quite enjoying it! It's no Luther, but it kills a few hours of boredom no problem.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,060
On season 7 of Marvel's Agents of Shield. I'd probably have ditched a while back but the o/h loves it.

It's actually pretty enjoyable nonsense :)
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
37,831
Im starting to like Greta, shes waking up to the game.

Yeah

“If anything it [coronavirus] will change the way we perceive and treat crises because it shows that during a crisis you act with necessary force,” she told the BBC.

“And it has also opened up the discussion around how much we value human life.

I liked that bit.

Although it won't because once it's over we will be right back to consuming and watching Xfactor.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
Racism or profiling?

A bit of both, though as an almost Scouser I have been on the end of stereotypes many times.

The usual trickery of course is for the Guardian photographer to reconstruct with the dad wearing a shirt and looking all respectable and restrained , the police may well have come across two males fitting the description riding at speed and given details of an older and younger black male, anger, frustration and adrenelin are probably the highest factors...someones been stabbed, they go out like bulls in a china shop.
I believe their intentions were honourable...the execution was not.

 
Last edited:

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,256
Racism or profiling?

A bit of both, though as an almost Scouser I have been on the end of stereotypes many times.
There you go again, comparing a bit of piss-taking because you're from Liverpool to the oppression black people have faced for centuries.
The usual trickery of course is for the Guardian photographer to reconstruct with the dad wearing a shirt and looking all respectable and restrained
Wow. Such trickery, the father sounds like a real piece of shit...
The family were visited by a community officer later that evening. “Huugo didn’t want them to come in so they stayed on the doorstep and asked if we were OK,” said Andrew, who works at City University. He is also active in local projects including coaching a youth football team and volunteering for the outreach programme Kickoff@3 , which is co-run by a black Metropolitan police officer, Michael Wallace.

“I couldn’t vouch for a more humble and more dedicated member of the community,” said Wallace. “The irony is that Kickoff@3 is about building good relationships with youth and the police, and Andy is instrumental in helping with that programme. The bike ride he was doing was organised by us – we were raising money for a homeless charity and a domestic violence one.”
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
To this day every where I go in the UK and say Im from Liverpool, the reactions range from

Them tapping their thigh...better check my wallet to a dropped face that says .
'Oh..er thats nice'. followed by patronising comments about the Beatles.
Ive been accused of stealing, of being a heroin addict, if something goes missing Im the first to be questioned.
Without an ounce of evidence, just a general assumed guilt based on an unwritten consensus.
Its not piss taking..because very few are good enough to succeed against a scouser, its our second sport.


I understand how black people feel now...obviously not the 400yrs of slavery.
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,074,902
To this day every where I go in the UK and say Im from Liverpool, the reactions range from

Them tapping their thigh...better check my wallet to a dropped face that says .
'Oh..er thats nice'. followed by patronising comments about the Beatles.
Ive been accused of stealing, of being a heroin addict, if something goes missing Im the first to be questioned.
Without an ounce of evidence, just a general assumed guilt based on an unwritten consensus.
Its not piss taking..because very few are good enough to succeed against a scouser, its our second sport.


I understand how black people feel now...obviously not the 400yrs of slavery.
It's only taken you how long to understand how black/non white people feel?

I doubt that all of what you described that has happened to you has only occurred over the last few weeks.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,232
Ive posted about this many times.
I went out with a half Jamacian girl for 10 years, she never knew if people fancied her or were staring because she was black in a white majority town.
Ive had distant scottish relatives say to me.
How can you have one of those in the house.
Standing there next to his fat, pasty, ging, thick wife.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,376
To this day every where I go in the UK and say Im from Liverpool, the reactions range from

Them tapping their thigh...better check my wallet to a dropped face that says .
'Oh..er thats nice'. followed by patronising comments about the Beatles.
Ive been accused of stealing, of being a heroin addict, if something goes missing Im the first to be questioned.
Without an ounce of evidence, just a general assumed guilt based on an unwritten consensus.
Its not piss taking..because very few are good enough to succeed against a scouser, its our second sport.


I understand how black people feel now...obviously not the 400yrs of slavery.
If only they knew you.....it would surely go better.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom