- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,056
To be fair - if you like what you've already got, then a change is a change eh?I didn't even get to what kind of fence I was going to put up before he shut me down.
To be fair - if you like what you've already got, then a change is a change eh?I didn't even get to what kind of fence I was going to put up before he shut me down.
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:Please show any statistical evidence this is happening. Anecdotes don't count.
Motion sensor lights?
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.
Opinion | Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Facebook
My independent team of investigators looked into the complaints, and the company has taken action.www.wsj.com
Don't let social media corporations deny free speech to conservatives
In many ways you can contend that conservatives are being denied our First Amendment rights.www.desmoinesregister.com
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.
2nd Part came out in early March - Norton Motorcycles – Was it a fraud from the start? Part two | Superbike Magazine
Plus these two articles - Norton Motorcycles Creditors report – How much money is owed? | Superbike Magazine and Norton Motorcycles – TVS buys Norton for £16 million. | Superbike Magazine
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.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.
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.Social Media
Several First Amendment cases have arisen over the use of social media. Courts have examined how far the government can go in regulating speech on social media and the liability of social media companies in spreading terrorist content.www.mtsu.edu
First Amendment issues of social media. Many cases and questions.
No, the endgame for twitter is to make money.Obviously the end game for Twatter is just to be a platform for corporations agree with the minority dept and virtue signalling HQ.
I disagree with.Its not about what can be done legally.
The power of the social media companies, and their corrosive influence on public discourse is a concern
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.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.
Im starting to like Greta, shes waking up to the game.
Greta Thunberg hits out at leaders who use her fame to 'look good'
Climate change campaigner said after UN summit, Angela Merkel queued up for a selfiewww.theguardian.com
This is why shit gets taken down.No, the endgame for twitter is to make money.
There you go again, comparing a bit of piss-taking because you're from Liverpool to the oppression black people have faced for centuries.Racism or profiling?
A bit of both, though as an almost Scouser I have been on the end of stereotypes many times.
Wow. Such trickery, the father sounds like a real piece of shit...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 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.”
It's only taken you how long to understand how black/non white people feel?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.