Internet Censorship.

[tinselwolverine]

i disagree - i think they are clearly stifling free speech or just speech, but they have a right to do it. i think its stupid and bad business, but they have the right to do it. its a form of legal discrimination.

I would say they?re not stifling it because they can?t.

They provide a platform that is less than a piss into the ocean regarding the marketplace of ideas, and the totality of platforms that exist to accommodate it.

And I don?t think Facebook has a worldview at all.

I think Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook from the Winklenose Brothers or whatever the name is and his worldview was to help get other dorks at Harvard like himself get laid.

Then Eduardo Saverin came along and the worldview became ?hey we can help nerds on campuses across the country get laid.?

Then Sean Parker came along and the worldview became ?hey I founded a company that made me a fortune without turning a god damn dime in profit and I can do it again,? and that became the worldview.


And then Sheryl Sandberg came along and said ?hey, I can become a billionaire and then my husband can die and then I can write a book about how cool I am and start fucking the guy who sent the University of Michigan football team on international trips during the off-season,? and that became worldview.

And then all the dorks and nerds parents? started posting videos of grumpy cat with each other.

And then tigermud came along and started this thread, and then, well, it?s now.

EDIT: Oh, and then grumpy cat just died.

Forgot to add that.

And, well, it?s now again.

 

[Michchamp]

zing! turd for the win!

yeah, I figured you didn't.

 

[tinselwolverine]

What your missing is that big tech and the left are both in agreement with censoring speech and labeling anything they don?t agree with as hate speech, they are following the chicom social credit score model it?s total authoritarianism and if our far lefty dem candidates gain control of the office and both houses this will become gumbit backed policy and legislation IMO. Harris has already publicly stated she?s on broad with it all.

Just because we all have normalcy bias and think the USA is immune to it all doesn?t make us immune

https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/no-borders-no-wall-no-usa-at-all/

There are barbarians at the door and trump is trying to prevent clown world order from taking over.

Yeah, no, that has nothing to do with my question, and I?m not missing anything because you copy/paste the identical post every day; you?re the conservative/conspiracy theorist flip side of Big Guns Bob.

Barbarians at the Gate is a book I?ve heard of.

I?ve never heard of barbarians at the door before.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yeah, no, that has nothing to do with my question, and I?m not missing anything because you copy/paste the identical post every day; you?re the conservative/conspiracy theorist flip side of Big Guns Bob.

Barbarians at the Gate is a book I?ve heard of.

I?ve never heard of barbarians at the door before.

Barbarians would have to stop at the gate if Trump built his wall, but facebook and universities keep stopping him so there's nothing between the barbarians and our doors.

 

[tigermud]

Yeah, no, that has nothing to do with my question, and I?m not missing anything because you copy/paste the identical post every day; you?re the conservative/conspiracy theorist flip side of Big Guns Bob.

Barbarians at the Gate is a book I?ve heard of.

I?ve never heard of barbarians at the door before.

Barbarians at the wall would have been more appropriate once it?s completed if ever completed

 

[tigermud]

What the slippery slope will lead to here as well under a future authoritarian libdem

https://nypost.com/2019/05/18/chinas-new-social-credit-system-turns-orwells-1984-into-reality/

 

[tinselwolverine]

Barbarians at the wall would have been more appropriate once it?s completed if ever completed

But in post 940 you didn?t say either thing.

 

[tigermud]

But in post 940 you didn?t say either thing.

...so what

 

[tinselwolverine]

...so what

So you?re not consistent.

But whatever.

 

[tinselwolverine]

What the slippery slope will lead to here as well under a future authoritarian libdem

https://nypost.com/2019/05/18/chinas-new-social-credit-system-turns-orwells-1984-into-reality/

Trump?s phone would definitely have the deadbeat ringtone, with his history of stiffing creditors.

But that could also be said of every Republican and Democratic lawmaker on Capitol Hill in recent history.

The creditors the?ve all stiffed are the taxpayers.

 

[tigermud]

Trump?s phone would definitely have the deadbeat ringtone, with his history of stiffing creditors.

But that could also be said of every Republican and Democratic lawmaker on Capitol Hill in recent history.

The creditors the?ve all stiffed are the taxpayers.

Trump would have been kicked off of twitter a long time ago if he wasn't POTUS, once he's out of office they'll kick him off.

 

[tigermud]

So you?re not consistent.

But whatever.

Some of you are way too easily agitated by typo's, grammar mistakes and inconsistencies. These things don't bother me at all.

 

[Spartanmack]

yeah, I figured you didn't.

I do actually, but I'm not making the case that they control anything so it's not really worth getting into a semantic argument.

 

[tigermud]

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12243


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...als-gen-z-pessimistic-on-life-deloitte-survey

 

[Spartanmack]

I would say they?re not stifling it because they can?t.

They provide a platform that is less than a piss into the ocean regarding the marketplace of ideas, and the totality of platforms that exist to accommodate it.

And I don?t think Facebook has a worldview at all.

I think Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook from the Winklenose Brothers or whatever the name is and his worldview was to help get other dorks at Harvard like himself get laid.

Then Eduardo Saverin came along and the worldview became ?hey we can help nerds on campuses across the country get laid.?

Then Sean Parker came along and the worldview became ?hey I founded a company that made me a fortune without turning a god damn dime in profit and I can do it again,? and that became the worldview.


And then Sheryl Sandberg came along and said ?hey, I can become a billionaire and then my husband can die and then I can write a book about how cool I am and start fucking the guy who sent the University of Michigan football team on international trips during the off-season,? and that became worldview.

And then all the dorks and nerds parents? started posting videos of grumpy cat with each other.

And then tigermud came along and started this thread, and then, well, it?s now.

EDIT: Oh, and then grumpy cat just died.

Forgot to add that.

And, well, it?s now again.

materiality isn't the issue though - the issue is, are they or are they not stifling speech on their platform (which probably has a broader reach than you think). I think the answer to that is clearly yes.

FB may not have a worldview but the guy who runs it does and he's made the business decision, which he's legally entitled to do, that if your worldview doesn't fit into his worldview and you try to use his platform to spread your worldview, you can't be on his platform.

 

[tinselwolverine]

materiality isn't the issue though - the issue is, are they or are they not stifling speech on their platform (which probably has a broader reach than you think). I think the answer to that is clearly yes.

But it doesn?t matter.

The platform, again, is nothing more than a stream of piss into the ocean.

Take that stream of piss away and the ocean isn?t altered one bit.

I don?t know what the guy who runs Facebook?s world view is and I don?t give two fucks.

Again, he ripped off the concept and the original goal was to help get other dorks laid.

The notion that anybody would take two seconds to give a shit to wonder what his worldview might or might not be now is absurd.

 

[Spartanmack]

But it doesn?t matter.

The platform, again, is nothing more than a stream of piss into the ocean.

Take that stream of piss away and the ocean isn?t altered one bit.

I don?t know what the guy who runs Facebook?s world view is and I don?t give two fucks.

Again, he ripped off the concept and the original goal was to help get other dorks laid.

The notion that anybody would take two seconds to give a shit to wonder what his worldview might or might not be now is absurd.

I think social media companies like FB, Twitter and Google (YouTube) as public forums are all individually and collectively a lot bigger than "a stream of piss in the ocean" and a lot more influential. And I think banning people like Watson and others legitimizes false accusations of bigotry and hate - and they're all a bunch of hypocrites about how they enforce their own rules.

I don't use FB much either - just for catching up with friends and family I don't get to see frequently, but I know plenty of people who use it to get news, spread their worldview and follow people like PJW.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think social media companies like FB, Twitter and Google (YouTube) as public forums are all individually and collectively a lot bigger than "a stream of piss in the ocean" and a lot more influential. And I think banning people like Watson and others legitimizes false accusations of bigotry and hate - and they're all a bunch of hypocrites about how they enforce their own rules.

I don't use FB much either - just for catching up with friends and family I don't get to see frequently, but I know plenty of people who use it to get news, spread their worldview and follow people like PJW.

I give you...PJW.

Paul Joseph Watson.

I do this without the aid or assistance of Facebook, whatsoever.

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCittVh8imKanO_5KohzDbpg

EDIT: Weird, it didn?t embed.

Oh well.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Some of you are way too easily agitated by typo's, grammar mistakes and inconsistencies. These things don't bother me at all.

Inconsistencies are much more significant than typos or grammar.

Inconsistencies point to a lack of thoughtfulness in the way in which one arrives at their conclusions.

You don?t have to tell us that you don?t care about typing or spelling or grammar. We have figured that out along time ago.

 

[Spartanmack]

I give you...PJW.

Paul Joseph Watson.

I do this without the aid or assistance of Facebook, whatsoever.

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCittVh8imKanO_5KohzDbpg

EDIT: Weird, it didn?t embed.

Oh well.

i know who he is - he's actually very entertaining - search youtube for "PJW modern art" or "PJW modern architecture."

the existence of his YouTube channel doesn't prove or disprove anything, except that PJW is still on YouTube but I already knew that. FB is stifling free speech on their platform, whether youtube or twitter or whatever also bans him or not. And I think they'll probably get worse and more hypocritical in the future, and it's quite possible policies like this will spread to other companies - YouTube already does something similar if I recall. They haven't banned a lot of conservatives but I'm pretty sure they've demonetized accounts for people who don't conform to their world view.