By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Internet Censorship.

michchamp said:
you're right, you're right... sorry, that was an unfair thing for me to do.

I'll select a random for letter sequence for the character... how about GermanMack? Or would it be GermanMach? The Third Reich's #1 "Both Sides Do It" apologist.
Click to expand...

this is rich coming from the board's biggest fascist - it's also hilarious that you think the squad is more targeted with threats than other politicians, let alone the right specifically (remember, Steve Scalise was actually shot and almost killed by a Bernie Sanders supporter who wanted to kill as many Republicans as he could). It's even more hilarious that you accuse me or anyone else of being a fascist apologist when you repeatedly defend and even justify the rioting, burning and looting of urban America by leftist radicals and low information idiots protesting problems that don't actually exist - that is when you're not trying hilariously to pin that violence and vandalism on the right.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
But could he get on base?
Click to expand...

MeagerMiniatureBobolink-size_restricted.gif
 
tigermud said:
First, they came for Infowars, and they did not speak out?
Because they hated Infowars with a passion.

Then they came for the Republicans, they did not speak out?
Because they did not like Republicans.

Then they came for the Libertarians, they did not speak out?
Because they were not Libertarians

Then they came for the rest of you
and there was no one left to speak for the rest of you.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...g-sites-like-infowars-democratic-senator-says

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...zabeth-hengs-video-ad-about-communist-crimes/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...pends-libertarian-accounts-including-ron-paul

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

The very essence of totalitarianism
Click to expand...

Tonight the half owner of Parler posted ?then the deplatformers came for Dan Bongino

I had to remind him first they came for Alex Jones
 
I saw a headline saying someone from Cambridge Analytica is on Parler's board and a claim they want verified email and a cell number to join. Not that that sets them apart or anything, but you know they are using your data.


Edit: the daughter of someone from Cambridge Analytica
 
Last edited:
Gulo Blue said:
I saw a headline saying someone from Cambridge Analytica is on Parler's board and a claim they want verified email and a cell number to join. Not that that sets them apart or anything, but you know they are using your data.


Edit: the daughter of someone from Cambridge Analytica
Click to expand...

Doesn’t set them apart from anyone else. There has also been fake Parler was hacked stories abound. Bongino is having none of it. CNN wants Parler shut down. Tyrants

Parler also wants an official photo supplied in order to be a “badged” poster and won’t let you post pics or links to other peoples threads without it. They did that after spammers and provocateurs were posting child porn. That’s a common tactic to try and get people flagged and reported to authorities. There are so many evil people on this planet
 
Last edited:
Gulo Blue said:
The headlines seem factual/celebration-free.
Click to expand...

"YouTube is finally cracking down on videos with misinformation alleging that President Trump won the U.S..."

"YouTube said it will start deleting videos that mislead people about the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, a move ..."

"YouTube plans to remove videos uploaded that attempt to mislead on the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential election, warning ..."

"YouTube on Wednesday banned new videos with bogus claims of election fraud, saying enough states have certified Joe Biden as ..."

"The company said it would now remove misleading videos that claim widespread fraud or other errors changed the outcome of the ..."

"YouTube said it is removing videos that falsely claim widespread voter fraud or errors changed the outcome of the U.S....

Call it bias, then. And cookie-cutter copy.
 
Last edited:
Gulo Blue said:
The headlines seem factual/celebration-free.
Click to expand...

factual? who decides what's disinformation, misleading or a bogus claim and who proved there was no election fraud?

I actually don't have a big problem with private companies doing it, other than I think it's bad for business and only adds to the divisiveness. It's definitely censorship, but not illegal and ultimately, it's their right and choice, but if they are going to censor and opine on content, then they're not just platforms, they're editorial outlets and they should be accountable/liable for the content.
 
Last edited:
byco42 said:
"YouTube is finally cracking down on videos with misinformation alleging that President Trump won the U.S..."

"YouTube said it will start deleting videos that mislead people about the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, a move ..."

"YouTube plans to remove videos uploaded that attempt to mislead on the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential election, warning ..."

"YouTube on Wednesday banned new videos with bogus claims of election fraud, saying enough states have certified Joe Biden as ..."

"The company said it would now remove misleading videos that claim widespread fraud or other errors changed the outcome of the ..."

"YouTube said it is removing videos that falsely claim widespread voter fraud or errors changed the outcome of the U.S....

Call it bias, then. And cookie-cutter copy.
Click to expand...


Those aren't the headlines I get when I click that link. I see 1 "false claims" in there.


"YouTube Bans New Videos Claiming US Election Fraud"
"YouTube bans videos with false claims of widespread election fraud"
"YouTube will ban videos disputing the 2020 U.S. presidential election"
"YouTube bans videos claiming 2020 presidential election fraud"
"Google will lift its ban on election ads this Thursday"
"YouTube bans One America News Network from posting new videos for a week"
"YouTube announces a ban on new videos claiming US election fraud"
"YouTube bans One America News Network from posting new videos for a week"
"YouTube Bans Far Right-wing OAN Channel For A Week"
 
It’s really too bad most of the republicans in congress won’t do a damn thing about protecting the 1st amendment in today’s public square since they are all bought and paid for by the tech. There all just a bunch of chicom sellouts
 
Gulo Blue said:
Really? Nothing about nearly all states suing Facebook, trying to break off pieces of the company?
Click to expand...

Link. I'm reading about this today. Stoller's written a lot on monopoly power and the government's failure to enforce anti-trust law.

There are two complaints, one from the states and one from the FTC. The state AG complaint is stronger, but both tell the same story. Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp to stop nascent competitors from challenging its monopoly power in social networking. It also used a variety of other tactics to foreclose competitors it could not buy from entering the market and challenging its dominance. Then, after it became a monopoly, it increased prices or downgraded user experiences to profit from the conspiracy it had arranged.​

According to free market worshipers/apologists, it should not have been possible for facebook to do those things.

Waiting for the first "this is big government run amok" article in response to this... wonder who will write it?
 
 
byco42 said:
Then call them sub-heads. Co-heads.
Click to expand...
Oh, now I see it.


I still wouldn't call it celebratory to describe the claims as false or misleading, but should they call it false at all is a fair question. I don't know what the threshold is, but with as many rulings as there have been and no evidence of widespread fraud holding up to scrutiny, it's not clearly wrong to say these claims are false. Can the news never say a claim is false just because it technically cannot be disproven?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
33,965
Messages
1,122,199
Members
959
Latest member
hillgibson

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top