6 ms·

Yeah this article's claim is going to be extremely hard to swallow. The report reads like a textbook example of cherry picking data and surveys to suit their a

by mandis 6y ago

Yeah this article's claim is going to be extremely hard to swallow. The report reads like a textbook example of cherry picking data and surveys to suit their agenda.

gogopuppygogo 6y ago
When an entire political ideology for a major political party has shifted from lower taxes and increased individual freedom to fascist conspiracy theories based on misinformation it’s hard to swallow how you don’t agree with deplatforming those espousing such hate. Prior to January 6 it wasn’t as clear what we were dealing with. Afterwards it was clear the same monsters of yesteryear reared their heads.
- cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  So basically social media isn't censoring conservatives _and_ they deserve it too. Right.
- ttt0 6y ago
  To summarize where we're at right now: questioning the validity of elections is fascism and hate speech. I get that people might not believe those claims, but just let that sink in and enjoy the future you chose.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Repeating the same "questioning" that has been scrutinized and litigated for three months can only be in bad faith, pointing to a different purpose. If you're genuinely unsure, learn how to understand legal briefs.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Okay, so questioning the validity of elections in bad faith is fascism and hate speech. I have nothing to complain about then. Thanks for your insightful input.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        Yes, that is the straightforward answer to your question in the context of current events. I'm sorry that you don't like it. I'm sure you have plenty to complain about. Getting derailed by mass media narratives is not the way to have your actual gripes taken seriously. It's just another system of control.
        ttt0 6y ago
        Your answer is dishonest at best, you're trying to portray it as if they waited until it was "justified" to censor people. And that's not what happened, Twitter was banning people on the election night. Some of it was legitimate information, that was later confirmed by the media. And I know that you'd like to imagine that along the information they were posting "#StopTheSteal" and "#QAnon" and that's what got them banned, but no, it was just straightforward reporting, without any commentary. You know, something you'd normally expect from a journalist, but in our brave new world we don't believe in those standards anymore. What's funny is that most of the actual, obvious misinformation got away with a slap on the wrist (fact-check warnings) and they let it stay up. But since we never care what happens to the little guy, how about the NYPost getting locked out of their Twitter account for publishing the Hunter story? They said it was a Russian disinformation campaign and it was in bad faith too. And guess what, in that case it wasn't. So go ahead, make all the rationalizations how this is fine and see how this will work out for you, when they will come up with fake stories to justify murdering millions of people in a new war and you'll get silenced and get smeared as a fascist if you try to question it.
        mindslight 6y ago
        > you're trying to portray it as if they waited until it was "justified" to do it No, I'm talking about how things stand right now. I've been disgusted by the position of these MITMs for well over a decade, but with the current state of affairs it seems that such censorship is inevitable. I can think of few better ways to get congresscritters to act than by threatening their own personal safety, such as the result of this months long disinformation campaign about "election irregularities". > they will come up with fake stories to justify murdering millions of people in a new war and you'll get silenced and get smeared as a fascist if you try to question it So then, the same as it's always been? But let us not confuse speaking truth to power, with speaking disinformation to authority. While there is no oracle that can discern between the two, we hope that the former slowly grows (eg many more people now see Iraq for the mistake it was than in 2003) and the latter fades out due to scrutiny. Present disinformation campaigns don't seem to be fading though, causing instability that triggers the power structure's immune system. I'm not terribly worried for actual Free communications though. Surveillance Valley was always going to eat itself one way or another.
monopoledance 6y ago
> The report reads like a textbook example of cherry picking data and surveys to suit their agenda. Can you elaborate on this? How did you come to that conclusion? Cherry picking, publication bias and so on, are not self-evident but need to be proven. It's not like logical fallacies.

by mandis 6y ago

Yeah this article's claim is going to be extremely hard to swallow. The report reads like a textbook example of cherry picking data and surveys to suit their agenda.

gogopuppygogo 6y ago

When an entire political ideology for a major political party has shifted from lower taxes and increased individual freedom to fascist conspiracy theories based on misinformation it’s hard to swallow how you don’t agree with deplatforming those espousing such hate. Prior to January 6 it wasn’t as clear what we were dealing with. Afterwards it was clear the same monsters of yesteryear reared their heads.

cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
So basically social media isn't censoring conservatives _and_ they deserve it too. Right.
ttt0 6y ago
To summarize where we're at right now: questioning the validity of elections is fascism and hate speech. I get that people might not believe those claims, but just let that sink in and enjoy the future you chose.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Repeating the same "questioning" that has been scrutinized and litigated for three months can only be in bad faith, pointing to a different purpose. If you're genuinely unsure, learn how to understand legal briefs.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Okay, so questioning the validity of elections in bad faith is fascism and hate speech. I have nothing to complain about then. Thanks for your insightful input.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Yes, that is the straightforward answer to your question in the context of current events. I'm sorry that you don't like it. I'm sure you have plenty to complain about. Getting derailed by mass media narratives is not the way to have your actual gripes taken seriously. It's just another system of control.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        Your answer is dishonest at best, you're trying to portray it as if they waited until it was "justified" to censor people. And that's not what happened, Twitter was banning people on the election night. Some of it was legitimate information, that was later confirmed by the media. And I know that you'd like to imagine that along the information they were posting "#StopTheSteal" and "#QAnon" and that's what got them banned, but no, it was just straightforward reporting, without any commentary. You know, something you'd normally expect from a journalist, but in our brave new world we don't believe in those standards anymore. What's funny is that most of the actual, obvious misinformation got away with a slap on the wrist (fact-check warnings) and they let it stay up. But since we never care what happens to the little guy, how about the NYPost getting locked out of their Twitter account for publishing the Hunter story? They said it was a Russian disinformation campaign and it was in bad faith too. And guess what, in that case it wasn't. So go ahead, make all the rationalizations how this is fine and see how this will work out for you, when they will come up with fake stories to justify murdering millions of people in a new war and you'll get silenced and get smeared as a fascist if you try to question it.
        mindslight 6y ago
        > you're trying to portray it as if they waited until it was "justified" to do it No, I'm talking about how things stand right now. I've been disgusted by the position of these MITMs for well over a decade, but with the current state of affairs it seems that such censorship is inevitable. I can think of few better ways to get congresscritters to act than by threatening their own personal safety, such as the result of this months long disinformation campaign about "election irregularities". > they will come up with fake stories to justify murdering millions of people in a new war and you'll get silenced and get smeared as a fascist if you try to question it So then, the same as it's always been? But let us not confuse speaking truth to power, with speaking disinformation to authority. While there is no oracle that can discern between the two, we hope that the former slowly grows (eg many more people now see Iraq for the mistake it was than in 2003) and the latter fades out due to scrutiny. Present disinformation campaigns don't seem to be fading though, causing instability that triggers the power structure's immune system. I'm not terribly worried for actual Free communications though. Surveillance Valley was always going to eat itself one way or another.

monopoledance 6y ago

> The report reads like a textbook example of cherry picking data and surveys to suit their agenda. Can you elaborate on this? How did you come to that conclusion? Cherry picking, publication bias and so on, are not self-evident but need to be proven. It's not like logical fallacies.