Trump's Free Speech Echo Chamber

[Satsui Ryu]

I doubt it's no holds barred. They probably just adhere to standard traditional hate speech guidelines, and not the ever changing definition of hate speech Liberals seem to invent every other day, that mysteriously only seem to be enforced against conservatives.

The problem is to many it is impossible for them to say anything that is hateful. The amount of fucked up shit I've seen expressed by people who turn around and say they are not hateful is astounding. Then these people complain about being censored by simply calling out their BS. Due to the hoops you have to jump through to use this app I doubt it will be anything major, but if it were to actually gain any traction and be moderated in any way the bitching would be huge.

 

[HereticBD]

The problem is to many it is impossible for them to say anything that is hateful. The amount of fucked up shit I've seen expressed by people who turn around and say they are not hateful is astounding. Then these people complain about being censored by simply calling out their BS.

There's a difference though, and you know it. Twitter has banned people for saying "women are biologically women", because scientific fact is apparently very hateful. This isn't about people complaining that they can't say the n-word with impunity.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

You won't find many conservatives complaining if it works close to what a neutral platform is expected to work. This War Room here is a good example where people are free to counter BLM "I'm a trained Marxist" and whatever narratives are in vogue from HuffPo and your local campus-feminist. Reddit, not so much.

Wait wuh? People bitch about this place being as bad as the other major media outlets for censorship all the time. Any kind of moderation will be seen as controlled narrative. Hell IMO moderation simply sweeps under the rug the prevelant ugly side of right wing politics.

 

[WhiteMousse]

There's already a free speech forum. It's called 4chan and you can basically say anything you want. You can't get banned for saying , , cunt, or anything. If you post off topic stuff it gets deleted. Despite it being an absolute crap shoot (the funniest stuff and the most horrifying stuff is posted there), the format works.

On a side note, I gotta say that Sherdog has some of the best moderators ever. They are fair, and they're human. They weigh everything individually and really strive to accommodate the intent of a post. They enforce the rules but do not try to use the letter of the law to stifle someone's thoughts.

Anyone been to Resetera?

 

[uppercutbus]

Wait wuh? People bitch about this place being as bad as the other major media outlets for censorship all the time. Any kind of moderation will be seen as controlled narrative. Hell IMO moderation simply sweeps under the rug the prevelant ugly side of right wing politics.

They bitch about some questionable moderation, they don't bitch it's as bad as Reddit or, as mentioned above, Resetera. This place is miles ahead still and what Parler might look like, even then it might be slightly more stricter.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

There's a difference though, and you know it. Twitter has banned people for saying "women are biologically women", because scientific fact is apparently very hateful. This isn't about people complaining that they can't say the n-word with impunity.

After the millionth time of seeing "I'm not racist because I think black people are dumb, violent, and should be removed from white society" or "I'm not homophobic because I think gays are pawns in the destruction of society" or stuff like that you start to wonder geez I guess they think nothing they can say is considered hateful.

Its not facts that are seen as hateful, its the misrepresentation of facts or the follow up opinions that are considered hate.

Edit: I've literally seen someone here refer to a rape/murder victim as a coal burner, but would get offended when told he has racist opinions.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

They bitch about some questionable moderation, they don't bitch it's as bad as Reddit or, as mentioned above, Resetera. This place is miles ahead still and what Parler might look like, even then it might be slightly more stricter.

I don't think that really means much. A lot of complaining vs a whole lot of complaining is still major complaining and really shows how misconstrued many people's perceptions are.

 

[James Bomb]

That a weird way to frame censorship. Remember when Twitter was championing themselves as free speech platform “the free speech wing of the free speech party,”. Quite funny. These platforms seemed to want to embody those ideals some time back. Remember "don't be evil". After integrating into daily lives and monopolizing the markets, they then decide they want to play favorites. That Leaked Google memo was an eye opener. Hardly a myth that parler doesn't cater to the people who are censored (conservatives). Just because Ben "never Trumper" Shapiro has a youtube channel doesn't mean big tech isn't biased and pushed people away.

As for Parler you'll be surprised how milquetoast the conversations there will be with bannings being very easy and phone sign up to even view anything. It will just be a Tweet circumvention for Trump and uncontroversial opinions that don't come near anything criminal but existing big tech frown upon. Youtube went full derp with the Covid videos, even reinstated some.

Twitter didn't censor Trump, they just put a fact check disclaimer on a post that was clearly contradicted by the facts.

It's quite interesting that conservatives didn't seem to have these sorts of problems with tech companies "playing favorites" before the Trump era. Maybe it's not so much that tech companies changed, but the message from Republican "leadership" changed instead.

 

[HereticBD]

After the millionth time of seeing "I'm not racist because I think black people are dumb, violent, and should be removed from white society" or "I'm not homophobic because I think gays are pawns in the destruction of society" or stuff like that you start to wonder geez I guess they think nothing they can say is considered hateful.

Its not facts that are seen as hateful, its the misrepresentation of facts or the follow up opinions that are considered hate.

What does any of that have to do with the example I provided you? It was a plain fact, not a misrepresentation, and they only took it down because it didn't adhere to Liberal ideology. You can tap dance around the very OBVIOUS reason that person was banned, but it doesn't change the fact that they were banned merely for not adhering to Liberal ideology.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

What does any of that have to do with the example I provided you? It was a plain fact, not a misrepresentation, and they only took it down because it didn't adhere to Liberal ideology. You can tap dance around the very OBVIOUS reason that person was banned, but it doesn't change the fact that they were banned merely for not adhering to Liberal ideology.

Because posting some generic claim with zero specifics does not mean much. Saying some person was banned from some place for saying this one thing does not really say much. And the way fucked up shit is downplayed who's to say there is not more to your no detail story.

And anything that drives away advertisers will usually result in being taken down. I don't use Youtube for politics at all, but one of the content producers that I watch regularly was demonitized even with 2 million subscribers. He made videos parodying gym rats. CT's, racism, and mysoginy are simply niche markets that usually detract from a company's ability to make money. Places like Parler make it work with their business model.

 

[uppercutbus]

Twitter didn't censor Trump, they just put a fact check disclaimer on a post that was clearly contradicted by the facts.

The tweet becomes hidden under some conditions like that. Facebook also banned adverts for the president's re-election campaign. Twitter took down the "THUGS" tweet, and Facebook faced backlash for allowing the 'looting-shooting' post to remain unchanged. FB also removed political ads from Trump's campaign, saying they violated the company's policy against 'organized hate.'

It's quite interesting that conservatives didn't seem to have these sorts of problems with tech companies "playing favorites" before the Trump era. Maybe it's not so much that tech companies changed, but the message from Republican "leadership" changed instead.

Nope, the Google memo shows the bias mentality of these people.

I don't think that really means much. A lot of complaining vs a whole lot of complaining is still major complaining and really shows how misconstrued many people's perceptions are.

The only misconstrued perception is that this place is as bad as others. Those other places are in a league of their own.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

The tweet becomes hidden under some conditions like that. Facebook also banned adverts for the president's re-election campaign. Twitter took down the "THUGS" tweet, and Facebook faced backlash for allowing the 'looting-shooting' post to remain unchanged. FB also removed political ads from Trump's campaign, saying they violated the company's policy against 'organized hate.'

Nope, the Google memo shows the bias mentality of these people.

The only misconstrued perception is that this place is as bad as others. Those other places are in a league of their own.

But I didn't say this place was as bad as Reddit so that is a null point. I said I see complaints about this place a lot. I'll take your word for it not being as bad as Reddit as honestly I don't know much about the goings on of Reddit, but that still doesn't detract from the fact that there is a big victomhood complex here where there are a lot of complaints of bias, unfair moderation, and all that.

 

[Confucamus]

There's already a free speech forum. It's called 4chan and you can basically say anything you want. You can't get banned for saying , , cunt, or anything. If you post off topic stuff it gets deleted. Despite it being an absolute crap shoot (the funniest stuff and the most horrifying stuff is posted there), the format works.

On a side note, I gotta say that Sherdog has some of the best moderators ever. They are fair, and they're human. They weigh everything individually and really strive to accommodate the intent of a post. They enforce the rules but do not try to use the letter of the law to stifle someone's thoughts.

Anyone been to Resetera?

I visited 4chan to see what it was all about a few years back and once was enough for me. It might be the most un-user friendly forum I've ever seen. Whenever somebody screen shots it and uses it for reference, it gives me a headache to try deciphering. They say some pretty heinous shit on there, though.

 

[James Bomb]

The tweet becomes hidden under some conditions like that.

Seems like a reasonable course of action. Why would Twitter allow retweets or algorithmic recommendations for content that violates community rules?

Facebook also banned adverts for the president's re-election campaign. Twitter took down the "THUGS" tweet, and Facebook faced backlash for allowing the 'looting-shooting' post to remain unchanged. FB also removed political ads from Trump's campaign, saying they violated the company's policy against 'organized hate.'

So? Are your arguing that all of those actions are somehow improper? Those tweets were not a good look for any political figure, especially the President of the United States.

Sherdog has some similar rules. Notice the disclaimer about glorifying genocide or violence? On an MMA forum? Yet for some reason you keep posting here.

Nope, the Google memo shows the bias mentality of these people.

What "Google Memo" are you referring to? The James Damore memo? That essay was a steaming pile of crap, and the guy dropped his lawsuit after his career as a conservative influencer tanked badly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Where?

"We see them ... downvoted to death on either platform." Downvoting is just expressing dislike. Also, there's no real censorship (that this, the other half of that claim was a fabrication).

 

[A Lurker]

On a side note, I gotta say that Sherdog has some of the best moderators ever. They are fair, and they're human. They weigh everything individually and really strive to accommodate the intent of a post. They enforce the rules but do not try to use the letter of the law to stifle someone's thoughts.

This reads like a hostage video; blinking out SOS in Morse Code.

 

[uppercutbus]

Seems like a reasonable course of action. Why would Twitter allow retweets or algorithmic recommendations for content that violates community rules?

If you read the link it would explain the erroneous decision making involved. You're also wrong it didn't censor Trump. Heck they admitted they were wrong about violating any of their rules.

So? Are your arguing that all of those actions are somehow improper? Those tweets were not a good look for any political figure, especially the President of the United States.

They were erroneous decisions, especially the one about "threat of harm against an identifiable group" when Trump said he would resist an autonomous zone in D.C. Facebook even left the "looting and shooting" one up, not taking it down until they received backlash and caved into demands. Appealing to "not a good look" isn't really a good argument here.

Sherdog has some similar rules. Notice the disclaimer about glorifying genocide or violence? On an MMA forum? Yet for some reason you keep posting here.

What's your point? Why would I not post here?

What "Google Memo" are you referring to? The James Damore memo? That essay was a steaming pile of crap, and the guy dropped his lawsuit after his career as a conservative influencer tanked badly.

The Google tape with VP Vent Walker is well known. Showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history. Also https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/responding-leaks-google-denies-political-bias/story?id=57785899 There's loads of links on it. It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers.

 

[tenniswhiz]

I respectfully disagree. Some conservatives are not able to express their views on youtube, twitter or facebook. So they go to alternative social medias where they can share their views. Many of us welcome opposition and a good debate.

ANYONE, conservative or liberal or in between, cannot share their views freely without anonymity.

A lot of social media is not anonymous.
You could actually be reprimanded or even fired by your employer for saying the exact things that Tucker Carlson or Stephen Colbert say.

 

[James Bomb]

If you read the link it would explain the erroneous decision making involved. You're also wrong it didn't censor Trump. Heck they admitted they were wrong about violating any of their rules.
They were erroneous decisions, especially the one about "threat of harm against an identifiable group" when Trump said he would resist an autonomous zone in D.C. Facebook even left the "looting and shooting" one up, not taking it down until they received backlash and caved into demands.

I saw your link to a right wing opinion site. I don't think that the points raised there are honest and truthful. Stringing together a bunch of automated emails as "proof" of a mistake while Twitter itself posts the results of their public safety actions, with no such disclaimer.

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety

Appealing to "not a good look" isn't really a good argument here.

How is it not a good argument? These policies were all developed way back when the President of the United States wasn't a narcissist and wannabe strongman who trolls more than half the country from the grease-stained sheets of the Lincoln bedroom almost every night.

What's your point? Why would I not post here?

Your sacred free speech rights are being infringed. When you're not getting marching orders from other "free thinkers", the need to do anything about it seems to lessen significantly.

The Google tape with VP Vent Walker is well known. Showing top executives declaring their intention to ensure that the rise of Trump and the populist movement is just a “blip” in history. Also https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/responding-leaks-google-denies-political-bias/story?id=57785899 There's loads of links on it. It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers.

I don't think there is anything nefarious there. Google employees are allowed to have their own opinions, and Google is allowed to have their own corporate culture. The burden is on conservatives to show why the decisions that Google has made are unfair, and that burden hasn't been met yet.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

There's wholesale censorship of conservative viewpoints going on right now. Twitter and Reddit are prime examples.

I swear, you Victim Status Culture people will never be satisfied knowing there are opinions different that yours that are being shared.

the fact that this irony didn't jump off the page at you, says everything we need to know about what you have to say about politics

"WAHHH IM A VICTIM!!! TWITTER AND YOUTUBE WONT LET ME POST WHITE NATIONALIST CONTENT!!"
immediately followed by
"LOL YOU SJW SNOWFLAKE VICTIM CULTURE PEOPLE!!"

lmaooooooo.