Trump's Free Speech Echo Chamber

[uppercutbus]

They showed a bunch of automated emails that were given to them by the Trump campaign to try and create a false narrative of what actually happened. Are you still insisting that Twitter took that content down in error? Or do you need "reclaimthenet.org" to make that argument for you?

Error? Censoring the tweets look deliberate to me. There are quite a few sites citing Twitter itself.
If this was Fake News or false narrative as you claim, where are your counter-sources and why aren't all these sites apologizing for the error, updating their news pages that no one seems to have called them out on. Could be they were right all along.

You're insisting that Twitter, Reddit, Google, and Facebook have some sort of nefarious bias against conservatives, instead of just wanting to discourage some of the hateful and spammy content that conservatives regularly post.

There are countless examples showing Big Tech bias. It was talked about on the senate floor at one point by Ted Cruz. There was an article about how the SPLC Advises Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google on whom to deplatform, a left-wing nonprofit that has a track record of inaccuracies and routinely labels conservative organizations as “hate groups.” They have had manual interventions on their Google search results despite sworn testimony made to Congress by CEO Sundar Pichai saying otherwise. Low paid censor workers for Silicon Valley Etc. Can you really claim there is no bias? No.

I do have a point, but evidently it keeps whooshing right over your head. The forum that you're posting on here bans some of the very same content that you're crying about in this thread. Do you think this forum should be regulated too?

What content am I crying about specifically? Because it ain't genocide that you keep bringing up for some strange reason.

Wow, you're fucking clueless. The whole false narrative that tech companies are somehow unfair to conservatives is just "throwing stuff at the wall" itself.

What's your counter to the examples I gave? You seem quite confident in yourself that there are no examples.

You also know that companies have a right to determine what content can go on their platform or not. You're just mad that tech companies aren't giving you a built-in audience. So what the fuck are you actually trying to do here, other that trying to shake down these organizations for your own benefit?

So you're simultaneously denying there is no bias, banning, censorship of things these tech giants hate (including other left-wing groups that are problematic for them), yet argue there is something going on, but they do it for good reasons. Also something about shaking down orgs "for my own benefit", I don't know what that means.

Reddit posted a thread where they clarified the rules. Bullying or threatening violence is not allowed no matter the skin color or minority status.

They haven't updated their official page from the thread. Care to cite how they made the existing text not sound problematic?

 

[SteveMcQueef]

I wonder if Louis Farrakhan will go on there.


Fox SoulTV recently removed a planned airing of Farrakhan's 4th address because of orders of the world thought police, the ADL

I wonder how many of these "hate speech" people understand that you're told what is hate, by racist Zionists who push for police militarization and training by Israel? In fact if you look at anti-hate groups they largely share one thing in common. Hate and hypocrisy suits them.


On this subject, Republicans are even worse than the Democrats.

The only Black voices you can hear are the one's we approve the message of - ADL




Hate speech = a chosen few, controlling discourse over the majority. Shaping the way the Western world si today..

Outside the West, they don't have nearly as much influence.

 

[lfd0311]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abramb...s-new-favorite-social-media-app/#36240685016f

It's an app called Parlor whose user base is almost entirely conservatives who felt persecuted for their thoughts and stripped of their rights of free speech. "Bad ideas should be confronted in regular discourse. That's the beauty of free speech" is a paraphrasing of the CEO's vision for Parlor. The obvious irony is that he created an air tight echo chamber where conservatives can go and cathartically masturbate their brains.

Another observation is that free speech isn't the goal if you move to an app like Parlor to communicate with people -- it's freedom from opposing views.


#uncleJoe

Have you heard of ultra Left Wing Echo chambers Twitter, Facebook or Youtube? That might be the reason these people feel that way.

 

[4daLuLZ]

Can I have some examples of Twitter or Facebook or Medium censoring "ideas" or "free speech"?

Well, I like to call black names my racist ancestors called them and talk about how George Soros and his........kind.......are running the Deep State and Covid 19 is a hoax sent by Jesus because he hates gays, abortionists, leftists, socialists, communists and basically everybody that I don’t like, and Twitter won’t let me.

 

[WhitestKidU’Know]

But of course you’re laughing genius, of course you are!!! Anything that challenges your myopic scope of understand boggles your pea brain.

So, all media is untrustworthy because there is evidence that points out that many journalists have lied?

Are all police racist because there have been many that have been bigots?

 

[Higus]

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.

What's the context of getting banned for saying "women are biologically women"? Is it a discussion strictly about biology, or is it to shit on trans people? One of those scenarios is actually hateful, believe it or not.

 

[esotamoc]

I have been far left all my life. recently, since woke madness has taken over the left , while it similarly ignores the interests of the working classes, I have found conservative voices way more willing to engage and be reasonable. I now no longer hold any hard line positions and can understand more differing perspectives.

 

[James Bomb]

Error? Censoring the tweets look deliberate to me. There are quite a few sites citing Twitter itself.
If this was Fake News or false narrative as you claim, where are your counter-sources and why aren't all these sites apologizing for the error, updating their news pages that no one seems to have called them out on. Could be they were right all along.

Most journalists and academics don't even bother with refuting the sort of conspiracy theory nonsense that you're posting in this thread.

But some authors have examined the claim for social media bias against conservatives...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/04/google-facebook-anti-conservative-bias-claims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...weets-on-rigged-google-results-about-himself/
https://www.theverge.com/interface/...k-conservative-bias-twitter-facebook-ted-cruz
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php

Spoiler: The claims by Republicans are a load of bullshit

Again, Twitter safety posted their reasoning for adding a public service notice. Do you see a correction there?

There are countless examples showing Big Tech bias. It was talked about on the senate floor at one point by Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz? Not the Pathetic Coward Ted Cruz who pledged his eternal fealty to Trump. No way, he has way too much integrity to be involved in any falsehoods!

There was an article about how the SPLC Advises Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google on whom to deplatform, a left-wing nonprofit that has a track record of inaccuracies and routinely labels conservative organizations as “hate groups.” They have had manual interventions on their Google search results despite sworn testimony made to Congress by CEO Sundar Pichai saying otherwise. Low paid censor workers for Silicon Valley Etc. Can you really claim there is no bias? No.

Wow, you're batting a thousand as far as shit sources go. Are you really making these lame arguments, or is this some sort of trolling attempt? This crap is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory. A bunch of flimsy anecdotes stitched together into an obvious straw man.

What content am I crying about specifically? Because it ain't genocide that you keep bringing up for some strange reason.

Go back and read the forum disclaimer. It's not just genocide that is prohibited by the policy.

"Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims."

Again, is the Sherdog Moderation Team a leftist censorship regime? You wouldn't be the first one to claim that without any real evidence. Which is the point here, there's no real evidence to support what Trump and other conservatives are saying.

What's your counter to the examples I gave? You seem quite confident in yourself that there are no examples.
So you're simultaneously denying there is no bias, banning, censorship of things these tech giants hate (including other left-wing groups that are problematic for them), yet argue there is something going on, but they do it for good reasons. Also something about shaking down orgs "for my own benefit", I don't know what that means.
They haven't updated their official page from the thread. Care to cite how they made the existing text not sound problematic?

Hoookay.. See above for the evidence, but my counter here is that you're a gullible person who is falling victim to misinformation designed to promote a certain agenda. Or maybe you want to believe stupid things. I dunno. But conservatives don't have any issues reaching large audiences on social media platforms, despite the boo hoo victimhood complex on display here.

 

[uppercutbus]

Most journalists and academics don't even bother with refuting the sort of conspiracy theory nonsense that you're posting in this thread.

Nothing I posted is conspiracy theory, which ones are you specifically talking about? The tweet is from the White House itself in response to Twitter censoring the tweet.

Just recently, within one hour, Twitch banned Trump, Reddit banned 2000 subs including TheDonald, YouTube banned multiple users and channels, and the media had article about it ready to go. This is all coordinated, but according to you none of this happened. Those links you posted are repeating that no bias exists against conservatives is laughable.

Ted Cruz? Not the Pathetic Coward Ted Cruz who pledged his eternal fealty to Trump. No way, he has way too much integrity to be involved in any falsehoods!

I don't see anything other than attacking the messenger.

Wow, you're batting a thousand as far as shit sources go. Are you really making these lame arguments, or is this some sort of trolling attempt? This crap is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory. A bunch of flimsy anecdotes stitched together into an obvious straw man.

Are you seriously doubting those claims? SPLC advised those big tech sites, and even got sued for defamation from right wingers. Sundar Pichai claimed they don't manually interfere with searches. You haven't debunked the video. I can find the links if you want them. We can go through each one and I'd like yo see your evidence these "tinfoils" didn't happen.

Go back and read the forum disclaimer. It's not just genocide that is prohibited by the policy.

"Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims."

Again, is the Sherdog Moderation Team a leftist censorship regime? You wouldn't be the first one to claim that without any real evidence. Which is the point here, there's no real evidence to support what Trump and other conservatives are saying.

What happened to my Conor McGregor example regarding violence? Did you not read it?

Hoookay.. See above for the evidence, but my counter here is that you're a gullible person who is falling victim to misinformation designed to promote a certain agenda. Or maybe you want to believe stupid things. I dunno. But conservatives don't have any issues reaching large audiences on social media platforms, despite the boo hoo victimhood complex on display here.

No says facebook! Lol at Ben "Never Trumper" Shapiro being used as an example of a beloved conservative icon. Facebook also said "no" after the video leak and memo, the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world. Google don't even deny that happened, just that it's still not bias because reasons.

 

[esotamoc]

Nothing I posted is conspiracy theory, which ones are you specifically talking about? The tweet is from the White House itself in response to Twitter censoring the tweet.

Just recently, within one hour, Twitch banned Trump, Reddit banned 2000 subs including TheDonald, YouTube banned multiple users and channels, and the media had article about it ready to go. This is all coordinated, but according to you none of this happened. Those links you posted are repeating that no bias exists against conservatives is laughable.

I don't see anything other than attacking the messenger.

Are you seriously doubting those claims? SPLC advised those big tech sites, and even got sued for defamation from right wingers. Sundar Pichai claimed they don't manually interfere with searches. You haven't debunked the video. I can find the links if you want them. We can go through each one and I'd like yo see your evidence these "tinfoils" didn't happen.

What happened to my Conor McGregor example regarding violence? Did you not read it?

No says facebook! Lol at Ben "Never Trumper" Shapiro being used as an example of a beloved conservative icon. Facebook also said "no" after the video leak and memo, the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world. Google don't even deny that happened, just that it's still not bias because reasons.

This is a coordinated effort by the tech giants to weaken Trump's support. Its obvious- whether you like or hate Trump this kind of censorship is not good for a democratic society. You may cheer when voices you hate are silenced but as we have recently seen within a generation this can be reversed and the voices you support or even your own could be silenced

 

[uppercutbus]

This is a coordinated effort by the tech giants to weaken Trump's support. Its obvious- whether you like or hate Trump this kind of censorship is not good for a democratic society. You may cheer when voices you hate are silenced but as we have recently seen within a generation this can be reversed and the voices you support or even your own could be silenced

Yea, back in 2019 the ACLU warns that conservatives are the targets now but next time, it could be different. We see a little of that now in this bulk purge. They go after targets that aren't them or deviate just enough for them to consider problematic. Youtube went on a banning spree sometime last year I believe, removing non-establishment media channels who haven't done anything to violates any rules.

Now in the recent purge we see not just conservatives but non-establishment and anything critical of democrats and their agenda, all at once, all co-ordinated across these big tech sites.

 

[esotamoc]

Yea, back in 2019 the ACLU warns that conservatives are the targets now but next time, it could be different. We see a little of that now in this bulk purge. They go after targets that aren't them or deviate just enough for them to consider problematic. Youtube went on a banning spree sometime last year I believe, removing non-establishment media channels who haven't done anything to violates any rules.

Now in the recent purge we see not just conservatives but non-establishment and anything critical of democrats and their agenda, all at once, all co-ordinated across these big tech sites.

I think the best way to deal with this is the proposal to make the social media platform publishers - removing their protections. Or they could allow ALL lawful content to continue with their protection.

 

[James Bomb]

Nothing I posted is conspiracy theory, which ones are you specifically talking about? The tweet is from the White House itself in response to Twitter censoring the tweet.

Are you claiming that the Trump White House doesn't support conspiracy theories? Haha, that's golden. What I'm saying is that the evidence that you claim to have provided doesn't support the claims that you are making.

Just recently, within one hour, Twitch banned Trump, Reddit banned 2000 subs including TheDonald, YouTube banned multiple users and channels, and the media had article about it ready to go. This is all coordinated, but according to you none of this happened. Those links you posted are repeating that no bias exists against conservatives is laughable.

What is it with you morons, that you just can't stop lying? Twitch only suspended Trump's account, Reddit banned left wing subs as well, and the channels that Youtube took down are legitimately white supremacist channels.

I don't see anything other than attacking the messenger.

It was a profoundly pointless claim for you to be making in the first place. Who sort of weight does cowardly Ted Cruz's opinion carry?

Are you seriously doubting those claims? SPLC advised those big tech sites, and even got sued for defamation from right wingers. Sundar Pichai claimed they don't manually interfere with searches. You haven't debunked the video. I can find the links if you want them. We can go through each one and I'd like yo see your evidence these "tinfoils" didn't happen.

You mean this lawsuit from right wingers?

Judge Tosses Out Lawsuit Over Law Center's Hate Group Labels
Lawyer Loses Suit Over ‘Hate Map’ Linking Him to Neo-Nazis

That lawsuit was tossed almost immediately by a judge. So no, I'm not going to bother refuting every single anecdote in your video. If you want to continue to claim bias, then go ahead and bring some hard data and not random anecdotes disguised as a pattern.

What happened to my Conor McGregor example regarding violence? Did you not read it?

Are we posting in the Heavyweight forum here? You're the one who is furiously dodging the point about restrictions on free speech in this very forum. Kind of backed yourself into a corner on that one.

No says facebook! Lol at Ben "Never Trumper" Shapiro being used as an example of a beloved conservative icon. Facebook also said "no" after the video leak

Nice attempt to cherrypick one example from actual real data that is way more compelling than anything that you've provided and then wave your hands to dismiss the actual implications. What about all of the other right wing media sources that are on that report? Are they not right wing enough either? Where are the true scotsmen then?

and memo, the 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world. Google don't even deny that happened, just that it's still not bias because reasons.

So the entire bulk of your evidence is a German public broadcasting film with a bunch of opinions from people involved in content rating? Jeesh, by now even you must realize that things are going poorly for you. Take a break and go have a beer or something.

 

[uppercutbus]

Are you claiming that the Trump White House doesn't support conspiracy theories? Haha, that's golden. What I'm saying is that the evidence that you claim to have provided doesn't support the claims that you are making.

The white house responded to the censorship in a clear way, even highlighted the relevant portion. I'm not seeing the conspiracy theory here.

What is it with you morons, that you just can't stop lying? Twitch only suspended Trump's account, Reddit banned left wing subs as well, and the channels that Youtube took down are legitimately white supremacist channels.

So the lie here is that it's not banned just suspended? Oh wow big lie, next time i'll phrase it more accurately. Reddit banning left wings subs like TERF was already mentioned, we talked about it. Sheesh. I also talked about Reddit banning other subs in another one of my posts. What's your point? What's the source for the youtube channels being white supremacist channels?

It was a profoundly pointless claim for you to be making in the first place. Who sort of weight does cowardly Ted Cruz's opinion carry?

His speech was about what's happening, again attacking the messenger is all your reply was about, and you're still doing it.

You mean this lawsuit from right wingers?

Judge Tosses Out Lawsuit Over Law Center's Hate Group Labels
Lawyer Loses Suit Over ‘Hate Map’ Linking Him to Neo-Nazis

That lawsuit was tossed almost immediately by a judge. So no, I'm not going to bother refuting every single anecdote in your video. If you want to continue to claim bias, then go ahead and bring some hard data and not random anecdotes disguised as a pattern.

What hard data do you want? You don't believe they were working with the SPLC.

SPLC is a notorious left-wing org. SPLC has a long history of being dishonest partisan hacks. All the way back to 2014. A more recent video.

SPLC lost the Nawaz settlement then other started following suit for their defamation.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...the-splc-following-3m-nawaz-settlement-n58792
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/splc-sued-in-federal-court-as-hate-racket/

Are we posting in the Heavyweight forum here? You're the one who is furiously dodging the point about restrictions on free speech in this very forum. Kind of backed yourself into a corner on that one.

Can you explain this point about "furiously dodging the point about restrictions on free speech in this very forum." You seem to be arguing something you made up in your head.

Nice attempt to cherrypick one example from actual real data that is way more compelling than anything that you've provided and then wave your hands to dismiss the actual implications. What about all of the other right wing media sources that are on that report? Are they not right wing enough either? Where are the true scotsmen then?

So the entire bulk of your evidence is a German public broadcasting film with a bunch of opinions from people involved in content rating? Jeesh, by now even you must realize that things are going poorly for you. Take a break and go have a beer or something.

What more evidence do you want? I'll post some, it's just copy pasta for me, but you apparently want to debunk them as tinfoil conspiracy theories.

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

Big Tech loves Europe’s ideas for ending internet freedom
https://nypost.com/2019/05/14/big-tech-loves-europes-ideas-for-ending-internet-freedom/

The American Civil Liberties Union condemns Facebook's censorship, cautioning that "every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an unchecked power to silence."

The ACLU warns that conservatives are the targets now but next time, it could be different. James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, explains that censorship threatens "the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard."

 

[James Bomb]

The white house responded to the censorship in a clear way, even highlighted the relevant portion. I'm not seeing the conspiracy theory here.

Of course you aren't. You seem to think that Trump is being forthright in this jihad against the tech companies, which is downright hilarious.

So the lie here is that it's not banned just suspended? Oh wow big lie, next time i'll phrase it more accurately. Reddit banning left wings subs like TERF was already mentioned, we talked about it. Sheesh. I also talked about Reddit banning other subs in another one of my posts. What's your point? What's the source for the youtube channels being white supremacist channels?

Yep, Twitch suspended Trump's channel for a few days, so there's no need to have a pearl-clutching drama episode about breaking the rules and getting penalized for it. And Reddit banned a bunch of subs, oh no! You do realize that r/the_donald was basically abandoned, right? The sub was notorious for breaking the rules, brigading other forums, and rigging votes to get algorithmic boosts into popular feeds. What were the admins supposed to do, just ignore that malicious behavior because they are conservatives?

And a hearty LOL about Richard Spencer, David Duke and Stefan Molyneux somehow not being white supremacists. American Renaissance and NPI/Radix are legit Skinhead/Nazi groups. Are you going for the gold medal in not knowing what the fuck you're talking about?

His speech was about what's happening, again attacking the messenger is all your reply was about, and you're still doing it.

Your argument is literally "Ted Cruz said something" and you somehow think that's a compelling argument?

What hard data do you want? You don't believe they were working with the SPLC.

Dude, just when I thought you couldn't get any more clowny, you post another link to something that is literally another conspiracy site, and then a repost of the exact same article on another site. Do you have any links that don't have ads for Free Energy Crystals or questionable crypto currencies included? Come on, try harder. This is embarrassing.

SPLC is a notorious left-wing org. SPLC has a long history of being dishonest partisan hacks. All the way back to 2014. A more recent video.

SPLC lost the Nawaz settlement then other started following suit for their defamation.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...the-splc-following-3m-nawaz-settlement-n58792
https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/splc-sued-in-federal-court-as-hate-racket/

SPLC admitted a mistake and settled with Nawaz. That doesn't mean that the other groups that it identifies as hate groups aren't hate groups. And what happened to all those lawsuits? They either never materialized, or they were dismissed.

And lol at hook tube. Come on, at a certain point you have to realize how ridiculous this looks.

Can you explain this point about "furiously dodging the point about restrictions on free speech in this very forum." You seem to be arguing something you made up in your head.

I don't know if I can say it any clearer or in plainer English... This site has some of the same rules that you say are discriminating against conservatives. "B...b.b.but Connor McGregor..."

What more evidence do you want? I'll post some, it's just copy pasta for me, but you apparently want to debunk them as tinfoil conspiracy theories.

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

Big Tech loves Europe’s ideas for ending internet freedom
https://nypost.com/2019/05/14/big-tech-loves-europes-ideas-for-ending-internet-freedom/

So you have one disgruntled ex-employee who couldn't post stories about Louis Lerner (fake Republican scandal) and who "described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work." In fact, it seemed like editors tried to corroborate many of these stories before they put them in the trending module. If anything, that's more of an indictment of right wing news sources and their problems with misinformation more than anything else.

And an opinion article from the New York Post claiming that Facebook being open to being regulated is somehow planning mass censorship.

I have a serious question, are you a white supremacist? It you are, it would be more intellectually honest if you just came out and admitted it.

 

[uppercutbus]

Of course you aren't. You seem to think that Trump is being forthright in this jihad against the tech companies, which is downright hilarious.

There is no conspiracy theory here with the censored tweet. Just you saying it doesn't make it so.

SPLC admitted a mistake and settled with Nawaz. That doesn't mean that the other groups that it identifies as hate groups aren't hate groups. And what happened to all those lawsuits? They either never materialized, or they were dismissed.

And lol at hook tube. Come on, at a certain point you have to realize how ridiculous this looks.

Imagine defending the integrity of the SPLC. It's basically "Anti-Hate" Group That Is a Hate Group.

Pentagon has officially severed all ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC. Removes all their contributions to training materials on extremism.

Also what's wrong with HookTube it gets the original from youtube. These are just hosting the videos they don't make them. Do you have anything to say about the videos?

Richard Spencer, David Duke and Stefan Molyneux

I don't believe those 3 were hard right kkk white supremacists you and The Daily Beast make them out to be. Richard Spencer and Molyneux had lots of views and were on youtube for some time. LoL at expecting me to believe youtube wouldn't have banned these super-villains ages ago. I don't know about David Duke, but if he was on youtube for a long time then he was playing possum for a long time. They said they have terminated over 25,000 channels for violating our hate speech policies, the bar for bannings and demonetization is very low for youtube. That place is notorious for being loose with those decisions. This is just one example, where they delete comments about black lives matter violence:

https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-censors-comments-black-lives-matter-violence/

Just this year, they went full derp with any coronavirus videos that remotely differed from the official story. Then they even reinstated videos because their decision to ban them was so bad. The deleted things critical of the CCP and selectively enforce their "misinformation" rules.

Yep, Twitch suspended Trump's channel for a few days, so there's no need to have a pearl-clutching drama episode about breaking the rules and getting penalized for it. And Reddit banned a bunch of subs, oh no! You do realize that r/the_donald was basically abandoned, right? The sub was notorious for breaking the rules, brigading other forums, and rigging votes to get algorithmic boosts into popular feeds. What were the admins supposed to do, just ignore that malicious behavior because they are conservatives?

I think you're missing the wood from the trees here. Within one hour, Twitch suspended Trump, Reddit banned 2000 subs including TheDonald, YouTube banned multiple users and channels, and the media had article about it ready to go. This is all coordinated, but according to you they weren't targeting right wingers.

I don't know if I can say it any clearer or in plainer English... This site has some of the same rules that you say are discriminating against conservatives. "B...b.b.but Connor McGregor..."

Nope you lost me. All the forums I frequent have the same rules on violence and genocide, including this one. Hasn't stopped discussion.

So you have one disgruntled ex-employee who couldn't post stories about Louis Lerner (fake Republican scandal) and who "described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work." In fact, it seemed like editors tried to corroborate many of these stories before they put them in the trending module. If anything, that's more of an indictment of right wing news sources and their problems with misinformation more than anything else.

So it's fake news? lol Here's another

"We Rig The Game": Facebook Whistleblower Reveals Bias Against Conservatives In Latest Veritas Exposé
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...als-bias-against-conservatives-latest-veritas

A small example following the above Facebook moderator reveals violent anti-Trump joke allowed, but anti-Democrat joke banned
https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-...me-allowed-cartoon-anti-democrat-meme-banned/

Still saying there's no bias? I've seen plenty youtube, reddit and facebook links for you to "debunk" regarding their "non-bias".

And an opinion article from the New York Post claiming that Facebook being open to being regulated is somehow planning mass censorship.

You forgot about the ACLU I even quoted it for you to debunk.

The American Civil Liberties Union condemns Facebook's censorship, cautioning that "every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an unchecked power to silence."

The ACLU warns that conservatives are the targets now but next time, it could be different. James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, explains that censorship threatens "the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard."

I have a serious question, are you a white supremacist? It you are, it would be more intellectually honest if you just came out and admitted it.

lol, you sound desperate. I would be too trying to claim there isn't any bias even asking for links, like there aren't many to choose from.

 

[James Bomb]

There is no conspiracy theory here with the censored tweet. Just you saying it doesn't make it so.

Then what do you call a theory that normal events are the result of a deceptive plot by social media companies against conservatives? That is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Imagine defending the integrity of the SPLC. It's basically "Anti-Hate" Group That Is a Hate Group.

Pentagon has officially severed all ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC. Removes all their contributions to training materials on extremism.

So people who were appointed by Donald Trump don't like the SPLC? Wow, that's a stunning turn of events.

And whatever happened to "attacking the messenger?" I'm pretty certain that the SPLC and Ted Cruz aren't too far apart in the credibility department.

Also what's wrong with HookTube it gets the original from youtube. These are just hosting the videos they don't make them. Do you have anything to say about the videos?

Hooktube is often used by white nationalist groups because the original video has been taken down for hate speech or disinformation policies. So it's not exactly a great sign. PragerU is a literal joke on the Internet, and another right wing crap factory that sued Youtube and lost badly in court.

I don't believe those 3 were hard right kkk white supremacists you and The Daily Beast make them out to be. Richard Spencer and Molyneux had lots of views and were on youtube for some time. LoL at expecting me to believe youtube wouldn't have banned these super-villains ages ago. I don't know about David Duke, but if he was on youtube for a long time then he was playing possum for a long time. They said they have terminated over 25,000 channels for violating our hate speech policies, but you're just showing me 3 of them.

Hahaha, are you serious? "they were on youtube for some time" isn't an actual argument. I can provide as many sources as you want, but I get the feeling that you're going to keep whining about the SPLC in order to dodge the fact that Molyneux, Spencer, and David Duke (who was literally the head of the KKK) are actually hate groups and not victims.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattpe...neux-richard-spencer-david-duke/#214a81785ff1
https://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/02/a-libertarian-icons-descent-into-racist-pseudoscience/

I think you're missing the wood from the trees here. Within one hour, Twitch suspended Trump, Reddit banned 2000 subs including TheDonald, YouTube banned multiple users and channels, and the media had article about it ready to go. This is all coordinated, but according to you they weren't targeting right wingers.

They were targeting hate speech, which should make the right wing pause and think about where their movement is actually headed... "NOPE, let's just launch some baseless attacks on social media companies instead."

And all these actions came with press releases, I know it's gonna rock your world, but journalists can write articles pretty quickly when there's a press release. That's what they're meant for.

Nope you lost me. All the forums I frequent have the same rules, including this one.

Eh, after reading this thread, it's probably for the best that you can't understand the rules.

So it's fake news? lol Here's another

"We Rig The Game": Facebook Whistleblower Reveals Bias Against Conservatives In Latest Veritas Exposé
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...als-bias-against-conservatives-latest-veritas

A small exmaple following the above Facebook moderator reveals violent anti-Trump joke allowed, but anti-Democrat joke banned
https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-...me-allowed-cartoon-anti-democrat-meme-banned/

Still saying there's no bias? I've not even touched on the youtube, reddit and facebook links for you to "debunk".

Project Veritas, are you kidding me? This has to be a troll job. Nobody is actually this stupid.

You forgot about the ACLU I even quoted it for you to debunk.

Sure, let's dive into the ACLU's actual statement, and not just the part that you conveniently cherrypicked out of context.

If Facebook gives itself broader censorship powers, it will inevitably take down important speech and silence already marginalized voices. We’ve seen this before. Last year, when activists of color and white people posted the exact same content, Facebook moderators censored only the activists of color. When Black women posted screenshots and descriptions of racist abuse, Facebook moderators suspended their accounts or deleted their posts. And when people used Facebook as a tool to document their experiences of police violence, Facebook chose to shut down their livestreams. The ACLU’s own Facebook post about censorship of a public statue was also inappropriately censored by Facebook.​

I don't think that exactly supports your claim about content moderation being unfair to conservatives. If anything, it strongly refutes your wackadoodle views.

lol, you sound desperate. I would be too trying to claim there isn't any bias even asking for links, like there aren't many to choose from.

Look, I appreciate your effort, but if there is anybody who is going to make a strong counter argument regarding social media bias and free speech, it's not going to be you.

 

[uppercutbus]

Then what do you call a theory that normal events are the result of a deceptive plot by social media companies against conservatives? That is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory.

You claiming there's no bias doesn't make it so. In fact it's quite funny with all the links you're gonna have to 1-liner hand-wave away like you seem to be doing.

Hahaha, are you serious? "they were on youtube for some time" isn't an actual argument. I can provide as many sources as you want, but I get the feeling that you're going to keep whining about the SPLC in order to dodge the fact that Molyneux, Spencer, and David Duke (who was literally the head of the KKK) are actually hate groups and not victims.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattpe...neux-richard-spencer-david-duke/#214a81785ff1
https://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/02/a-libertarian-icons-descent-into-racist-pseudoscience/

If Spencer, Molyneux and that Duke guy (not familiar with who he is) are the super villain hate groups you're making them out to be they would have been banned from youtube ages ago. It's just basic logic. If they were what you claim they did a good job of playing possum enough for youtube to not do anything about them until now. Molyneux had millions of views, his channel was active without problems since 2006 – then terminated without any prior warnings.

You also haven't addressed that the Tech Giants took advice from this far-leftist group on who to deplatform. Do you agree that happened or is it just another tinfoil?

So people who were appointed by Donald Trump don't like the SPLC? Wow, that's a stunning turn of events.

What happened to looking at the other link? I didn't see you debunk anything there. Here it is again:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/5-reasons-southern-poverty-law-center-hate-mongering-scam/

And there is no evidence the Pentagon dropped the SPLC on Trump's orders. Some tinfoil theory you got there.

They were targeting hate speech, which should make the right wing pause and think about where their movement is actually headed... "NOPE, let's just launch some baseless attacks on social media companies instead."

And all these actions came with press releases, I know it's gonna rock your world, but journalists can write articles pretty quickly when there's a press release. That's what they're meant for.

They can call it whatever they want when they can play fast and loose with their own TOS they fabricate to whatever works for them, it's clear this was targeted against right-wingers and their channels and accounts. They're not going to oust themselves and say they were targeting political opponents directly.

Hooktube is often used by white nationalist groups because the original video has been taken down for hate speech or disinformation policies. So it's not exactly a great sign.

What's that got to do with the content of the videos which are also on youtube? You take attacking the messenger to whole new levels.

PragerU is a literal joke on the Internet, and another right wingcrap factory that sued Youtube and lost badly in court.

I provided two videos saying the same thing, but instead of debunking the contents you focus on one and attack the messenger, nothing on the contents. Here's another one, you must realize that the SPLC isn't the hill you want to die on defending.

Eh, after reading this thread, it's probably for the best that you can't understand the rules.

More like your claims that I have asked you to explain don't make sense so I can see why you don't want to go further on this.

Project Veritas, are you kidding me? This has to be a troll job. Nobody is actually this stupid.

1-liner duck noted. What happened to debunking the second link?

Sure, let's dive into the ACLU's actual statement, and not just the part that you conveniently cherrypicked out of context.

If Facebook gives itself broader censorship powers, it will inevitably take down important speech and silence already marginalized voices. We’ve seen this before. Last year, when activists of color and white people posted the exact same content, Facebook moderators censored only the activists of color. When Black women posted screenshots and descriptions of racist abuse, Facebook moderators suspended their accounts or deleted their posts. And when people used Facebook as a tool to document their experiences of police violence, Facebook chose to shut down their livestreams. The ACLU’s own Facebook post about censorship of a public statue was also inappropriately censored by Facebook.

I don't think that exactly supports your claim about content moderation being unfair to conservatives. If anything, it strongly refutes your wackadoodle views

They've shown bias to one group, and they have shown bias to conservatives. Quite telling how bias in the examples they give you accept implicitly but the notion that they would be biased against conservatives is a wackadoodle view. lol.

Facebook banned Milo and Jones last year too I believe. And here's one covering several aspects such as the algorithm:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...clined-45-percent-following-algorithm-change/

 

[James Bomb]

You claiming there's no bias doesn't make it so. In fact it's quite funny with all the links you're gonna have to 1-liner hand-wave away like you seem to be doing.

If you're the one that's making the claim that social media companies are biased against conservatives, then the burden of proof is on you to actually back up that claim. And in your lame attempts to do so, all you've really done is provide links that are either conspiracy theory sites or obvious attempts at misinformation. Don't you think that's a bit of a problem?

If Spencer, Molyneux and that Duke guy (not familiar with who he is) are the super villain hate groups you're making them out to be they would have been banned from youtube ages ago. It's just basic logic. If they were what you claim they did a good job of playing possum enough for youtube to not do anything about them until now. Molyneux had millions of views, his channel was active without problems since 2006 – then terminated without any prior warnings.

Come on... I think you now realize that Molyneaux and Spencer are well-known white supremacists. And David Duke is a famous former Klan leader who ran for President several times. Do I need to post a picture of him wearing his Klan robes before you realize that making these sorts of silly assertions when you don't know what you're talking about is not a good idea?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/kfile-steve-king-molyneux-podcast/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...onathan-bowden-nick-griffin-bnp-a9091376.html
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/tec...rs-to-cut-off-family/article7511365/?page=all


And "they were on the platform for years" isn't a real argument, since Youtube took a hands-off approach on content until last year.

YouTube, whose rules prohibit hate speech and harassment, took a more laissez-faire approach to enforcement for years. This past week, the company announced that it was updating its policy to ban videos espousing neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted views. The company also said it was changing its recommendation algorithm to reduce the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories.
[...]
It has also been a useful recruiting tool for far-right extremist groups. Bellingcat, an investigative news site, analyzed messages from far-right chat rooms and found that YouTube was cited as the most frequent cause of members’ “red-pilling” — an internet slang term for converting to far-right beliefs. A European research group, VOX-Pol, conducted a separate analysis of nearly 30,000 Twitter accounts affiliated with the alt-right. It found that the accounts linked to YouTube more often than to any other site.

“YouTube has been able to fly under the radar because until recently, no one thought of it as a place where radicalization is happening,” said Becca Lewis, who studies online extremism for the nonprofit Data & Society. “But it’s where young people are getting their information and entertainment, and it’s a space where creators are broadcasting political content that, at times, is overtly white supremacist.”
​

You also haven't addressed that the Tech Giants took advice from this far-leftist group on who to deplatform. Do you agree that happened or is it just another tinfoil?

You're not making any sort of coherent argument that the companies got any of these decisions wrong. Instead, it's just a lame attempt to infer guilt by association. I'm not really interested in your grievance against the SPLC, it's not really that relevant, despite the fact that you so desperately wish otherwise.

What happened to looking at the other link? I didn't see you debunk anything there. Here it is again:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/5-reasons-southern-poverty-law-center-hate-mongering-scam/

Again, some pretty questionable sources you have there. Why don't we just see what the far right has to say about the left? Oh, they don't like them. Illuminating stuff.

And there is no evidence the Pentagon dropped the SPLC on Trump's orders. Some tinfoil theory you got there.

What I said is that the person who made that decision was a political appointee from the Trump administration, so it does not carry a lot of objective weight. He's also a member of the Federalist Society, so not exactly unbiased.

They can call it whatever they want when they can play fast and loose with their own TOS they fabricate to whatever works for them, it's clear this was targeted against right-wingers and their channels and accounts. They're not going to oust themselves and say they were targeting political opponents directly.

Yep, more handwavey bullshit. Tin foil hat time.

What's that got to do with the content of the videos which are also on youtube? You take attacking the messenger to whole new levels.

I provided two videos saying the same thing, but instead of debunking the contents you focus on one and attack the messenger, nothing on the contents. Here's another one, you must realize that the SPLC isn't the hill you want to die on defending.

Holy shit, you watch some really dumb content. Posting John Stossel and Project Veritas, and then claiming that the SPLC has credibility problems? Jesus christ, Trump voters amaze me. It's like cognitive dissonance is your default state of being.

More like your claims that I have asked you to explain don't make sense so I can see why you don't want to go further on this.

I think it's pretty funny that you don't understand the rules of this forum, but are trying to make an argument in support of people who got banned for doing things that are illegal here as well. Sit down and think about it for a bit. Maybe ask your parents for some help so that you can understand.

1-liner duck noted. What happened to debunking the second link?

It's literally the same junk site that you posted the first time. Derp,

They've shown bias to one group, and they have shown bias to conservatives. Quite telling how bias in the examples they give you accept implicitly but the notion that they would be biased against conservatives is a wackadoodle view. lol.

It's actually pretty funny that the ACLU was able to make an almost exact opposite argument to your own, but the difference is they actually sourced their claims. And is the ACLU demanding more regulation of technology companies? Nope.

Facebook banned Milo and Jones last year too I believe. And here's one covering several aspects such as the algorithm:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...clined-45-percent-following-algorithm-change/

It's like you just can't stop punching yourself in the dick. Facebook announced that they were changing their algorithm to emphasize content from friends instead of content from pages. So nope, it's not a giant conspiracy against Trump if Facebook is giving him a bit less free exposure than it used to. And you don't see any problems with the sort of content that Alex Jones and Milo were creating?

Basically your argument comes down to accepting the claims of the people who are getting banned (and also have a financial incentive to distribute questionable content) with very little actual proof. Of course people who are kicked off a platform for hate speech are going to argue that it's unfair that they were kicked off. But that doesn't make it objectively true.

 

[uppercutbus]

If you're the one that's making the claim that social media companies are biased against conservatives, then the burden of proof is on you to actually back up that claim.

That's what I have been doing.

And in your lame attempts to do so, all you've really done is provide links that are either conspiracy theory sites or obvious attempts at misinformation. Don't you think that's a bit of a problem?

Your claiming SPLC isn't a scam org which is false, lots of evidence showing otherwise.

You're going on a tirade about how bad Steven Molyneux and Spencer are when it was 25,000 channels and those are only 3 people. David Duke I don't know but those other two I'm not convinced they did something so bad to be banned without warning. Especially being monetized and having so many views and subscribers. Your excuse that youtube relaxed their policies enough that their content was filled with hate speech and far-right propaganda is just not believable. If you have examples of their youtube transgressions during this period I'd like to see it. We already know one of them was in good standing and was banned out of the blue. You claim youtube set a high bar for hate speech, but this relaxation didn't transpire to more extremist content on youtube from those people. Last year they banned a youtuber called "Black Pigeon". The channel was fully monetized, had no strikes, and was in good standing but YouTube has suddenly removed it without explanation. Even a thread on it. Katie Hopkins was banned from Twitter. Twitter won't say which tweets caused the ban, sounds like they just want conservative views off their platforms.

Youtube and co are easily triggered. They had no problem deleting comments about black lives matter violence:
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-censors-comments-black-lives-matter-violence/

Just this year, they went full derp with any coronavirus videos that remotely differed from the official story. Then they even reinstated videos because their decision to ban them was so bad. The deleted things critical of the CCP and selectively enforce their "misinformation" rules. I have those links somewhere, quite interesting how you'll spin those as fake news, maybe attack the source as usual.

You're not making any sort of coherent argument that the companies got any of these decisions wrong.

The tech giants dropped them because they were so unreliable it was untenable to keep getting advice from them. I posted 3 videos showing how bad the SPLC are. SPLC got sued by Nas and named that woman Ali as a muslim extremist. They had to pump their numbers of hate groups across the country to validate their existence and that greed caused them problems.

Instead, it's just a lame attempt to infer guilt by association. I'm not really interested in your grievance against the SPLC, it's not really that relevant, despite the fact that you so desperately wish otherwise.

I'm interested why you think the SPLC isn't the scam org all these people and links are describing, they have their evidence for you to look at. Why do you think Facebook and friends dropped them?

Again, some pretty questionable sources you have there. Why don't we just see what the far right has to say about the left? Oh, they don't like them. Illuminating stuff.

This is not debunking anything on the page. Which of the sources were questionable? Another 1-liner dodge.

What I said is that the person who made that decision was a political appointee from the Trump administration, so it does not carry a lot of objective weight. He's also a member of the Federalist Society, so not exactly unbiased.

You know who else dropped the SPLC? Amazon, Facebook. . . so yea, I think your theory is tinfoil.

Yep, more handwavey bullshit. Tin foil hat time.

Youtube selectively enforce their misinformation rules amongst other rules, same with Twitter.

I think it's pretty funny that you don't understand the rules of this forum, but are trying to make an argument in support of people who got banned for doing things that are illegal here as well.

Can you quote where I'm making that argument? Sounds like horsehit mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion tbh. I support people who got banned here for illegal things? wtf.

Sit down and think about it for a bit. Maybe ask your parents for some help so that you can understand.

I'm sure you'll convince me with the quotes you used to reach your conclusions.

It's literally the same junk site that you posted the first time. Derp,

So back to attacking the messenger?

It's actually pretty funny that the ACLU was able to make an almost exact opposite argument to your own, but the difference is they actually sourced their claims. And is the ACLU demanding more regulation of technology companies? Nope.

There is lots of evidence of conservatives being silenced, the ACLU didn't debunk that at all nor argue that wasn't happening.

It's like you just can't stop punching yourself in the dick. Facebook announced that they were changing their algorithm to emphasize content from friends instead of content from pages. So nope, it's not a giant conspiracy against Trump if Facebook is giving him a bit less free exposure than it used to. And you don't see any problems with the sort of content that Alex Jones and Milo were creating?

Basically your argument comes down to accepting the claims of the people who are getting banned (and also have a financial incentive to distribute questionable content) with very little actual proof. Of course people who are kicked off a platform for hate speech are going to argue that it's unfair that they were kicked off. But that doesn't make it objectively true.

You take Big Tech reasoning at face value and that is why you believe everything they say and repeat their own PR as to why they did something. Of course they're not going to outright say what their true intentions are. Sometimes they don't even give a reason but ban people anyway.

Speaking of bias wikipedia is also another org that is biased. They paid editors to protect political, tech, and media figures.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...-to-protect-political-tech-and-media-figures/
Care to explain?