Liberal social media censorship

'Boogieman' · Oct 19, 2020

carson said:
Boogieman,

How do they have a monopoly? There are thousands of news sites. Tens of news channels on TV. Dozens (maybe even hundreds or thousands) of social media sites.

It sounds more like cry-baby stuff? "They don't let me post whatever I want!"

They own the site, so they can tell you to leave at any time.

Are you for government telling people how to run their businesses or for freedom?

They are shutting down any negative news story about Biden while parroting any made up negative anti Trump story. It wouldn't be a big deal but everyone uses social media so the left wing Communist practices must be stopped. I understand you love your news monopoly but this is not what our founding fathers intended. I'm not crying I'm telling you what I think. I can certainly hear any opinion without accusing you of crying, perhaps you should be more like me.

CosmicGiggle · Oct 19, 2020

I find it comforting that print media has taken to calling the 'newscasters' on MSM 'actors', which they are! :bigeye:

I appreciate the honesty.

carson · Oct 19, 2020

Boogieman, I am not meaning to call you a cry-baby, I mean more in general. In America, if someone doesn't let you do what you want in their private home or business, go do it in your own, know what I mean? If a bar kicks you out for being rowdy, maybe you should start up a new bar where rowdiness is allowed? If people don't like wearing masks, why not go to businesses that are ok with you not wearing a mask? That's speaking with your dollars, which is the American Way as far as i'm concerned.

Why does it seem like people always want to fight over this stuff instead of just being more self-sufficient?

Why are there not conservative leaning social media sites? Or totally open forums/sites? Is it a business opportunity?

All i'm saying is that I thought that the right (conservatives, republicans, whatever works for you) are the side that believes in unbridled capitalism and free markets. But then it seems like you don't like what the free market comes up with?

Are there any reasons a new social media site that doesn't censor anything wouldn't work for you?

'Boogieman' · Oct 19, 2020

carson said:
Boogieman, I am not meaning to call you a cry-baby, I mean more in general. In America, if someone doesn't let you do what you want in their private home or business, go do it in your own, know what I mean? If a bar kicks you out for being rowdy, maybe you should start up a new bar where rowdiness is allowed? If people don't like wearing masks, why not go to businesses that are ok with you not wearing a mask? That's speaking with your dollars, which is the American Way as far as i'm concerned.

Why does it seem like people always want to fight over this stuff instead of just being more self-sufficient?

Why are there not conservative leaning social media sites? Or totally open forums/sites? Is it a business opportunity?

All i'm saying is that I thought that the right (conservatives, republicans, whatever works for you) are the side that believes in unbridled capitalism and free markets. But then it seems like you don't like what the free market comes up with?

Are there any reasons a new social media site that doesn't censor anything wouldn't work for you?

I get your point, Facebook and Twitter kinda have a monopoly on the social media game. They have too much influence over what you can or can't see which is wrong in my view.

armedoldhippy · Oct 19, 2020

'Boogieman' said:
I say if they censor people or news stories change the laws to let the people sue them for violating our constitution right to freedom speech and so on.

grow the fuck up. you HAVE no "freedom of speech" on someone elses site. not allowing unproven allegations to be spread in a blatant attempt at subverting an election is not "censorship". so I say you are full of it...you can go out in your yard & say anything you want, or on street corners in your home town. but you cannot force the local TV station to broadcast your bullshit as "news". :bigeye:

xavier7995 · Oct 19, 2020

There's Parler...conservatives started their own free speech twitter...and well I'm not sure why you guys don't use that if you take issue with how these other private businesses operate. Beauty of capitalism and such.

armedoldhippy · Oct 19, 2020

carson said:
Are there any reasons a new social media site that doesn't censor anything wouldn't work for you?

he wants a built-in audience. and no enforcement of slander and/or libel laws governing untrue statements made in public. just like the chumpster fire burning in the White House... :bigeye:

'Boogieman' · Oct 19, 2020

When they get mad, it's because they know I'm right.

carson · Oct 19, 2020

I guess that's where I'm confused. People like those sites because they've made them and curated them in certain ways. This led to popularity. Now conservatives want to use that popularity to their own benefit, right? And when they get shut down they are crying "not fair!"

It seems to me that these sites are free to draw certain lines or have rules. It's not like they are saying "conservatives can't use our site" they are just saying "there is some content we don't want to have a hand in distributing" which seems...totally fine to me? If the NY Post article about Hunter Biden is literal disinformation, do you still think they should be letting people spread it all around? If I (or the biden campaign) made a fake video of trump doing something horrible, but that appears to be totally real, you think these sites should let me and my network of accounts spread it around?

As Xavier said, there is Parler. What's the problem with that uncensored site? 4chan is another one that comes to mind.

armedoldhippy · Oct 19, 2020

'Boogieman' said:
When they get mad, it's because they know I'm right.

we're not mad, and you're not right. i'm sure you wish both were true. is pretending that you "own" someone how you get a nut? :bigeye:

xavier7995 · Oct 19, 2020

armedoldhippy said:
he wants a built-in audience. and no enforcement of slander and/or libel laws governing untrue statements made in public. just like the chumpster fire burning in the White House...

It really is pretty interesting on how that slander/libel bit works. I didn't read the fine details on all the cases, but the wiki is helpful.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

The law probably does need to be revised or clarified. A law written about some new emerging technology 20-30 years ago that no lawmaker had a solid understanding of isnt going to hold up that well as the industry it regulates rapidly changes.

I think they should ban all forms of news sharing to make it abundantly clear everything expressed
is opinion. It would make the decision so much simpler. Granted this issue came to the forefront over conservatives being mad about getting fact checked so...eh, whatever. Not the hill I would choose to die on.

Tudo · Oct 19, 2020

I passed my broadcast license in the late 60's ( man am I old, holy cow am I old ), there was no way a licensed news person had control over what was read. There was a censor ( Think Good morning Vietnam )

Now maybe that's changed ( are we more free or less free now? ), but I don't think so .......

P.S. There was also a program director who made sure

'Boogieman' · Oct 20, 2020

armedoldhippy said:
we're not mad, and you're not right. i'm sure you wish both were true. is pretending that you "own" someone how you get a nut?

I'm right, and you don't even seem to understand we are talking about social media not TV. It's estimated that over 50% of Americans get their news on social media so it's only right to make sure nobody is censored. You have no proof that the recent Hunter allegations are not true.

unclefishstick · Oct 20, 2020

just like there's no proof it's true...it isn't...

'Boogieman' · Oct 20, 2020

unclefishstick said:
just like there's no proof it's true...it isn't...

Well considering that Democrats have been wrong about everything the past 5 years and try to censor or dismiss anything that hurts their bottom line I'm just going to assume it's most likely true. If it wasn't true Democrats could easily debunk it but that is not the path they chose. You know what wasn't true? Russian collusion, yet every news station and social media platform pushed it every day for years.

xavier7995 · Oct 20, 2020

People probably shouldn't get their news from the same place as their cat pics, just saying.

Also, that isn't how the burden of proof works boogie, and you know it. Yadda yadda can't prove a negative.

armedoldhippy · Oct 20, 2020

'Boogieman' said:
I'm right, and you don't even seem to understand we are talking about social media not TV. It's estimated that over 50% of Americans get their news on social media so it's only right to make sure nobody is censored. You have no proof that the recent Hunter allegations are not true.

regardless of media form you want to use, the truth does not change. if you want the freedom to broadcast nonsense, start your own site & go for it. that way, you get to make the rules.
can't (and don't need to) prove negative. chump is flinging bullshit in all directions hoping to forestall his sinking into the morass. if that large a % of americans get their news from social media, i think it is important to keep from misinforming folks. use facts, not allegations...and social media is not exactly a wellspring of truth. :bigeye:

'Boogieman' · Oct 20, 2020

xavier7995 said:
People probably shouldn't get their news from the same place as their cat pics, just saying.

Also, that isn't how the burden of proof works boogie, and you know it. Yadda yadda can't prove a negative.

Which is why I said I'm going to assume it's true.

Honest question, were you upset when Russia allegedly influenced the 2016 election with fake stories?

So you can understand that what Facebook and Twitter does has major influence on our elections correct?

'Boogieman' · Oct 20, 2020

armedoldhippy said:
regardless of media form you want to use, the truth does not change. if you want the freedom to broadcast nonsense, start your own site & go for it. that way, you get to make the rules.
can't (and don't need to) prove negative. chump is flinging bullshit in all directions hoping to forestall his sinking into the morass. if that large a % of americans get their news from social media, i think it is important to keep from misinforming folks. use facts, not allegations...and social media is not exactly a wellspring of truth.

But you didn't have a problem with Facebook and Twitter pushing the Russia collusion nonsense. You are never consistent, and for that I can't take anything you say seriously. Nobody debunked the Hunter allegations by the way, but I wouldn't be surprised if you believe Adam Schiff once again.

armedoldhippy · Oct 20, 2020

'Boogieman' said:
Which is why I said I'm going to assume it's true.

Honest question, were you upset when Russia allegedly influenced the 2016 election with fake stories?

So you can understand that what Facebook and Twitter does has major influence on our elections correct?

any honest person should be upset because of improper influence by anyone. i understand that they have influence on a portion of society. which is why i applaud their not allowing unproven allegations possibly originated by the same actors from 2016 to be spread with no verification as to origin and/or factuality.

Liberal social media censorship

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

xavier7995

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

xavier7995

Troublemaker

Well-known member

Fancy Janitor

Well-known member

Attachments

xavier7995

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member