Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LiterateStylish

Agree or be banned

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Yeah, they are and so what? It's their fucking playground. They get to make their own rules and they get to decide who gets to play in it and who doesn't. Just like you do in your home/world. Just like I do, just like we all do.

Like I said, some people are cool with censorship, as long as it’s not their side being censored. Thank for proving me right again 

  • Thanks 1

Ed Oliver is my adopt-a-Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nuke said:

Like I said, some people are cool with censorship, as long as it’s not their side being censored. Thank for proving me right again 

Exactly.  Other way around and he'd be screaming bloody murder.  That and throwing a complete tantrum.  Like a little school girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nuke said:

Like I said, some people are cool with censorship, as long as it’s not their side being censored. Thank for proving me right again 

Depends on the circumstances. If someone is being banned from a private site for spreading the truth and positive messages, yeah, I'd have a problem with that. If someone is banned for spreading hate, inciting a riot, spreading lies, etc, then fuck 'em. Why would anyone want someone like that around?


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Depends on the circumstances. If someone is being banned from a private site for spreading the truth and positive messages, yeah, I'd have a problem with that. If someone is banned for spreading hate, inciting a riot, spreading lies, etc, then fuck 'em. Why would anyone want someone like that around?

Ever heard of differing opinions, Hip?  Maybe you can just be the one who decides what's what.  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Meathead said:

they should do it the way we do it here. every voice should be heard, no matter how offensive. if they cant demonstrate that their offensive content has some merit, then you warn them with specific instructions where they are violating the terms of use and are in danger of a temporary ban. if they persist with no effort to comply, then you temporarily ban them, escalate the length of the ban every time they continue to break the clearly defined rules, and ultimately consider a multi-year ban, with a chance to return if they mature out of it

Twitter could learn a lot from the way Lit runs this place🤣🤣🤣And you, of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If today’s media/social media are becoming the modern equivalent of how William Randolph Hearst ran his newspapers ( a propaganda tool) , we in deep doo doo.

REMEMBER THE MAINE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HipKat said:

Why ban them at all?? Or if they keep doing it, eventually it turns into a lifetime ban, right? Well, Trump has been doing this shit for 5 years. Longer, really, going back to his attacks on Obama. So you're kind've contradicting yourself. 

Every voice should be heard, but if he/she breaks the TOS, they get a ban that gets longer and longer if they keep repeating the behavior. Does that sound about right?

idk what tos youre referring to, all im mentioning is the way we handle free speech. you get to say anything you want as long as you engage in extended dialog on the basis of your beliefs. thats reasonable. if you just shout epithets then dont engage in debate about it, no, you cant participate. it adds nothing and hurts everything. thats the line. its a good line


One set of rules for all in the beloved community

"The word racism is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything, and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist' " - Thomas Sowell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then theres the way we enforce threats as well as online stalking of a poster you dont like. you cant just follow somebody around and insult everything they say without giving a credible reason

i think thats a very reasonable standard. i think its a good standard

  • Like 1

One set of rules for all in the beloved community

"The word racism is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything, and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist' " - Thomas Sowell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nuke said:

Like I said, some people are cool with censorship, as long as it’s not their side being censored. Thank for proving me right again 

i see what youre saying but youre going too far

for example, there really is the archetype of the asshole male. those of us with real experience can usually quickly identify an asshole male, at least online where they only have words and ideas. its harder in rl

of course you can equally applyl this to gender or race or status

if i have the ability to censor what an asshole says then im going to do it. i dont think its good to let that negativity into your philosophical workspace. i gave you a big open chance and you blew it. i might give you a chance again down the road, but for now work on yourself and grow the fuck up


One set of rules for all in the beloved community

"The word racism is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything, and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist' " - Thomas Sowell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Meathead said:

i see what youre saying but youre going too far

for example, there really is the archetype of the asshole male. those of us with real experience can usually quickly identify an asshole male, at least online where they only have words and ideas. its harder in rl

of course you can equally applyl this to gender or race or status

if i have the ability to censor what an asshole says then im going to do it. i dont think its good to let that negativity into your philosophical workspace. i gave you a big open chance and you blew it. i might give you a chance again down the road, but for now work on yourself and grow the fuck up

Really? You’re going to go all Twitter on me, over that comment? I actually thought it was pretty close to the middle of the road. Hip even responded to it and didn’t seem offended. He even admitted to being ok with censoring hateful statements. The problem with that is you’re opening it up to interpretation. A polarizing political figure can say something and one side can call it blunt and the other side instantly calls it hateful. Who gets to decide? Germany and France both called out Big Tech over the last week, saying lawmakers need to decide what is acceptable, not big companies. Look, you saw what I posted and you made an interpretation, fine. Your opinion carries more weight then most. Do what you feel you must. 

  • Thanks 1

Ed Oliver is my adopt-a-Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nuke said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2021/01/12/why-big-techs-censorship-is-a-big-mistake/?sh=2d131372629b

A video by Steve Forbes

Right around the the 20-28 second mark, he comments that censorship of “right of center” opinions has been happening for years. I’ve made it clear that I hate the two party system. But, do you know what’s worse? The one party system. 

Fixed it. Sorry I said Jobs and meant Steve Forbes and it was too late to edit. Don’t let my mistake take away from the message. That’s what’s important 


Ed Oliver is my adopt-a-Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Meathead said:

idk what tos youre referring to, all im mentioning is the way we handle free speech. you get to say anything you want as long as you engage in extended dialog on the basis of your beliefs. thats reasonable. if you just shout epithets then dont engage in debate about it, no, you cant participate. it adds nothing and hurts everything. thats the line. its a good line

Well for here, the TOS is basically no threats of violence. It's simple and basic, but it's the rules. If someone makes a threat, they get a "vacation". If they keep it up, they get longer bans. That is a form of censorship as it's being addressed in these discussions.

Social Media is obviously a lot more complex. They have stricter terms that for years were overlooked. Well, the hate and lies and innuendo that inspire these radical groups of people,  that's a violation of those companies rules and they're being enforced now because it went from online threats to an actual attack on the US Capitol.

And for people here that think this is one sided, what if it was Pelosi that was stirring up Left-wing unrest and radical Left-wing groups stormed the White House?? And then Twitter etc, banned her after 5 years of hate and lies on her Account.

These are the exact reasons this stuff only existed on deep-web sites that were more difficult to track. Frankly, bringing this stuff to the mainstream web accomplished 2 things; it helped recruit a much larger base of people who never had access to underground sites before and it exposed these people who previously kept themselves hidden on harder to track sites like 4Chan, etc

As for Parler, we should be happy that got taken down since their security was so weak, everyone's info was easily stolen.


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Meathead said:

then theres the way we enforce threats as well as online stalking of a poster you dont like. you cant just follow somebody around and insult everything they say without giving a credible reason

i think thats a very reasonable standard. i think its a good standard

@Thebowflexbody Pay attention skippy


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nuke said:

Really? You’re going to go all Twitter on me, over that comment? I actually thought it was pretty close to the middle of the road. Hip even responded to it and didn’t seem offended. He even admitted to being ok with censoring hateful statements. The problem with that is you’re opening it up to interpretation. A polarizing political figure can say something and one side can call it blunt and the other side instantly calls it hateful. Who gets to decide? Germany and France both called out Big Tech over the last week, saying lawmakers need to decide what is acceptable, not big companies. Look, you saw what I posted and you made an interpretation, fine. Your opinion carries more weight then most. Do what you feel you must. 

And THAT is the real slippery slope...


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LiterateStylish said:

That's what it comes down to, right now. 

Whether you agree with the bozo or not (and I think the numbers of those who agree are massively dwindling), it is NOT in your best interest, or the Countries best interest, to see him, or anyone else, banned from social media or technology sites.

Hell yea, I agree with the bozo, to wit:

 

cut off.jpg

  • Like 1

lol

 

ECQKgbmW4AAkI5n.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump can easily call fox news or set up a press conference up at anytime. The thought that he is being censored is ridiculous. 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, HipKat said:

It's not "their agenda". It's certain groups spreading hate, lies and rhetoric, and making plans for organized operations against government bodies. If they don't put a stop to it, then they're going to be held legally (libel) for allowing a platform for these militant groups to organize illegal activities

And you can define what is militant.

Go report someone, Citizen Detective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Trump can easily call fox news or set up a press conference up at anytime. The thought that he is being censored is ridiculous. 

But the average citizen cannot do that.

Go report someone, Citizen Detective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FanBack said:

But the average citizen cannot do that.

Go report someone, Citizen Detective.

So what?

Go get a soapbox and find a street corner. You dont have a right to other people's private property. Unless you're a commie?


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

So what?

Go get a soapbox and find a street corner. You dont have a right to other people's private property. Unless you're a commie?

Sigh, you have to assume an argument then defeat that assumption.

People matter, consequences matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FanBack said:

Sigh, you have to assume an argument then defeat that assumption.

People matter, consequences matter.

Show me where his right to free speech was infringed according to the constitution. 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the hilarious part, Twitter, that bastion of free speech, is more concerned with Uganda over America. Maybe someone should tell Twitter to "build their own country" or "build their own ISP?" Hypocrites.

 

 

Twitter Uganda.jpg


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...