The Socials

[YChang 3,455]

12 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Some people may not be bothered that large corporations believe they can determine who gets to be president. I find that to be extremely alarming. 

Freedom from government interference in speech is important, but not sufficient. Facebook et al have become the public square, the arena. It is where culture is grown. And culture drives politics. Specifically, these tech companies are trying to pick presidents and elected representatives of their own liking. They are incredibly powerful, and they can do it. This is bad.

 

I would be alarmed too... if that was actually the case. 

[Yuk 1,538]

This whole argument reeks of totalitarianism.

Read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/

And then let's talk about government getting into private business and media to remedy perceived "unfairness".

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

14 minutes ago, Yuk said:

This whole argument reeks of totalitarianism.

Read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/

And then let's talk about government getting into private business and media to remedy perceived "unfairness".

Agree.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

This whole argument reeks of totalitarianism.
Read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
And then let's talk about government getting into private business and media to remedy perceived "unfairness".

Ship’s already sailed. Liberal democracy, which protects rights and defines a nation by ideals instead of a tribe, is dead. Pick your authoritarian poison - Orban’s Hungary? Chavista Venezuela? Right, left, doesn’t matter. Look at Trump. He’s not right or left - he’s just tribalist authoritarian.

Social networks will either be controlled by the state to support the existing leadership, or controlled by the state in a futile attempt to keep the people from choosing the authoritarian future they crave.

At our founding, Franklin told us we had “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Well, the verdict is in: we can’t.

[Parliament 14,262]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

Google office town hall shortly after the election.  Lotsa wailing and gnashing of teeth.  At least one person cried.

I don't fault people for having political views, and expressing them at work.  But it concerns me that a company with politics as monolithic as that, REGARDLESS of whether it's left or right, has the power of Google.  "Unconscious bias of the crowd," or whatever.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Parliament

[relapse98 634]

11 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Some people may not be bothered that large corporations believe they can determine who gets to be president. I find that to be extremely alarming.

Which large corporation in your list do you believe determined that Trump would be president? I thought they were anti conservative?

[relapse98 634]

2 hours ago, Parliament said:

Google office town hall shortly after the election.

Didn't you hear? They chose Trump as president. See post #150 in this very thread. Does that not concern you?

[Parliament 14,262]

I choose not to engage in the pissbagging.

[wildcat09 29,355]

4 hours ago, Parliament said:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

Google office town hall shortly after the election.  Lotsa wailing and gnashing of teeth.  At least one person cried.

I don't fault people for having political views, and expressing them at work.  But it concerns me that a company with politics as monolithic as that, REGARDLESS of whether it's left or right, has the power of Google.  "Unconscious bias of the crowd," or whatever.

Man, look at all of you dipshits suddenly turning to what you would call socialism in any other context because you think some low-level google employees you'll never meet wouldn't be nice enough to you if you ever met them. 

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

So some are bitching because reddit banned all of the QAnon subreddits.  Bitching about their freedom of speech, etc.  

And it's a gut punch to QAnon.  Huge gut punch.  Without reddit, it never happens in the first place.

First of all, as many pointed out, social media banning somebody is not some kind of Constitutional issue.

Second, and most important - for months, the mods of the main QAnon subreddit had been telling the posters that they need to tone down what they are posting, because it was violated the TOS - inciting to violence, harassment, sharing personal information.

Same thing with Alex Jones - he had all kinds of warnings, even had the CEO of twitter defending him publicly, people telling him he's going too far.

But nope, they just can't listen.  They've got to touch the glowing red-hot stove.

I think the problem is a sense of entitlement that these people have acquired.  Alex Jones, a lot of the reddit posters, they felt they were bringing value to these platforms, and therefore should be able to post whatever the fuck they wanted to post, even when told to tone it down.

[Foosters 17,858]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

First of all, as many pointed out, social media banning somebody is not some kind of Constitutional issue.

 

Tattoo it on your face, chisel it in stone, add a footnote to the Bill of Rights. Don't make a difference. The US Citizen seems incapable of grasping this point.  

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Tattoo it on your face, chisel it in stone, add a footnote to the Bill of Rights. Don't make a difference. The US Citizen seems incapable of grasping this point.  

It's the same sense of entitlement that social media personalities like Logan Paul or Paul Logan or whatever have.  They reach a level where the rules aren't supposed to apply to them.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So some are bitching because reddit banned all of the QAnon subreddits.  Bitching about their freedom of speech, etc.  

And it's a gut punch to QAnon.  Huge gut punch.  Without reddit, it never happens in the first place.

First of all, as many pointed out, social media banning somebody is not some kind of Constitutional issue.

Second, and most important - for months, the mods of the main QAnon subreddit had been telling the posters that they need to tone down what they are posting, because it was violated the TOS - inciting to violence, harassment, sharing personal information.

Same thing with Alex Jones - he had all kinds of warnings, even had the CEO of twitter defending him publicly, people telling him he's going too far.

But nope, they just can't listen.  They've got to touch the glowing red-hot stove.

I think the problem is a sense of entitlement that these people have acquired.  Alex Jones, a lot of the reddit posters, they felt they were bringing value to these platforms, and therefore should be able to post whatever the fuck they wanted to post, even when told to tone it down.

This same dynamic happens in employment cases.  Employee shows up late/drunk/does shitty work repeatedly.  Employee is warned, REPEATEDLY....but this goes on for months without firing him.

Eventually, employee shows up late on a REALLY important day, and he gets summarily terminated.  What happens?

Employee screams bloody murder, files an EEOC complaint, files suit, etc.  Because, by the employer's permissive approach (letting him get away with bad conduct for way too long), the employee now believes that being late/drunk/etc. is PERMISSIBLE, and therefore, his firing is because some other shenanigans are afoot.

Being permissive, and cutting people slack, is a the decent thing to do.  But idiots never let a good deed go unpunished.  If Reddit strictly enforced its TOS after the FIRST WARNING, then they would not be able to so easily convince themselves that they have cause to be outraged.

[Mole 4,333]

Someone help me with the Google video. What's the smoking gun conspiracy? What am I supposed to be upset about? I watched about half of it and I don't see the point.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Mole

[relapse98 634]

10 minutes ago, Mole said:

What am I supposed to be upset about?

That google is bipolar. They wanted Trump to win, and are now quite upset that he won. It doesn't make sense, but this is where we are in 2018. Does that not concern you?

[F250 28,788]

15 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Ship’s already sailed. Liberal democracy, which protects rights and defines a nation by ideals instead of a tribe, is dead. Pick your authoritarian poison - Orban’s Hungary? Chavista Venezuela? Right, left, doesn’t matter. Look at Trump. He’s not right or left - he’s just tribalist authoritarian.

Social networks will either be controlled by the state to support the existing leadership, or controlled by the state in a futile attempt to keep the people from choosing the authoritarian future they crave.

At our founding, Franklin told us we had “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Well, the verdict is in: we can’t.

I would say about 70% of your posts can be summarized like this.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

I would say about 70% of your posts can be summarized like this.

Indy and I are both fans of telling it like it is.  I'm good with that.

[Mole 4,333]

1 hour ago, relapse98 said:

That google is bipolar. They wanted Trump to win, and are now quite upset that he won. It doesn't make sense, but this is where we are in 2018. Does that not concern you?

This part certainly concerns me.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

So some are bitching because reddit banned all of the QAnon subreddits.  Bitching about their freedom of speech, etc.  

And it's a gut punch to QAnon.  Huge gut punch.  Without reddit, it never happens in the first place.

First of all, as many pointed out, social media banning somebody is not some kind of Constitutional issue.

Second, and most important - for months, the mods of the main QAnon subreddit had been telling the posters that they need to tone down what they are posting, because it was violated the TOS - inciting to violence, harassment, sharing personal information.

Same thing with Alex Jones - he had all kinds of warnings, even had the CEO of twitter defending him publicly, people telling him he's going too far.

But nope, they just can't listen.  They've got to touch the glowing red-hot stove.

I think the problem is a sense of entitlement that these people have acquired.  Alex Jones, a lot of the reddit posters, they felt they were bringing value to these platforms, and therefore should be able to post whatever the fuck they wanted to post, even when told to tone it down.

The problem is that a shitload of these people are simply trolls paid to stir up shit by the Russian government. It’s like dropping leaflets during the world wars but far more effective and much cheaper. Other than nukes it’s all the Russians got and it’s working. Just look at who the US president is.

Edited September 13, 2018 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12,271]

And that includes Alex. 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Some idiot Senator (but I repeat myself) thinks there will be regulations on social media.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/new-social-media-rules-can-get-majority-in-congress-warner-says

Edited September 15, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Other writers who were producing incongruous pro-Party of Regions stories at the time include Ben Shapiro of Breitbart and Seton Motley, a conservative blogger. 

One of Shapiro's Ukraine posts, "Hillary Sides With Anti-Semitic Ukrainian Opposition," is nearly identical to a post that appeared four days later in a different publication under Huston's byline: "Clinton Dept. of State Backing the Anti-Semitism Party in Ukraine?"

Shapiro said he hadn't been paid by anyone other than his employers to do the posts. 

Scoville "was not the one pitching me as far as I recall," Shapiro said.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

22 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Some idiot Senator (but I repeat myself) thinks there will be regulations on social media.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/new-social-media-rules-can-get-majority-in-congress-warner-says

[bolverk 29,694]

On 9/15/2018 at 5:28 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Other writers who were producing incongruous pro-Party of Regions stories at the time include Ben Shapiro of Breitbart and Seton Motley, a conservative blogger. 

One of Shapiro's Ukraine posts, "Hillary Sides With Anti-Semitic Ukrainian Opposition," is nearly identical to a post that appeared four days later in a different publication under Huston's byline: "Clinton Dept. of State Backing the Anti-Semitism Party in Ukraine?"

Shapiro said he hadn't been paid by anyone other than his employers to do the posts. 

Scoville "was not the one pitching me as far as I recall," Shapiro said.

There were several posters on TOS who repeated this garbage in the old Ukraine thread.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Gab, the free speech alternative to Twatter, is temporarily gone as they lost their hosting service. But Twitter did nothing about Sayoc's death threats, 250 of them, towards 50 public figures. One standard for thee, another for me.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/31/gab-standard-twitter-failed-to-act-on-hundreds-of-death-threats-from-mail-bombing-suspect/

I don't care about Twitter or Gab, but I care a great deal for free speech. The answer to the violence we are seeing isn't to fight back with more violence, it's more speech. Shutting down speech is the wrong thing. 

Google removed a Marsh Blackburn ad showing left wing protesters doing violence. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/31/marsha-blackburn-ad-censored-google-over-footage-left-wing-protesters

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Gab, the free speech alternative to Twatter, is temporarily gone as they lost their hosting service. But Twitter did nothing about Sayoc's death threats, 250 of them, towards 50 public figures. One standard for thee, another for me.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/31/gab-standard-twitter-failed-to-act-on-hundreds-of-death-threats-from-mail-bombing-suspect/

I don't care about Twitter or Gab, but I care a great deal for free speech. The answer to the violence we are seeing isn't to fight back with more violence, it's more speech. Shutting down speech is the wrong thing. 

Google removed a Marsh Blackburn ad showing left wing protesters doing violence. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/31/marsha-blackburn-ad-censored-google-over-footage-left-wing-protesters

 

What’s funny is you’re complaining about the most libertarian solution to a real problem.  The private sector is shunning and removing the content from their platforms they deem harmful to society.

You probably want the government to step in and “DO SOMETHING!”.

Which is hilarious.

[F250 28,788]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What’s funny is you’re complaining about the most libertarian solution to a real problem.  The private sector is shunning and removing the content from their platforms they deem harmful to society.

You probably want the government to step in and “DO SOMETHING!”.

Which is hilarious.

I'm pretty sure he isn't a supporter of libertarian ideals..

[Guest]

Dear.

God.

I wonder can you save me?

[seven 1,367]

I don't understand the complaint, you're mad at twitter for banning hate speeching right wing trolls and also mad that twitter didn't ban a specific hate speeching right wing troll? 

[seven 1,367]

And you're equating gab getting their hosting pulled with "fighting back with more violence"? 

 

Have you been drinking? 

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

Ban all social media.  Well, Instagram can stay.  But fuck the rest.

[Blotto 23,560]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:10 PM, Thetexashammer said:

Some people may not be bothered that large corporations believe they can determine who gets to be president. I find that to be extremely alarming. 

Freedom from government interference in speech is important, but not sufficient. Facebook et al have become the public square, the arena. It is where culture is grown. And culture drives politics. Specifically, these tech companies are trying to pick presidents and elected representatives of their own liking. They are incredibly powerful, and they can do it. This is bad.

Oh how I long for the halcyon days of times past(2016) when foreign governments would orchestrate coordinated messaging through our social media infrastructure to influence our electorate in picking presidents and elected representatives. Good times indeed.

[Continental Op 3,934]

Movies are also where culture is grown so the government should make Amazon send half the people who order a Black Panther blu ray a copy of God's Not Dead instead so that everything is fair. 

[DanRydell 799]

4 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Gab, the free speech alternative to Twatter, is temporarily gone as they lost their hosting service. But Twitter did nothing about Sayoc's death threats, 250 of them, towards 50 public figures. One standard for thee, another for me.

Twitter is its own hosting service. Gab is welcome to migrate away from third-party hosting if they don't want to be subject to such market forces.

Edited November 1, 2018 by DanRydell

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Just now, DanRydell said:

Twitter is its own hosting service. Gab is welcome to migrate away from third-party hosting if they don't want to be subject to such market forces.

They can also go start their own advertising network to replace Google Ads, and their own payment network to replace PayPal. Seems like a great business model. If all the tech companies were located in Texas the problem would be obvious to everyone.

[DanRydell 799]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

They can also go start their own advertising network to replace Google Ads, and their own payment network to replace PayPal. Seems like a great business model. If all the tech companies were located in Texas the problem would be obvious to everyone.

If you want to build your business model around pandering to white supremacists, them's the breaks.

But what the hell, I'll play. What is the obvious problem exactly? And what is your proposed solution to said problem?

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

The major social media companies have constructively built monopolies in what they do. Facebook, Google, and Twitter each in their own niche own more than 90% of their space. And they bias heavily left.

Probably 50% of the posts here in CR deal with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Yet Facebook et al have far more influence. 

Some people think the public discussion doesn't matter. I do. It's why I mostly post facts. I don't know what to do, but the first thing is to agree that there are facts which are troubling. Democracy cannot function without the free flow of information, it's the whole reason that journalists cal themselves the Fourth Estate.

Quote

The term Fourth Estate (or fourth power) refers to the press, and news media, both in explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues. Though it is not formally recognized as a part of a political system, it wields significant indirect social influence.^[1]

The socials are only beginning to flex their muscle. In the future it will only get worse. I don't know what the solution is, but I am in favor of awareness until collectively we can come up with an answer. 

So basically, I believe in a principle. People shouldn't fuck with our democracy. It's not hard to understand or even controversial. You shall know that truth and it shall set you free.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[DanRydell 799]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The major social media companies have constructively built monopolies in what they do. Facebook, Google, and Twitter each in their own niche own more than 90% of their space. And they bias heavily left.

Probably 50% of the posts here in CR deal with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Yet Facebook et al have far more influence. 

Some people think the public discussion doesn't matter. I do. It's why I mostly post facts. I don't know what to do, but the first thing is to agree that there are facts which are troubling. Democracy cannot function without the free flow of information, it's the whole reason that journalists cal themselves the Fourth Estate.

The socials are only beginning to flex their muscle. In the future it will only get worse. I don't know what the solution is, but I am in favor of awareness until collectively we can come up with an answer. 

So basically, I believe in a principle. People shouldn't fuck with our democracy. It's not hard to understand or even controversial.

I will stipulate there are facts which are troubling.

Now what's your solution?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

The major social media companies have constructively built monopolies in what they do. Facebook, Google, and Twitter each in their own niche own more than 90% of their space. And they bias heavily left.

Probably 50% of the posts here in CR deal with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Yet Facebook et al have far more influence. 

Some people think the public discussion doesn't matter. I do. It's why I mostly post facts. I don't know what to do, but the first thing is to agree that there are facts which are troubling. Democracy cannot function without the free flow of information, it's the whole reason that journalists cal themselves the Fourth Estate.

The socials are only beginning to flex their muscle. In the future it will only get worse. I don't know what the solution is, but I am in favor of awareness until collectively we can come up with an answer. 

So basically, I believe in a principle. People shouldn't fuck with our democracy. It's not hard to understand or even controversial. You shall know that truth and it shall set you free.

Oh... NOW YOU CARE. 

I’ve got bad news for you:

It’s going to get worse. We are going to have more shooters and bombers that are radicalized in right wing conspiracy theory social media.  Every time it happens there is going to be a crackdown by the tech giants.  

The saddest part about this is people like Brisket and I saw this shit coming years ago and the tech companies weren’t going to do anything about it until the bodies started piling up. 

Well now the bodies are piling up and the chickens are coming home to roost. 

Deal with it.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[happyfunball 481]

The irony is that on Facebook, etc the most shared media is right wing news so actually social networks have amplieified right wing news not suppressed it. Social media has only started to block conspiracy theory and hate speech on the fringe. It is even more ironic the outcry against social media from conservatives because effectively the only items being suppressed is the postings that are equivalent of “kill all the jews” but only when it is shared millions of times. 

Example being is that the recent letter bomber had sent multiple threats on twitter but was never banned. 

So no, speech isn’t being limited even by the free market. Sorry you can’t incite violence against other segments of the populous. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by happyfunball

[wildcat09 29,355]

16 hours ago, seven said:

I don't understand the complaint, you're mad at twitter for banning hate speeching right wing trolls and also mad that twitter didn't ban a specific hate speeching right wing troll? 

Yes. It's perfectly consistent, you know, if your brain is pudding.

[Foosters 17,858]

Just give up. People have been trying to explain things to TexasHammer since page 1. He's either functionally retarded or intentionally obtuse.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Did you guys know you can ignore intentionally obtuse trolls? It's really fun and cool. Your life improves noticeably.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did you guys know you can ignore intentionally obtuse trolls? It's really fun and cool. Your life improves noticeably.

I think he’s only half trolling.  He knows the responses he’s going to get but he believes this is an important issue worthy of legitimate conversation.

 

[Fozzz 152]

I think this clip from Chomsky is useful in trying to understand the worldview of someone like Thetexashammer.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Damn, he fucking nailed it.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

Goddammit.  Somebody on FB posted an article about why the US should split up, and it's all rah-rah because only conservatives are real Americans, and we need to kick libtards out etc.  It was a terribad piece of writing. BUT...because I clicked on it....this fucking ad showed up in my feed.

Fuck that dumbass piss-your-pants-scared old people dumbassery.

Anyway, my bunker is stocked with cases of beer, sardines, and hot sauce.

[Incredulity 11,675]

Out of morbid curiosity I bought a freeze dried ice cream sandwich from Cabela's.

 

I would rather just go out in the first wave than "survive" on that shit.

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

22 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think this clip from Chomsky is useful in trying to understand the worldview of someone like Thetexashammer.

 

 

He did nail it, but I don't have the answer for them now that their movement has taken shape other than, I'm sorry you're batshit crazy.  I'm sure there's a better answer, so someone enlighten me.

[wildcat09 29,355]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

He did nail it, but I don't have the answer for them now that their movement has taken shape other than, I'm sorry you're batshit crazy.  I'm sure there's a better answer, so someone enlighten me.

I think the only answer is to unite against them electorally and beat them time and time and time again until their movement has been discouraged to the point it falls apart (and its older members die). The Nazis never got anything close to a majority, but they divided their opposition effectively and convinced the "reasonable" conservatives that the reasonable conservatives would be able to work with them and keep them in check. That's how Trump won.

That means turning out the youth vote in historic numbers, across multiple elections, keeping the far left from voting for bullshit third party protest candidates, and convincing at least some portion of the not-insane center-right of the threat that Trump actually poses. The alternative is violence because fascists don't co-exist with others.