leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Honestly, I think Twitter ultimately ends up somewhere near where it was before Musk bought it. It relies on ads for revenue and ad buyers want boring, non-controversial platforms for their ads. With the increased transparency, it’s better already.
Doc Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 And...the journos are back on Twitter. Like I knew they'd be. They had their time out.
BillStime Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 Why weren't the Dolphins kicked off Twitter? 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 17, 2022 Author Posted December 17, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: I love that this admits that Musk doesn’t care about free speech. I mean, it was obvious form the start, but some Muskateers actually believed it. Only in your warped worldview does it admit that. BTW, Greenwald has maintained his principles throughout and said he's against the recent Musk timeouts. Just like I and many others here have stated, and unlike your previous cheerleading of FBI led censorship at Twitter. Edited December 17, 2022 by BillsFanNC 1 1
ChiGoose Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Only in your warped worldview does it admit that. BTW, Greenwald has maintained his principles throughout and said he's against the recent Musk timeouts. Just like I and many others here have stated, and unlike your previous cheerleading of FBI led censorship at Twitter. I must have missed where you showed that the FBI coerced Twitter to censor things instead of just flagging items for review.
BillsFanNC Posted December 17, 2022 Author Posted December 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I must have missed where you showed that the FBI coerced Twitter to censor things instead of just flagging items for review. The undefeated hand waving champ! As if EITHER of those things is even remotely close to being ok. 1
JaCrispy Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 54 minutes ago, BillStime said: Why weren't the Dolphins kicked off Twitter? Look how much you’ve grown…so exciting how one man can make you change from being pro censorship to anti-censorship…Therefore, everything Elon has done (while I don’t agree with all of it) is worth it, just to see an authoritarian, like yourself, begging for free speech…😉 So, well done, on your growth BillSy…and keep going…I’m so proud of you…👍 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 17, 2022 Author Posted December 17, 2022 Everyone else it seems needs to heed Chuckie's words......but apparently not Twitter if they didn't act on FBI flagged posts for censorship. I wonder why? 1
ChiGoose Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: The undefeated hand waving champ! As if EITHER of those things is even remotely close to being ok. So let’s say the FBI identifies a network of nearly 200,000 bots controlled by China to push their propaganda about Taiwan. You are saying it is bad for them to flag that to private companies. I am saying it’s good for them to notify private companies so long as the private companies are free to do with it as they will.
Tommy Callahan Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: So let’s say the FBI identifies a network of nearly 200,000 bots controlled by China to push their propaganda about Taiwan. You are saying it is bad for them to flag that to private companies. I am saying it’s good for them to notify private companies so long as the private companies are free to do with it as they will. Is that what happened. seems like a strawman. A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4] Edited December 17, 2022 by Chris farley 2
ChiGoose Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 Just now, Chris farley said: Is that what happened. seems like a re used strawman. There has been zero evidence presented that the FBI coerced Twitter into censoring posts. People are looking at very standard interactions between the FBI during the Trump administration asking Twitter to review things and jumping to conclusions that it’s a nefarious censorship plot. It’s the same thing every day here. Someone dies: must have been either the vaccine or Hillary. FBI does literally anything: must be a giant conspiracy by the deep state against my side. Someone loses an election: must have been stolen by the other side. I guess it’s just more fun to believe in baseless evil master plans than to admit that things rarely are that exciting.
Tommy Callahan Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: There has been zero evidence presented that the FBI coerced Twitter into censoring posts. People are looking at very standard interactions between the FBI during the Trump administration asking Twitter to review things and jumping to conclusions that it’s a nefarious censorship plot. It’s the same thing every day here. Someone dies: must have been either the vaccine or Hillary. FBI does literally anything: must be a giant conspiracy by the deep state against my side. Someone loses an election: must have been stolen by the other side. I guess it’s just more fun to believe in baseless evil master plans than to admit that things rarely are that exciting. So more strawmen mixed with logical fallacies, ad hominem and false dichotomies. are you being intentional with all this?
ChiGoose Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 5 minutes ago, Chris farley said: So more strawmen mixed with logical fallacies, ad hominem and false dichotomies. are you being intentional with all this? The China bot thing was real. Not a straw man. It’s not my fault if people can’t read or fail basic comprehension. I’m just going to continue to point out that nobody has yet to show that the FBI coerced Twitter into doing anything. Not that it’ll matter because the narrative is already set and so they go marching forth with more nonsense. 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 17, 2022 Author Posted December 17, 2022 The FBI HAS NO BUSINESS flagging mundane posts that reflect American citizens personal opinions. The Twitter Files clearly show that the FBI was flagging these types of posts. Chi is going beyond his regular obtuse nature here. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 21 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: The FBI HAS NO BUSINESS flagging mundane posts that reflect American citizens personal opinions. The Twitter Files clearly show that the FBI was flagging these types of posts. Chi is going beyond his regular obtuse nature here. All I’ve been trying to do is point out that the FBI flagging something is not the same as coercion. If the FBI is flagging things in a way that is inappropriate, Twitter is free to look at that and then take no action. If Twitter removes mundane content that doesn’t violate its TOS then that’s a failure of Twitter’s moderation. If Twitter feels that they have to take something down if the FBI flags it, then Twitter has terrible lawyers. There are good debates to have about how content moderation should work (there’s no one-size-fits-all solution), but saying that Twitter is a subsidiary of the FBI just isn’t backed by any of the facts that have been made public.
Orlando Buffalo Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 12 hours ago, ChiGoose said: I love that this admits that Musk doesn’t care about free speech. I mean, it was obvious form the start, but some Muskateers actually believed it. I love that you admit that posting items that will likely allow crazy people to attack those who disagree with you is something you will defend. 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: There has been zero evidence presented that the FBI coerced Twitter into censoring posts. People are looking at very standard interactions between the FBI during the Trump administration asking Twitter to review things and jumping to conclusions that it’s a nefarious censorship plot. It’s the same thing every day here. Someone dies: must have been either the vaccine or Hillary. FBI does literally anything: must be a giant conspiracy by the deep state against my side. Someone loses an election: must have been stolen by the other side. I guess it’s just more fun to believe in baseless evil master plans than to admit that things rarely are that exciting. The FBI told Twitter that the Hunter Biden story was likely Russian Disinformation when they knew at the time that it was true and accurate, or do you still deny that? Or is that not coercion? 1
Buffarukus Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: There has been zero evidence presented that the FBI coerced Twitter into censoring posts. People are looking at very standard interactions between the FBI during the Trump administration asking Twitter to review things and jumping to conclusions that it’s a nefarious censorship plot. It’s the same thing every day here. Someone dies: must have been either the vaccine or Hillary. FBI does literally anything: must be a giant conspiracy by the deep state against my side. Someone loses an election: must have been stolen by the other side. I guess it’s just more fun to believe in baseless evil master plans than to admit that things rarely are that exciting. i havent even gone through the twitter drops and i can tell you even by chance the fbi was merely making "sugestions" on what to flag like you say. that is highly influential. the company ceos were brought in to congress and asked questions and lied about all of this. no shadow banning sir. no we do not censor on basis of political ideology sir. on and on. why? why lie if its so innocent? because they knew. secondly a police brigade shows up to your door and "suggests" you stop parking in a parking spot. and then park outside? nothing illegal. you parking there? so even if your right, which i highly doubt, the threat of gov and pleasing them to stay on their good side and going outside their own terms of service in biased ways secretly is alot more then you want to make it out to be. same thing everyday leftist brushing off gov overreach as no big deal...when its for their ideology and reversing coarse the second its not. Edited December 17, 2022 by Buffarukus 1
ChiGoose Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 17 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: I love that you admit that posting items that will likely allow crazy people to attack those who disagree with you is something you will defend. The FBI told Twitter that the Hunter Biden story was likely Russian Disinformation when they knew at the time that it was true and accurate, or do you still deny that? Or is that not coercion? I draw the line at PII. Plane tail numbers are not PII. The FBI flagging the Hunter Biden laptop was obviously not coercion. Facebook never took the link down. Twitter did. Each company was free to take it as they felt appropriate (did the NY Post ever hide the story?). Coercion is forcing the company to do something by creating a penalty if they don’t. Like shutting the site down or filing charges if it doesn’t remove illegal content. Merely flagging something or requesting it to be taken down is not coercion if the company is free to ignore it. This was reaffirmed in New York Times v. The United States 9 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: i havent even gone through the twitter drops and i can tell you even by chance the fbi was merely making "sugestions" on what to flag like you say. that is highly influential. the company ceos were brought in to congress and asked questions and lied about all of this. no shadow banning sir. no we do not censor on basis of political ideology sir. on and on. why? why lie if its so innocent? because they knew. secondly a police brigade shows up to your door and "suggests" you stop parking in a parking spot. and then park outside? nothing illegal. you parking there? so even if your right, which i highly doubt, the threat of gov and pleasing them to stay on their good side is and going outside their own terms of service is alot more then you want to make it out to be. same thing everyday leftist brushing off gov overreach as no big deal...when its for their ideology and reversing coarse the second its not. The thing is, I haven’t really weighed in on whether or not the FBI flagging specific items was wrong because we’re still at step one: explaining what coercion actually is. If Twitter thought they had to censor stuff because the FBI asked them to review it, then they had terrible lawyers who weren’t aware of a landmark case on this exact topic. 1
B-Man Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 15 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: i havent even gone through the twitter drops and i can tell you even by chance the fbi was merely making "sugestions" on what to flag like you say. that is highly influential. the company ceos were brought in to congress and asked questions and lied about all of this. no shadow banning sir. no we do not censor on basis of political ideology sir. on and on. why? why lie if its so innocent? because they knew. secondly a police brigade shows up to your door and "suggests" you stop parking in a parking spot. and then park outside? nothing illegal. you parking there? so even if your right, which i highly doubt, the threat of gov and pleasing them to stay on their good side and going outside their own terms of service in biased ways secretly is alot more then you want to make it out to be. same thing everyday leftist brushing off gov overreach as no big deal...when its for their ideology and reversing coarse the second its not. Why, it’s as if: Head Of Twitter’s Censorship Operation Was A Former FBI, CIA Operative. BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/09/head-of-twitters-censorship-operation-was-a-former-fbi-cia-operative/ * * Federalist alert (for the squeamish) 1
Buffarukus Posted December 17, 2022 Posted December 17, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, B-Man said: Why, it’s as if: Head Of Twitter’s Censorship Operation Was A Former FBI, CIA Operative. BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/09/head-of-twitters-censorship-operation-was-a-former-fbi-cia-operative/ * * Federalist alert (for the squeamish) yeah you dont get that by chance. i also hear these highly positioned tech people also get appointed positions in gov. its a back scratch back and forth. their head of saftey put out a good amount of sick pedo views. ooops. strange they let that all over twitter. nothing to see here. DOWN WITH ELON!! 😅 Edited December 17, 2022 by Buffarukus
Recommended Posts