Twitter Censorship

[Norm]

Twitter is censoring #releasethememo Does not show up in trending

https://youtu.be/RuMftC_lDo4

[Gd5150]

Twitter is censoring #releasethememo Does not show up in trending

https://youtu.be/RuMftC_lDo4

Nice cans norm. Come here often?

#alllowfakeconsensus

[PB the Deplorable]

Twitter is censoring #releasethememo Does not show up in trending

This is exactly why the so-called net neutrality rules needed to be redone.

Thanks to Obama coming to Silicon Valley every other week to pick up a pile of loot, and the companies contributing millons having more access to the White House than CAIR, those deciding what content we see weren't included in the rules.  Google.  FaceBook.  Twitter.  Apple.  Amazon. 

They didn't have to be ''neutral'' in what we get to see.  Only the ISPs, controling download speeds.  It's why the above companies and their Democrat buddies are freaking out over the FCC's reversal of Obama's rules that heavily favored them and their Party.  They're concerned we are going to get real net neutrality

[SredniVashtar]

This is exactly why the so-called net neutrality rules needed to be redone.

Thanks to Obama coming to Silicon Valley every other week to pick up a pile of loot, and the companies contributing millons having more access to the White House than CAIR, those deciding what content we see weren't included in the rules.  Google.  FaceBook.  Twitter.  Apple.  Amazon. 

They didn't have to be ''neutral'' in what we get to see.  Only the ISPs, controling download speeds.  It's why the above companies and their Democrat buddies are freaking out over the FCC's reversal of Obama's rules that heavily favored them and their Party.  They're concerned we are going to get real net neutrality

How do you expect that to happen? Most companies want to be as uncontroversial as possible, that means that people on the margins/ extremes will get squeezed. Given that it's mainly people on the right complaining of being censored, what makes you think ISPs won't do the same when left to their own devices?

[Dr. MD MD]

How do you expect that to happen? Most companies want to be as uncontroversial as possible, that means that people on the margins/ extremes will get squeezed. Given that it's mainly people on the right complaining of being censored, what makes you think ISPs won't do the same when left to their own devices?

It's you who's on the margin now. 

[PB the Deplorable]

How do you expect that to happen? Most companies want to be as uncontroversial as possible, that means that people on the margins/ extremes will get squeezed. Given that it's mainly people on the right complaining of being censored, what makes you think ISPs won't do the same when left to their own devices?

Net neutrality should include both ISPs and the Googles and FaceBooks, etc, that are heavily used and route internet content.  They've grown large enough to have created an oligopoly in the marketplace of use and content distribution - meaning in that area of their businesses they should be subject to monopoly restrictions and regulations. 

That is true net neutrality, and falls into the category of where capitalism fails and needs to be regulated for the common good.  In other words, now that the Obama sham has been undone, real net neutrality needs to be implemented.  This is something the Congress should legislate, not a five man panel at the FCC

[PB the Deplorable]

We are still early in the Internet Age, and finding our way in such areas as taxation and regulation, right down to law and accounting rules (see:  Bitcoin).  What we don't want is late 1800s style trusts and robber barons, which is what these entities and their top executives are beginning to resemble

[SredniVashtar]

Net neutrality should include both ISPs and the Googles and FaceBooks, etc, that are heavily used and route internet content.  They've grown large enough to have created an oligopoly in the marketplace of use and content distribution - meaning in that area of their businesses they should be subject to monopoly restrictions and regulations. 

That is true net neutrality, and falls into the category of where capitalism fails and needs to be regulated for the common good.  In other words, now that the Obama sham has been undone, real net neutrality needs to be implemented.  This is something the Congress should legislate, not a five man panel at the FCC

So, what we had before, plus an authoritarian superstructure on top? How very free market!

You're asking for a huge government entity with extensive discretionary powers to decide how the internet ought to work. You're always lecturing us about letting government in by the back door, this let's Pol Pot and his pals in the front with a spare set of keys. That's much more pernicious than single payer healthcare.

Let's be honest, you don't have a single principle that you're not prepared to toss out if you think it benefits your side. Google etc weren't monopolies in the days of net neutrality because it allowed others to compete. Now that the ISPs have rigged the game you lost your chance.

Net neutrality made sense because it was simple. What you want is much more sinister and complicated.

[Dr. MD MD]

So, what we had before, plus an authoritarian superstructure on top? How very free market!

You're asking for a huge government entity with extensive discretionary powers to decide how the internet ought to work. You're always lecturing us about letting government in by the back door, this let's Pol Pot and his pals in the front with a spare set of keys. That's much more pernicious than single payer healthcare.

Let's be honest, you don't have a single principle that you're not prepared to toss out if you think it benefits your side. Google etc weren't monopolies in the days of net neutrality because it allowed others to compete. Now that the ISPs have rigged the game you lost your chance.

Net neutrality made sense because it was simple. What you want is much more sinister and complicated.

Are you fucking serious?! You're trying to claim that Google just became a monopoly after net neutrality was shot down?! You, sir, have no credibility. Seriously stick your head up Eric Schmidt's ass. It would be an improvement for you. 

[PB the Deplorable]

So, what we had before, plus an authoritarian superstructure on top? How very free market!

You're asking for a huge government entity with extensive discretionary powers to decide how the internet ought to work...

If that's what you got out of my post, you read it wrong

... You're always lecturing us about letting government in by the back door, this let's Pol Pot and his pals in the front with a spare set of keys. That's much more pernicious than single payer healthcare.

Let's be honest, you don't have a single principle that you're not prepared to toss out if you think it benefits your side. Google etc weren't monopolies in the days of net neutrality because it allowed others to compete. Now that the ISPs have rigged the game you lost your chance.

Net neutrality made sense because it was simple. What you want is much more sinister and complicated.

It's as complicated as asking the huge content distributors - Google, FakeBook, et al - to leave their political agendas out of their algorithms. 

I've never said there is no room for government, or government regulations, or that we should have unfettered capitalism.  You guys never seem to be able to get that straight - when we point out we don't want it overdone, that it's a slippery slope, you want to claim we don't support any regulation, any government oversight, or any restrictions on capitalism. 

The truth is we believe some is necessary - with legitimate disagreement as to specific items - but you don't want to hear that because it makes more sense than the bureaucratic monster you've created and don't want disassembled.

[SredniVashtar]

If that's what you got out of my post, you read it wrong


It's as complicated as asking the huge content distributors - Google, FakeBook, et al - to leave their political agendas out of their algorithms. 

I've never said there is no room for government, or government regulations, or that we should have unfettered capitalism.  You guys never seem to be able to get that straight - when we point out we don't want it overdone, that it's a slippery slope, you want to claim we don't support any regulation, any government oversight, or any restrictions on capitalism. 

The truth is we believe some is necessary - with legitimate disagreement as to specific items - but you don't want to hear that because it makes more sense than the bureaucratic monster you've created and don't want disassembled.

It's only simple to you because you haven't thought about it much. Why is it that leftist trash like me understands the free market and you don't? These companies aren't politically motivated, they want to make money. If they think they will lose money (for instance, if advertisers threaten to pull out) then they will react accordingly. I expect a business to worry first about the bottom line, and I don't expect them to worry much about anything else.

You are telling them how they can run their business rather than letting the market decide. And who determines what is 'political' anyway? Whoever runs the government at the time? If you walk into a shop and start being obnoxious they are allowed to toss you out. Apparently you don't want that now.

I know you don't hate regulation, you're just casual about when and where you apply it. Rather than having a set of values, you'll invoke the government one minute, and excoriate it the next. If there was a right-wing bias you wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

[Gd5150]

Net neutrality didn’t do a thing to touch the real internet monopolies, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter. Who all are already doing the things the so-called net neutrality proponents supposedly wanted to prevent.

Who complained about ISPs having too much power? No one. When have ISPs limited free speech? They haven’t. When have they practiced censorship without disclosure. They haven’t.

The so-called “throttling” is nothing more than free market practice that happens everywhere. It’s supply and demand. It’s what keeps prices down, keeps competition thriving. When you remove competition, you end up with disasters like Obamacare’s 500% increases in costs. Or higher education costing $200k for a 4 year degree.

Net-neutrality was a sham from the start, we know that by who authored it, and who supported it. The left has never been in favor of the free market, they don’t favor any freedoms.

And as usual, net-neutrality was shitcanned, and none of the lefts dire predictions have happened.

[SredniVashtar]

Who complained about ISPs having too much power? No one. When have ISPs limited free speech? They haven’t. When have they practiced censorship without disclosure. They haven’t.

How would you know?

[Dr. MD MD]

How would you know?

Is this your new conspiracy theory to replace the Russian boogeyman one?

[albrecht]

It's only simple to you because you haven't thought about it much. Why is it that leftist trash like me understands the free market and you don't? These companies aren't politically motivated, they want to make money. If they think they will lose money (for instance, if advertisers threaten to pull out) then they will react accordingly. I expect a business to worry first about the bottom line, and I don't expect them to worry much about anything else.

You are telling them how they can run their business rather than letting the market decide. And who determines what is 'political' anyway? Whoever runs the government at the time? If you walk into a shop and start being obnoxious they are allowed to toss you out. Apparently you don't want that now.

I know you don't hate regulation, you're just casual about when and where you apply it. Rather than having a set of values, you'll invoke the government one minute, and excoriate it the next. If there was a right-wing bias you wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

Is Twitter profitable (in a tradition sense not by billionaires etc "investing?")

[Jackstar]

Is Twitter profitable

They make shitloads of back-door money.

[SredniVashtar]

Is Twitter profitable (in a tradition sense not by billionaires etc "investing?")

It doesn't matter. They're free to do what they like within the law. I'll leave it to you free market types to tell people what to do with their money.

[Dr. MD MD]

It doesn't matter. They're free to do what they like within the law. I'll leave it to you free market types to tell people what to do with their money.

They're free to look through our photos and DMs? I didn't realize that was law now.

[SredniVashtar]

They're free to look through our photos and DMs? I didn't realize that was law now.

Why not? It's their platform, read the small print. If it's security you want then choose another medium.

[Dr. MD MD]

Why not? It's their platform, read the small print. If it's security you want then choose another medium.

That's what people are doing but they (and Google and Facebook) will be held accountable for what they've done. Bank on it!

[SredniVashtar]

That's what people are doing but they (and Google and Facebook) will be held accountable for what they've done. Bank on it!

Perhaps you and Shirtless Joe should be on the same ticket for 2020?

[Dr. MD MD]

Perhaps you and Shirtless Joe should be on the same ticket for 2020?

Oh, I'll be watching and commenting here in 2020. It's going to be glorious! I'm thinking that after that, with Trump's second term locked, is when we'll invade your country. Remember, I like Earl Grey tea!

[PB the Deplorable]

It's only simple to you because you haven't thought about it much. Why is it that leftist trash like me understands the free market and you don't?...

I've read your posts.  You have no idea what goes on in the free market. 

The textbooks and other material you get your information from - as little as that may be - cover principles, not human behavior.

... These companies aren't politically motivated...

Hahahahahah.  And yet they hosted Obama and showered him with cash on a near monthly basis, and were frequent visitors to the White House.  And are very ''Liberal'' ''Progressive'' in their public comments, and company policies.  And are of course ''deeply troubled'' by Trump - despite the economy finally coming around after eight years of planned stagnation.  A growing economy that benefits them as much as anyone. 

This isn't Wall Street, and it isn't 1958.  Big companies these days seem to mostly rely on a crony capitalism ''partnership'' with DC, not free market economics.  You know, the globalists.  In this case, cash and the ''proper'' political content in exchange for being exempted from the ''net neutrality'' rules.  Does that satisfy your expectation that they are doing what they can to maximize profit?


Not politically motivated?  Really?  Go back and read the first post in this thread.  Go read up on all the similiar shenanagans these companies have been up to - for years.  Read their comments about determining for us what news and information is good for us (them). 

Just this week FakeBook said they will be ''improving the quality and trustworthiness of news sources''.  What exactly do you think they mean by that, given their political views and actions from Day One?  They're not even trying to hide their left wing censorship, but somehow you've missed all that?  For extra credit, why do you think Bezos bought The Washington Post?  For the profits it generates?

[PB the Deplorable]

It's only simple to you because you haven't thought about it much...

By the way, not only have I worked in the industry, this is local news for me.  I'm likely much more aware of the day-to-day commentary and activity of these companies than folks who don't live around here and only hear the highlights their Fake News outlets want them to hear

[PB the Deplorable]

It doesn't matter. They're free to do what they like within the law. I'll leave it to you free market types to tell people what to do with their money.

That's the point - they've become an oligopoly.  In an important economic and social sector. 

They are thus subject to those laws, should they be invoked.

[MV/Liberace!]

.

[SredniVashtar]

By the way, not only have I worked in the industry, this is local news for me.  I'm likely much more aware of the day-to-day commentary and activity of these companies than folks who don't live around here and only hear the highlights their Fake News outlets want them to hear

By the way, ever bothered to check whether the premise of this thread is true? It isn't.

[Inglorious Bitch]

By the way, ever bothered to check whether the premise of this thread is true? It isn't.

Au contraire mon frère. Twitter does censor tweets unless they are left wing views.  What research do libs use to refute facts? Their opinions? That's not how intelligent discourse works.

[Gd5150]

By the way, ever bothered to check whether the premise of this thread is true? It isn't.

Cant argue with irrefutable evidence like that.

[TigerLily]

Au contraire mon frère. Twitter does censor tweets unless they are left wing views.  What research do libs use to refute facts? Their opinions? That's not how intelligent discourse works.

Et tu Ibby? A generalized condemnation of Progressives? And about facts of all things?

Je suis très déçu de toi