So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
from the bad-faith-clown-show dept
Late last week, news emerged that the DOJ would likely be bringing a massive antitrust lawsuit against Google. Reports suggest this is the culmination of a full year of saber rattling by Bill Barr, who has made "antitrust inquiries" into "big tech" a top priority at the DOJ:
"the DOJ's antitrust inquiries into Google, Facebook and other Silicon Valley powers has become a priority for Attorney General William Barr, who has asserted greater control of the probes and has said he wants to make a decision on Google by the summer."
The news was quickly met with celebration by numerous folks, many of whom have correctly noted that US antitrust enforcement has become toothless and frail, and our dated definitions of monopoly need updating in the Amazon era. The announcement was also highly celebrated by a litany of folks eager to see Google's domination of search, advertising, and other sectors disrupted -- for both justified and competitive reasons.
Oddly, much of the coverage of the DOJ's potential antitrust case operated under the premise that Barr's efforts are being conducted in good faith, and might actually result in useful remedies at the end of the battle. The problem with that assertion is multi-fold. One, Bill Barr just got done making it abundantly clear his DOJ isn't actually interested in the rule of law. The Trump DOJ has also made it abundantly clear it's not above weaponizing antitrust for petty grievances, as we saw with the ridiculous lawsuit against California over vehicle emissions.
Barr's DOJ also isn't what you'd call consistent on antitrust and monopoly enforcement, either.
Barr's DOJ, for example, just got done rubber stamping the $26 billion merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, despite a laundry list of warnings from economists that concentration in the telecom sector would reduce competition, raise rates, lower overall sector pay, and result in up to 20,000 to 30,000 job losses. Yet DOJ antitrust boss, Makan Delrahim, not only rubber stamped the deal without listening to experts, he used his personal phone and email accounts to help ensure deal approval. That is what "antitrust enforcement" looks like at Donald Trump and Bill Barr's DOJ.
The DOJ's lawsuit to hamper the AT&T Time Warner lawsuit was also treated with furrowed brow seriousness by the press, despite it being well out of character for a Trump administration that generally panders to AT&T, has a less than zero interest in consumer protection, and usually has no problem with industry consolidation -- provided you're an ally of the administration. There's ample indication the DOJ's lawsuit was driven by Trump's disdain for CNN and his ally Rupert Murdoch, who saw two attempts to buy CNN rebuffed by AT&T and had been working overtime to scuttle the deal for competitive reasons.
Why is monopolization in telecom and other sectors ok, and monopolization in Silicon Valley not ok? Because, as we've noted previously, much of the Barr DOJ's sudden, uncharacteristic interest in "policing monopolies" is being driven by the telecom sector (Barr you'll recall used to be Verizon's General Counsel). Giants like Comcast, Verizon, and others have been hungrily eyeing Silicon Valley's stranglehold over advertising revenues for the better part of the last fifteen years, and there's absolutely no doubt in my mind they're driving a lot of the anti "big tech" animosity you're seeing from the likes of Bill Barr and Marsha Blackburn, whose interest in consumer protection, level playing fields, monopolies, or consolidation is utterly nonexistent on any other Sunday.
A desire for stronger antitrust enforcement or concern for monopoly domination isn't what's driving the Barr DOJ here, and press outlets assuming this is a good faith effort are clowning themselves. It's being driven by telecom sector allies and Trump pals like Rupert Murdoch, who are eager to boost their own advertising market share. It's also being driven by heaps of partisan nonsense about how Conservatives are being "censored by big tech," which as we've documented repeatedly isn't based on anything remotely resembling reality.
None of this is to say that there aren't very obvious monopolistic problems Google presents that need addressing. And the separate antitrust inquiry by state AGs (expected this fall) is far more likely to be conducted in good faith, even though there too you have a lot of AGs that were just fine with monopolization in sectors like telecom. But anybody who thinks the Barr DOJ's effort in particular is driven by a genuine interest in reining in monopoly power simply hasn't been paying attention.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, competition, doj, internet, william barr
Companies: facebook, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I am sure the wrong person doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons will work out This time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As if the previous administration did any better
DOJ Antitrust investigations are nothing more than public finger-pointing to get away with unofficial State Actor relationships. Companies give backdoor access to their information and the government bends over backward to let them become a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if the previous administration did any better
Isil is a state crowd also got to be isil
Israel, Illinois, and various other things are states but there aren't any unofficial relationships you mental case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if the previous administration did any better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As if the previous administration did any better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives and liberals are both actually censored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The cyber actors who have interacted with me have called the problem "radical extremist group" rather than liberals or conservatives.
radical extremist group is accused of picking out children to hit with their lasers and continually coming back to really kill them
they further threatened to try to extinct humanity if they are actually ever prosecuted for their radical extremism
I have personal experience as a target of that radical extremist group
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here on CNN
You're on CNN? And they believe everything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why are right wing iditots with a poor grasp of English always so obsessed by CNN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNN
The Great Prophet Trump mentioned CNN by name. I mention Reuters or Associated Press and they're not sure what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explain This To Me
One of Techdirt's weirdest editorial policies is this constant claim that conservative voices aren't being silenced by Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
This is factually untrue and I don't understand how anybody can say it with a straight face (and expect to be taken seriously).
What Techdirt seems to claim is that no, conservatives aren't being deplatformed, only "hate speech" that violates TOS.
The problem with this viewpoint is that in the past "hate speech" was limited to a narrow definition that most people would consider "hateful" - namely racial slurs, threats of violence, etc. But in recent years, the definition of "hate speech" has vastly expanded to now include many viewpoints that have always been considered conservative . Most sensible people would agree that these American conservative viewpoints include being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action, etc.
Those have been and still are the viewpoints of the majority of American conservatives. Many of those same viewpoints are now banned by various terms of service.
It's fine if Techdirt thinks those conservative opinions being silenced is a good thing … but to claim it's not happening is just ridiculous.
It's a disingenuous claim, and it makes you look foolish. It is very clearly happening. "Who you gonna believe; Techdirt or your lying eyes"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
"This is factually untrue and I don't understand how anybody can say it with a straight face (and expect to be taken seriously)."
Citation needed. Conservatives keep complaining about being censored but can't point to non-hate speech as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
What he means is that he used to be able to attack gays, but now he can't and it's Facebook's fault for targeting bigots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
PaulT, nope. Nice rhetorical trick. Notice I didn't attribute any particular reason (much less a malevolent reason, as you attributed to me) why these companies are censoring conservatives, I just said it's obviously happening.
Because, again, as I very clearly said, most people used to have a similar definition of "hate speech". Slurs, advocating violence, etc. So, "attacking" gays would fit in that old definition, and is not what I'm arguing here.
BUT … if you suddenly (last 10 years) now define saying "I don't think gay people should be allow to marry each other" or "I think Pride parades are obscene" or "I think gay sex is gross" as hate speech.
So simply redefining normal conservative positions as hate speech results in conservatives being censored. Do you not admit that this is true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Notice I didn't attribute any particular reason (much less a malevolent reason, as you attributed to me) why these companies are censoring conservatives, I just said it's obviously happening."
So, why is it happening apart from so many bigoted assholes being associated with the right?
"BUT … if you suddenly (last 10 years) now define saying "I don't think gay people should be allow to marry each other" or "I think Pride parades are obscene" or "I think gay sex is gross" as hate speech."
Yes, it's changed from "gays should not be attacked" to "gays should have the same rights as straights". Why is that an issue?
"So simply redefining normal conservative positions as hate speech results in conservatives being censored."
You see to think that "normal conservative positions" equates to "bigotry you used to be able to get away with". That is an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You're building a strawman on conservatives. You made your first mistake when you attributed a personal belief, or opinion about LBGT agenda, or behavior, as somehow taking away the civil rights of gays. More and more conservatives are socially libertarian, which means my personal opinion should not infringe on your civil rights. Other conservatives are Christian, which basically says they can not agree with your behavior, but still love you as a creation of God. Please make a mental note of this, sir, and stop judging people you don't even know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
No straw man, I'm stating my experience with them. Your no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't translate.
"Other conservatives are Christian, which basically says they can not agree with your behavior, but still love you as a creation of God"
Which would be fine if they acted like that. From where I sit a lot of them seem to be extremely pissed off that the supreme Court just decided that gay people have rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Funny, any time I am too rabidly anti-conservative on Twitter, I end up in Twitter jail. Who knew that Twitter's "anti-conservative bias" was actually "anti-nastiness"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Hate speech, what a horrible term, but who ever gets to define what falls under "hate speech" can abuse that to stop dissenting conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Pixelation …
Wait, wait, wait. "Citation needed" followed with "Conservatives keep complaining"?
So you admit someone is being de-platformed/censored/kicked off Twitter (I'm not going to get into Stone's favorite semantics discussion). True?
You said "conservatives keep complaining". Your word for them: conservatives. So you're saying the complainers are actual conservatives. True?
Did you read what I wrote? The "can't point to non-hate speech as an example" is a non-starter, because as I very clearly said, traditional conservative positions have recently been redefined to be hate speech.
Analogy: say Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook - for whatever reason - decide to adopt a Term of Service that says "From now on, it's considered hate speech and will be violation of our TOS to advocate for a vegetable-only diet". Lo and behold, a whole bunch of vegetarians "keep complaining about censorship". Would you now argue that "vegetarians being censored is a myth"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Can you please expand on this? What traditional conservative positions are you referring to, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Oh, you know...'
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Oh, you know...'
That One Guy - I know your copy/paste was meant to be flippant, but oddly we might actually be getting somewhere on this discussion.
So you admit you think conservative = bigot.
Now, are:
a) Bigots being deplatformed?
or
b) Bigots not being deplatformed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
Please explain what traditional conservative positions you are referring to, exactly.
I would like to know, in your words, the exact nature of the positions that you believe to be conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
TFG -
Since you asked twice, it seems like you genuinely want to know and are discussing in good faith. I think I said it pretty well in my original comment: "American conservative viewpoints include being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action, etc."
I suppose one could deny that those are American conservative viewpoints, but then you'd be going against what self-professed American conservatives state outright are their opinions.
But that creates a problem, because those are in fact what most conservatives believe. And expressing those opinions will get your Twitter account disabled, YouTube videos demonetized/removed, etc.
So the only way to be able to say "conservatives are not be silenced by Big Tech" is to also say those are not conservative positions. Which, c'mon, is ridiculous - but is (I think?) what Techdirt is saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therein lies the rub: If one associates those views and the attached rhetoric with conservatives, and that rhetoric leads to bans, the issue has nothing to do with conservatives being banned for being conservatives and everything to do with conservatives being banned for using rhetoric that violates the TOS.
American conservatives don’t have to rail against the supposed evils of queer people/immigration/any religion that isn’t Christianity (or a lack of religion)/anything that benefits people of color. They certainly don’t have to do it with the language of ignorant bigots. But if they’re going to do all that, they must learn to deal with the consequences. Such consequences can include being booted from a platform they don’t own (and have no legal right to use) under the principle of “we don’t do that here”. And if’n they don’t like it, they can go find a platform that will accept such speech — like Gab, 4chan, or an even worse alt-right shitpit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See, and I don't hold that those positions necessarily define "conservative." I believe it's entirely possible to be "conservative" without holding those views.
And even then, there's the question of the method used to argue the viewpoint. Are those who cry out against what they see as bias against them being removed just for holding their view, or are they being removed because of how they express it?
Consider that Prager University, a self-defined highly conservative group with views largely in line with those expressed just now, has most of their videos up, fully monetized, no issue. Those videos still express those views, so what is the difference between the ones that stay up and the ones that get the moderation?
Again, to anyone who claims there be a moderation bias against conservative viewpoints, I invite you to provide statistically significant data (against the backdrop of millions of moderation actions per day) displaying a disproportionate amount of moderation actions against those who hold conservative viewpoints strictly for holding conservative viewpoints.
Not because they broke out the slurs or attacked people in general.
I've yet to see it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not because they broke out the slurs or attacked people in general.
Therein lies the issue though, because it seems to be pretty clear that to the person you are trying to get answers from bigot and conservative are the same thing, such that penalizing someone for bigotry is penalizing them for expressing 'conservative' positions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And so I will continue pounding on the point that method matters until they either put up, shut up, or miraculously come around to my point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. I'd wish you luck, but given who you are almost certainly dealing with I can but suggest that you have some aspirin on hand for the inevitable headache, as luck ain't going to go much when dealing with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Oh, you know...'
As amusing as this response might be, TOG, I'm very very much interested in knowing exactly what position this AC considers to be conservative, rather than assuming to know.
It's poor showing to fall foul of creating the strawman yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
They seem to have been pretty clear on that by crying foul about how bigoted positions that were given a pass as acceptable in the past were now rightly being called out as bigoted, so while I most certainly intended to mock them for that I'm not seeing how I was strawmanning them in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
Two things:
1) Timing. When you put up your post, the AC had yet to clarify the conservative positions in question. Even though you turned out to be right, without it clearly stated, it ran the risk of being a strawman.
2) Preventing wiggle room. I consider it important to allow the person to clearly state the position, and thereby out themselves. When they state their own position it makes it that much harder for anyone to claim misunderstandings. The less wiggle room for bad faith arguments, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
They'd already done the first via a comment several hours before mine(8:13, 'BUT … if you suddenly (last 10 years) now define saying "I don't think gay people should be allow to marry each other" or "I think Pride parades are obscene" or "I think gay sex is gross" as hate speech.'), which while it may not have been quite as clear as a later comment still basically said the same thing, so I don't really see it as strawmanning to point that out.
As for the second given who you're dealing with you'll have one hell of a time with that, but I can certainly see the value in nailing someone down like that for the reason you noted, so a fair point there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
I probably missed it, then, especially if it was in a different comment thread. Sorry on that one.
It's okay. I'm That Fucking Guy. They'll give up before I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
TFG -
Well, I mean, you can try to "trap" me or something, but I'm not going to try to "wiggle out" of anything. I've been pretty explicit with what I've said. I've not tried to be vague or skirt around anything. So if by "nailing" me you mean that we're just going to disagree after I get tired of trying to get a straight answer out of you (you know, I "give up"), yeah, I suspect that'll be the case.
I'm saying outright that anyone who says that conservatives aren't disproportionately censored/suppressed/silenced by Big Tech are either:
or
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
And until you can put up with evidence, your claim of "blatantly lying" is not supported, even if we decide to take your definition of Conservative as rote (which I don't).
I am still waiting on that data I've asked you for upwards of five times now. Show the evidence that those with "consevative" views are being disproportionately moderated because of the views they hold, and not because of the method they use to express those views.
Remember, it must be statistically significant against the backdrop of the millions of moderation actions per day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
"I'm saying outright that anyone who says that conservatives aren't disproportionately censored/suppressed/silenced by Big Tech..."
Racism and bigotry is suppressed by most of Big Tech on their platforms, yes.
You are claiming that racism and bigotry are core concepts of being a conservative. We do not agree.
Nor, in fact, did your grandparents who went to germany and fought the people whose core precepts you appear to have adopted.
Your views aren't "conservative". They were as loathsome back last generation as they are today. It's just that you got away with it until now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
Racism and bigotry are also not the only things being "censored". For example, a bunch of accounts have been cracked down recently on for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID-19, which if left unchecked stood to get people killed.
I think this guy is also saying that dangerous, irresponsible propaganda is some kind of purely conservative concept, which doesn't say what he thinks he's trying to say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
What's behing banned, in most cases, is not viewpoint, but behavior.
Bullying, harassment, slurs, lying, disinformation, ban evasion -
All are generaly against TOS no matter their motivation; just bigotry happens to disproportionately rely on those tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Oh, you know...'
I probably missed it, then, especially if it was in a different comment thread. Sorry on that one.
No worries, in a comment sections with comments popping up left and right in various threads honest mistakes like that are bound to happen.
It's okay. I'm That Fucking Guy. They'll give up before I do.
Ah, so that's what the initials mean, good to know. Have fun then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Why does the radical right wing think it's conservative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Nah, I think the problem is that people who've always called themselves conservatives, and whose opinions have not changed over the years, and still call themselves conservatives - are now being told by people like you that "Nope, you're not conservative, you're radical right wing!".
See the problem? They never stopped calling themselves conservatives - it's how they define themselves and what they self-identify as. Same self-adopted moniker, same opinions. The group identity has not changed, the worldview and political positions have not changed.
But then you come along and say "nope, you're radical right wing".
Good try. They won't accept you redefining who they are, just like a liberal would not allow someone to say "Yeah, I know you call yourself a liberal, but you're actually a far left Red Army Faction commie".
Don't be ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
It is the responsibility of the communicator to ensure that the communicatee understands what the communicator intends. If conservatives fail to be seen as conservatives it is not the viewers fault. It is the conservatives fault for sending the wrong message.
I could call myself a snow angel (substitute any fictional being for snow angel), and try to get everyone around me to believe that I am a snow angel, but if I don't display the characteristics of a snow angel (whatever those are) they are not going to believe that I am in fact a snow angel. The same goes for conservatives who display characteristics that are beyond what other conservatives see themselves as, and therefore get labeled as something else. You can be a bigot and a conservative but expect to be seen as something else by folks who are conservative but not bigoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Go ahead, deny the overton window has been moved to the right so far that Reagan would now be considered a liberal.
I agree that the ultra-right whatever you want to call them are not what used to be considered conservative. I do not care what they call themselves, these people are radicals who want to watch the world burn. Why? I have no idea. Maybe it's something about that rapture silliness. They screw everything up here and then leave ... sounds familiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
"One of Techdirt's weirdest editorial policies is this constant claim that conservative voices aren't being silenced by Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc."
No, they claim they aren't being disproportionately censored. If all racists a re being censored, but more of them are on the right, that just means more racists are on the right, not that the right is being targeted.
"But in recent years, the definition of "hate speech" has vastly expanded to now include many viewpoints that have always been considered conservative"
Such as?
"Most sensible people would agree that these American conservative viewpoints include being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action, etc."
Oh, so hateful bigots are still being censored, you just noticed that more hateful bigots are on your "team".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Paul,
I know you're not trying to argue in good faith here, but your post actually spells out why I find Techdirt's editorial policy to be so confused.
You explicitly said those viewpoints (against gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc) are being censored.
So now the only for you to claim conservatives aren't being censored is to say that those aren't conservative positions. Is that what you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"I know you're not trying to argue in good faith here"
I am actually. I'm sorry that you don't recognise your own faults, but they're not mine.
"So now the only for you to claim conservatives aren't being censored is to say that those aren't conservative positions. Is that what you're saying?"
No. Try reading my actual words noext time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
I feel I need to add this as well:
My question is not rhetorical. I sincerely don't understand Techdirt's reasoning here. Every article that I've seen on Techdirt topic this never actually addresses the disparity between Techdirt's position v. actual reality. (For instance, the article hyperlinked in the story "Enough With The Myth...". seems like it's about to make a point, but devolves into a discussion about "some think neutrality is required by law; it's not" and "conservatives are playing the refs". Those might be valid points, but they aren't what I'm asking here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Every article that I've seen on Techdirt topic this never actually addresses the disparity between Techdirt's position v. actual reality"
Maybe if one of you guys decided to explain what that disparity is rather than whine that racists were kicked off private property for being racists, as is their free association right, you might get an answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Please explain to me where the disparity is. Responses that don't actually show the disparity will be ignored - it is not obvious.
You have show statistically significant data that shows a disproportionate number of conservatives being taken down for conservative views.
Remember there are millions of moderation decisions per day. Statistically significant means you need instances in the thousands, per day.
You also have to remember that people being racist get their stuff taken down for being racist. Slur slinging gets taken down for being slur slinging. Etc. Double-check the reason for it to be taken down - was it because they professed to be a conservative, or because they did something reprehensible?
And remember, disproportionate. You must look at the non-conservatives who are being banned, or having posts deleted, etc. To show bias, you have to show a statistically significant number of non-conservatives who do not get their stuff taken down when they should have per moderation policies.
I wish you luck, and patience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
And include exactly what speech, in quotations, caused the deplatforming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You have show statistically significant data that shows a disproportionate number of conservatives being taken down for conservative views.
Almost every single thing this person has posted on this thread has been flagged. He has not said anything offensive and appears to just be trying to have a legitimate conversation with you people. I see this happening on many TD threads, where someone expresses an opinion or viewpoint that could be considered "conservative" or leads the reader to believe that the person has right-wing political views, and then of all the sudden, BAM! All the posts get flagged, and all of the libby-extremist TD regulars swoop in for the roast. I'm no conservative, but I don't need to be to see that you people are really making yourselves look bad.
To the Anon: best not to try to have a normal conversation with these hypocrites, get whatever news you need from here and let that be the end of it. Que: this post has been flagged by the community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You do realize that gaslighting about the very thread you're posting in is rarely a successful tactic, right?
One mouse click or less and anyone can see you're just full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Ouch, sounds like I hit a soft spot there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Projection doesn't work either, snowflake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Snowflake? Are you using that as a racist term, like I am white as a snowflake is?
I hope not, because last time I checked, you had no idea the color of my skin, hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Gent at 9:27 …
No, the issues is that leftists, because they believe that every one of them is a special, unique, super-interesting individual because of their odd sexual choices, being filled with rage in different ways about the fact that the world is what it is and not what they wish it could be, confused gender and race worldviews, and other special, unique lifestyles have been:
1) Called snowflakes by normal people at one time or another
2) Don't know what snowflake actually means.
3) And now it's they're favorite word (yes, despite #2 above); see Masnick using it in nearly every comment or article he writes
The funny thing is modern leftists all - to a man, woman, and otherkin genderchoice - have one thing in common: they absolutely hate their dads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Please provide evidence that anything, even the smallest iota, of what you have claimed here and elsewhere in the comments is true.
Given the lack of any such provided evidence so far, ever, I must conclude that it doesn't exist, and claims to the contrary are bald-faced lies.
It would be nice to be proven wrong, but I don't hold out much hope of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowflakes
The term special snowflake (later shortened to just snowflake) rose to prominence in the late aughts on 4Chan/b and /pol, a reference to the notion that each ice crystal forms a unique pattern so they're all different yet still pretty. (In fact those patterns quickly start to get repetitive, but I digress.)
The argument rose originally from Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, those most people got it from the David Fincher movie not the book that contrary to what our parents taught us, we are not special but in fact ordinary. The term space monkey was borrowed from our program of sending animals up on rockets trying to learn how to bring them back alive: As space monkies we are expendable, as workers, as soldiers, struggling toward a higher purpose.
This is a counter-argument to the one made by Alan Moore in Watchmen comic book series that we are all thermodynamic miracles, and it is only because we number in the billions that we fail to see the sublime qualities in each of our lives, even if there is no higher purpose to our respective existences. We have value and fail to see it the way the sublime beauty of a tree is lost in a dense forest.
But the Trump era has shed sunlight on the inconsistency of the special snowflake insult: Trump regards his own personal life special, as is those of his allies and family. Everyone outside that window is disposable, whether soldiers to throw at a war or patients to succumb to the new epidemic. And this has echoed throughout Trumpist and conservative culture: the marginalized, the downtrodden, the sinners and nonbelievers-- they all are mediocre and sin-ridden and destined for Hellfire, where only the inner circle is Heaven-bound, forgiven and deserving of privilege.
And slowly and surely that margin constricts like a Fortnite perimeter, pushing more and more people out into the Other, where they no longer have significance. They eagerly throw hatred and resentment at the Trade Unionists and Communists unaware that they are on the same list.
Curiously the ones who like to talk of Special Snowflakes are also into American Exceptionalism, suggesting Americans are superior to non-Americans, just for the flag they salute. We in the US have failed to adopt a British notion of humility that we only crawl away from vulgarity and illiteracy through trial and error across time, that modern civility is rooted in a long history of the failures of savagery. That self awareness will ultimately outpace skill and competence. In that light, we are not intrinsically special, rather have to earn greatness through toil, and through that suffering we learn sympathy for those who still struggle with their primordial nature.
Conceding that we're not special (that we're all mere snowflakes) is grounds for compassion, not contempt, but the sentiment in the US is not that we are not special, but you are not special. Trump absolutely thinks he is (or should be) special, ever in fear that his loyalists will collectively realize he is not. But in the meantime he is glad to tread in the snow and leave his footprints on our collective faces.
21st century ideology has been about the rats getting hungry, and looking to separate those who get resources from those who don't. Why one deserves them over the other are false justifications. We're happy to decided that those who are the wrong color, or have the wrong culture, or worship the wrong gods are to be left to starve or wither without medicine while the privileged flourish. In this regard snowflake is a dog-whistle, that it's okay to be cruel and not participate in the larger society that was necessary to create modern luxuries and infrastructure in the first place. All of us snowflakes exist for the elites to ski upon us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Guy at 2:55 … well, I wasn't expecting necessarily a normal conversation.
In fact, I got what I was (sadly) expecting, which is Masnick lying.
I actually was pleasantly surprised that a few anonymous commenters are being honest here (that they consider conservatives bigots, and that bigots are being censored by Big Tech).
But of course, not shocked at all that all the Blue Checkmark commenters - to a man - avoided answering anything honestly. Expected from the big dogs on the block (Stone, That One Guy, Paul). Surprised by TFG, as it's not a name I usually identify with being a discussion-avoiding liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I have asked you a single question, over and over, on which the whole premise of the discussion rests:
Can you provide evidence that conservative bias exists?
I am surprised that you are surprised that I would ask for this and stick to it. It's what I do. Please stop trying to evade the question and thereby evade the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I think he was assuming that you could just do your own research, like a responsible adult would do. Here are some Twitter employees admitting that their algorithms censor content based on users' political affiliations:
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/undercover-video-twitter-engineers-to-ban-a-way-of -talking-through-shadow-banning-algorithms-to-censor-opposing-political-opinions/
Anyone who tries to claim that information is not being manipulated/suppressed/fabricated by monopolistic companies that are conveniently in a position to do so in the current political environment is not worthy of anything other than being laughed at in the face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Responsible adults provide evidence to support their assertions rather than expecting others to do their research for them.
I invite you to provide statistically significant data that shows an actual history of disproportionate moderation actions due to conservative views.
Project Veritas' video is not said data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Responsible adults research a subject before they talk profoundly about it, so that they don't make complete fools out of themselves.
So, how long back into history are you talking? One year? Five years? Twenty years? The internet only became widely used by/available to by consumers in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Odds are, no evidence regardless of the quality/quantity would be enough to sway your little brainwashed mind. This video shows and identifies employees who admit that while they worked for one of the largest social media companies, that company promoted political bias in its operations. Yes, it is a conservative site, did you expect it to show up on IBT?
You've been asking over and over again for something, and now it has been given to you, and you're still not satisfied...sound familiar, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Well said, sir. Wow, so there is an actual grown-up in Techdirt comment sections now besides me?
If word got out and other adults started coming here … yipes, I hate to think what Masnick would do. Even if all those mature, logical comments were flagged/hidden (which, face it, they would be), it might prompt Masnick to have his cadre of lying propagandists actually start at least attempting to add a thin veneer of vigor and rationality to their articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Haha...
This website is an enigma to me. Lots of good writing on good topics, but the people who comment here...they leave something to be desired. It's like they read these articles and then somehow are unable to apply the knowledge in any sort of fundamental/logical way to the reality in which all of us live. I understand the international people who are fed up with us, and they very well should be, because the belligerent behavior of our politicians do affect other countries badly.
I don't think Masnick has bad intentions, I certainly hope not, because he probably has good connections within the IT community. After writing the sort of anti-government things that he has, and with good reason and evidence for doing so, I imagine he has his own problems to deal with. Although, sometimes I wish he would see things in a different light and take a more conspiratorial view on things. That said, I wouldn't come here if there wasn't some value in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Peyoo, that pile of socks up there sure does stink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yes, I agree. There is a strange underlying logic and rationality to much of what Masnick and his cadre write; it's like there're is some sense of decency and common sense and American can-do attitude lurking under all that hateful leftism … but they just can't bring themselves to drop the leftist buzzwords and talking points and other confused aspects.
If I had to guess at a reason or Techdirt writers' childish leftist pandering, I assume it's an attempt to get attention from mainstream media?
I'm not sure, but I agree with you - except the part about Masnick having good intentions. You'll want to check out his hateful anti-white comments elsewhere in this very thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Another day, another complete lack of the presentation of evidence of your claims being true.
Do you have the data you said you had, or not? Signs point to not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
TFG, I really do believe what you said in one of your first comments: that you're going to "win at commenting". In fact, I've not said otherwise.
Not the most amusing, or thought-provoking, or interesting, but definitely the most persistent.
(A long way of saying: copy/paste will save your keyboard.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
I see you're still making things up.
Provide the evidence you said you could provide.
Given you haven't provided it, I guess it just doesn't exist. Anti-conservative bias remains an unsupported myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expl
Making things up?
TFG, 26 May 2020, noon:
"It's okay. I'm That Fucking Guy. They'll give up before I do."
You said you'll win at commenting. I believe you! There's zero chance I won't give up before you do.
You've all but won at commenting, TFG! You'll know with certainty that you've won when I get bored and leave. I'll have forfeited the commenting contest.
Hold on a little longer, though. I still find this amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"when I get bored and leave"
I win when someone makes a relevant point that I had missed.
Though getting insightful comment of the week feels pretty great sometimes.
I think this is one of those asymmetric wargames where all the factions have different non-diametrically-conflicting goals. Not a zero-sum game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever the outcome, I'll be satisfied.
Possibilities:
One: You 'put up' - by showing the evidence you provided that displays that there is, in fact, an anti-conservative bias, thereby edifying everyone here and doing what no one else could. That would provide useful context for a great deal of good discussion. I'd love to see that happen. That would be a win. A major win for you in particular. I don't see why you'd play coy with this.
Two: You 'shut up' - self-explanatory.
Three: You miraculously come around to my point of view. Hope springs eternal.
By the way...
Where's that data you said you had?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
So.... someone provides the evidence consisting of someone from the company being accused of anti-conservative censoring says outright they're censoring conservatives.
… and your response, TFG, is "Oh no, not that evidence! That is uhhh not uhhh evidence. It's, like, tainted."
Kind of like you, hmmm, aren't going to accept any evidence. Kind of like you aren't arguing in good faith.
Someone: "Well, here's evidence the moon landing took place."
TFG: "Oh no, that's from NASA, that's not evidence."
Very above board and honest of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Fair enough - O'Keefe interviewed 8 people...out of nearly 5,000 employees.
From the ground-breaking, earth-shattering holy fucking nugget of an article that you think finally broke the case...can you tell us finally how many conservatives were censored for their conservative views?
Or is that illustrious statistic still forthcoming, we just need to go search for it, or make it up if we can't find it?
Because that's STILL the fucking question, Mr. Grown Up. You'd think if it was so prevalent, we could find something other than anecdotal horseshit from bigoted dicktards who think they're entitled to an audience.
Protip, Mr. Adult-guy - make sure you understand the question before answering. It's been asked enough fucking times, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Whoa, dude you need to chill out...enough with the cursing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Person A: [bigoted statement]
Person B: The fuck?
Person C: Now, now, let's have civility.
Dear C: You came in one statement too late."
-John Scalzi
Fallacy: Tone policing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Gent at 07:40 …
C'mon, don't take that away from them. It feels really good for leftists to do the whole "FUCK YOU, Dad!" - door slam - "I'm not gonna get a haircut, you fascist asshole!".
It's one of the few very liberating and joyful things they have in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Still waiting on that evidence you said you had, my dude. I sure do see a lot of just talking to the guy who agrees with you instead of addressing the elephant in the room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
So basically to a right-winger objecting against racism and misoginy is a doorslamming routine to be met with patronizing contempt?
You aren't exactly making the case for the right wing here, Kemo sabe. Unless, again, you are in the mistaken belief that being able to look down on others based on color-coding is such a cool thing trying to take it away is griefing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
The video provided is a manipulated interview of a very small group of people.
It does not provide any actual data of actual moderation actions.
I invite you still to provide statistically significant data showing disproportionate moderation actions against conservative viewpoints for the viewpoints themselves.
For statistical significance, remember that this is against the backdrop of millions of moderation actions per day. I have pointed this out from the very start. Small datasets will not fly, they are too small to be statistically significant.
You have not provided the evidence, despite saying you can. No one has ever provided evidence that supports the claim anti-conservative bias. Support your claim with data that shows its happening, like you said you could.
Or were you lying when you said you could?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
End of the day, no response ... I guess they were lying when they said they could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Project Veritas has come up before on TD, and to call them an 'unreliable and/or untrustworthy source' would be a serious understatement. Using anything they say is about as credible as 'my aunt's sister's friend's ex, who is a known liar said...' to the point that if that's all that someone has they have worse than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
So you're saying that the people in the video didn't work for Twitter? Or that they're lying? Or that it's completely fabricated? Or...what? What exactly are you saying?
I'm pretty sure there would be multiple lawsuits as a result of this video, and the video would have been removed from public access, if any of those things were true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
It's Project Veritas. The singular reason for their existence is to fraudulently manipulate video footage to deceptively put words in others' mouths to fuel the Extremist Right's false narratives.
There is 0% chance of anyone citing PV acting in good faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Typical TD community trash - discredit actual video evidence saying "it's conservative source XYZ, they're fraudulent!" There was at best very little manipulation, and like I said, there would be lawsuits out the ass if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That you would admit this in a discussion of the credibility of Project Veritas and still consider them a credible source of information says a lot about you. None of it makes you look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same kind of idiot who proclaims "The 'drunk Pelosi' video wasn't doctored it was just slowed down!"
Not a single functioning neuron among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, Stephen, the only person who I care to communicate with on this website with at this point:
I admit nothing less than that all information is manipulated and censored to an extent, and you have not provided me with any evidence that the people/information in this video are/is false or fabricated.
I don't believe it is possible to have a legitimate conversation on this board at this point, as your moderators are censoring posts with a "loose canon" mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
"discredit actual video evidence saying "it's conservative source XYZ, they're fraudulent!"
No, they're saying "this articular source has a long history of fraud, and if they're the only source you have then you are believing a fiction. "
"There was at best very little manipulation"
Lol. A couple of pointers here:
1 - "At best" means that what you're saying is the best case scenario, and that all other scenarios are worse, therefore:
2 - According to you, there's no change that the video was not manipulated. The best case is that it was manipulated a little, but more likely that it was greatly manipulated. By your own words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
No, I am saying, I don't frequent this PV website, but please explain to me how this video, with Twitter employees blatantly admitting to censorship, is not indicative of political censorship? Because that has not been explained to me, besides the typical "this website is fraudulent, you can't trust anything you see on this website" when I can see with my very own eyes, employees that are blowing the whistle here. I don't really give a shit what political affiliation we are talking about here.
If this goddamn website is going to censor me, then so be it, but make sure your account-holders don't reply to my posts en masse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
Still going to keep pretending that selectively editing out context the way Projecting Falsitas does doesn't change the original message?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expl
P.S. -
projection like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toom:
What the hell are you talking about? You haven't made sense at any point in this conversation, you're relying on mod censorship, which is apparently a good thing to rely on here on TD. I was talking to Stephen, so respectively get the fuck out of the convo. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you been spamming links about the wonderful Herbal penis-enlargement blockchain work-from-home-pyramid job oppportunities you offer at your malware-infested scam website?
No?
Then stop lying about "mod censorship."
P.S. - the commemt of yours I replied to was replying to Paul, not Stephen, dumpass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
"If this goddamn website is going to censor me, then so be it, but make sure your account-holders don't reply to my posts en masse."
So... you're asking for this site to censor others for you? Lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
[Admits facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Gent at 8:32 …
Oh no, no …they don't discount "conservative" sources, only those "Extremist Right" Nazi fascist sources like … uh, James O'Keefe? You know, the reincarnation of Hitler.
Like the Nazi white supremacist ...uh multi-racial, gay inclusive Proud Boys...I guess?
Or the Nazi white supremacist...uh black lady and Asian lady Candace Owens and Michelle Malkin … I guess?
Or the Nazi white supermacist … uh black men Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas … I guess?
But I do salute Stone, Toom, TFG, TOG, and the rest of the Blue Checkmarks for their restraint and discipline for putting in writing here what they really want to (and whisper to each other when it's only them talking).
You know: Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
I see that instead of showing you have integrity, and can produce the evidence you said you could produce, you are instead retreating to talking to someone who isn't challenging you to prove your premise.
I am entirely unsurprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Project Veritas' video is not said data."
Well, it is evidence that even the most blatant liars can get the gullible to believe them, no matter how far they stray from the truth...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Oh, you're "haven't seen the video" guy?
The one with James O'Keefe saying Google needs to "prevent another Trump situation".
Oh … what's that? It was a video of Google CEO saying that? Oooops.
Uh … cough, cough … yes, well... uhhh… oh, I got it … that must've been a DEEPFAKE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Please provide statistically significant data (against the backdrop of millions of moderation actions per day) displaying a disproportionate amount of moderation actions against those who hold conservative viewpoints strictly for holding conservative viewpoints.
You know, the evidence you said you could provide, but haven't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I think he was assuming that you could just do your own research, like a responsible adult would do.
And there it is. The asshole who could answer the question won't because he wants you to do the "research."
And if you can't make the facts fit the narrative, well that's on us. We're just too stupid to understand.
AKA "You haven't looked hard enough."
AKA "Educate yourself"
AKA "Mainstream media is burying the facts"
AKA It's just a great big conspiracy and you have to be in the right Facebook group to "get enlightened."
This bullshit is entirely too predictable. I'm surprised you didn't show up sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Ugh...
Yes, you are too stupid to understand that if you wanted to have a conversation, now that you've called me an a**hole, that conversation won't happen, because I typically don't waste my time talking to people who resort to petty name-calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
And yet, here's your comment, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Gent at 7:56...
The problem is, you remind him a lot of his a**hole Daddy. That jerk made him mow the lawn, not talk back to his mother, have manners at the dinner table … you know, like a Fascist Nazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I see you continue to make assertions without backing them up.
Put up the evidence you said you could provide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Do your sockpuppets have any nonfraudulent sources, kiddo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Ah yes, Masnick does apparently lie sometimes. To me it's surprising, because politically-motivated dishonesty is exactly what this site attempts to expose much of the time. The writers on this site have done good, honest reporting in the past - what got me here in the first place was the good writing on Snowden and the constitutional violations of the Obama administration, years ago.
You should stay away from having discussions with the regulars here, though, because you will never even come close to seeing one of them give an inch to someone who argues even slightly in favor of conservatism, even if you explain something completely logically and rationally. It's a complete waste of time. You are an independent who leans towards conservative? Remember, this site is based out of NY, with one of the biggest concentrations of lying, liberal extremist scum in existence. I am a moderate independent, I lean one way on some things, the other way on others, but never far enough in either way to buy into political extremist garbage, which is what you will get a lot of if you talk to the people on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
And the funny thing is, I haven't stated anywhere today what my political position is.
What I've said is that self-identified conservatives are being censored by Big Tech, and it's as self-evident as that water is wet. I've even tried to give Masnick/TFG the opportunity to just be honest and admit conservatives are much more likely to be booted from platforms, but you're right - they can't admit that.
Without expressing my own political viewpoints, there's no way of knowing whether I'm a Maoist or a libertarian or an evangelical or a Golden Dawn member or KKK member - that is, unless one takes the position that any hint that the extremely loud outcry from conservatives claiming bias might, maybe just maybe, have a point means that I'm one of those evil conservatives.
(Which I don't think is there position. No, I think they're position is that it means I'm a 'Nazi' who wants to start a Fourth Reich.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one has been able to produce any statisically significant data that proves Twitter punishes conservatives more than liberals/progressives for their political views instead of the expression thereof. Your assertion would only be “self-evident” if you can show me that specific set of data, because I wouldn’t be able to draw any other conclusion from it. Show me the data or quit talking out of your ass, Ace Ventura.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"What I've said is that self-identified conservatives are being censored by Big Tech, and it's as self-evident as that water is wet."
It really doesn't matter if racists and bigots self-identify as "conservatives". It just means actual conservatives have an even more urgent need to separate themselves from the racists and bigots trying to ride their coattails.
"And the funny thing is, I haven't stated anywhere today what my political position is. "
Except where you repeatedly claimed your views on what constituted "american conservative values" - which was an identical match to what Mein Kampf states were the values of good german national socialism. All you were missing was a hateboner barb for "ze jews" and you'd have the full set.
What you describe isn't "conservatism" but a direct political ideology where it's somehow OK for the Chosen Ones of Arbitrary Superior Morality to look down on other people whose color of skin, religious preference, gender identity or sexuality is different than yours.
In other words, your arguments in themselves are those of a racist and bigot. And your add-on argument that what two consenting adults do in private should be the affair of unrelated parties puts you in a direct political bracket.
"Without expressing my own political viewpoints, there's no way of knowing whether I'm a Maoist or a libertarian or an evangelical or a Golden Dawn member or KKK member..."
Ironically the combination of classical collectivism and bigotry is the core precept of national socialism. And you've actually expressed the values which put you very close to that specific bracket already.
Good grief for the good old days when the nazis at least had the chutzpah to stand up tall and declare their beliefs at gunpoint. Today, apparently, they all go "I'm not a racist, but..." and whine incessantly like little children about the vast majority of the human race choosing not to hear them out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Careful, Scary Devil … some might misinterpret your use of the word "Chosen Ones".
(All those members of the National Socialist German Worker's Party running around in American in 2020 sometimes use that phrase for the Masnicks of the world...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
So, you still have no actual arguments which weren't rooted in empty rhetoric and based on what an 18th-century british gentleman would understand as "moral"? Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I don't believe I made an argument. I was suggesting you should be careful with your wording: someone might confuse you for one of those millions of NSDAP members running around American in 2020.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
This is a sad, sad website that feels the need to censor free speech. Thank you TD, you did me a favor, I will not come back here and support your unwarranted censorship. Good bye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Some people make the world a better place wherever they go.
Shitstain trolls dementedly hallucinating about free speech being censored on TD create a better place whenever they go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Gent at 10:15 …
(Provided you're not a Masnick's Blue Checkmark sockepuppeting as a false flag), I urge you to not go away.
When Techdirt is writing about something like copyright or DRM or broadband, they're actually rational and interesting articles. (It's the ones that express an anti-American worldview where they run into problems; anything relating to law enforcement or politics. We're not certain , but from the tone of those articles, one suspects they function as a form of kinky erotica for their wives' boyfriends, or something.)
You shouldn't give up on the comments section, either. Even if just as a lurker. Sometimes a normal American will slip in and write comments (always written by "Anonymous Coward".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
You should note that you have not absolute right to use Facebook and friends to spread your political messages, so that even if some conservatives voices were being thrown off the platforms for expressing their politics in a hateful fashion, the are not being censored, and can start their own platform.
Now explain why gab is not attracting a lot of regular conservative people, is it perhaps that it has become the home to extreme conservative opinions, expressed in an aggressive fashion, like those that cause bans from other social media sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Not only should I note it, I did note it. To wit, "I'm not saying these companies aren't well within their right to censor these conservative voices."
I also said I don't care about the semantics used (censored or de-platformed or removed or accounts disabled or videos demonetized or … etc). Because the semantics discussion tends to be a silly one on Techdirt threads for some reason. For some reason the word 'censored' has a bunch of weird cachet here, whereas most (normal) people understand it simply means "suppression of speech" - with no value judgement attached to it, and no specific "suppressor" being identified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You, uh…you might want to hang onto that thought. Just sayin’. 😁
It carries weight here because of the semantics. People who use the term in a flippant manner — e.g., anyone who uses it because they got shitcanned from twitter — cheapen the concept of censorship. A government official threatening lawsuits to silence a critic is censorship (via the concept of chilled speech). Twitter admins banning someone for saying racial slurs is, most decidedly, not censorship.
Objectively define “normal” in a way that doesn’t mean “statistical average”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, Stone, I don't think 'censorship' carries weight around here necessarily; I think it carries weight with you (and, apparently, Teka). Your passion for talking on (and on and on and...) about it reaches almost sexual fetish territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Words have meanings.
Even when you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Teka, agreed. Which is why in almost any dictionary you care to name, censorship is defined as "suppression of speech".
Stone becomes apoplectic if one doesn't adhere to his insistence that censorship can only mean government suppression of speech, so in an effort to keep him from having to be sedated, I try to use words that might not hit his fetish button (like silenced, suppressed, deplatformed, accounts removed, demonetized).
Even if everyone knows it means an authority somewhere is suppressing someone's speech, if I say "booted from X platform", there's a possibility Stone might not kick his dog or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if you can show me how Twitter banning someone means that someone can’t legally say elsewhere the thing that got them banned, I’d be more than happy to sign on with your assertion that Twitter engages in censorship.
You, uh…you’re gonna want to hold onto that thought. 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Which is why in almost any dictionary you care to name, censorship is defined as "suppression of speech"."
...and Twitter can't suppress your speech. Facebook can't suppress your speech. The local Bar owner can't suppress your speech. All they can do is ask you to haul your ass off their property.
Government can suppress your speech...and only by making sure that if you try to say something that government does not like they can make a law which shuts you up or disappears you.
THAT is why only government can practice censorship. All any private entity can do is tell you to get the fsck off their lawn.
"Stone becomes apoplectic if one doesn't adhere to his insistence that censorship can only mean government suppression of speech..."
I think anyone who likes the concept of "language" becomes apoplectic when they are continually and persistently confronted with a Vested Interest who keeps trying to use a word which means a Very Bad Thing in ways it does not, in fact, describe at all.
"Even if everyone knows it means an authority somewhere is suppressing someone's speech..."
So when a bar owner is confronted with a patron standing on his tables and doing the helicopter while screaming about how his pet peeve minority sucks, the bar owner is suppressing the guy when he finally throws the clown out?
Let me put it bluntly. The only ones who feel it is a Bad Thing when a person is the authority who can tell people to get off their property are the ones so odious they've run out of places where people willingly allow them to park their soapbox.
Now the sort of "conservative" values you feel compelled to share with people are eagerly accepted by a lot of people in places like Stormfront, Gap and occasionally at Breitbart. So why not try there instead of places where people go to not hear your particular brand of values?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Well, why are you making such a big issue of it then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Why am I making such a big issue of it?
To go back to my original comment: because Techdirt knows conservatives are being disproportionately "booted off" platforms, as you and the other commenters have all essentially admitted, but Techdirt denies it's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Techdirt denies it's happening because there's evidence that it is happening.
I am still waiting for the data that shows conservatives are being disproportionately moderated for their views alone, and not for the methods they use to express those views.
Can you provide this data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I made an error. Correct sentence is:
Techdirt denies it's happening because there's no evidence that it is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
No, TFG, you were right the first time:
1) There is evidence it's not happening.
2) The evidence, as described by Masnick, is that Big Tech leaders told him it's not happening.
Oh, that sounds silly? Be that as it may, that's exactly what Masnick described as his evidence. See his comments here. (They're helpfully marked in gray for you Blue Checkmarks so you know what the talking points are.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"The evidence, as described by Masnick, is that Big Tech leaders told him it's not happening."
So in the same manner Russel's Teapot must exist because no unassailable authority has produced evidence that it does not, in fact, exist?
It's pretty clear by now that you can't produce anything other than troll rhetoric. Apparently the face of the New Right. And the reason so many old-style republicans aren't, anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I'm not sure what Russel's Teapot is.
But if you meant Russell's Teapot, which is about unfalsifiability, that's a pretty interesting analogy to bring to the discussion. The only evidence Masnick and co would accept could only be produced by Big Tech. Instead of demanding and examining that evidence, he chose instead to just take Big Tech's word for it - "nah, it's not happening" - as evidence.
Bunch of women: Bill Clinton sexually harassed or raped us!
1990s media: That is troubling. Perhaps we should examine the evidence.
Bill Clinton: Nah, didn't happen.
1990s media: Okay, thanks for the evidence, Bill. Hey everyone, it didn't happen! We have evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
By that logic, the fact that people say there is an anti-conservative bias is evidence that there isn't a bias.
Since that is entirely too silly, I will instead ask, once again, for statistically signicant data that shows a disproportionate moderation response against people for holding conservative viewpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Well, your first sentence makes no sense.
But I agree it's silly to take an accused perpetrator's word as the sole evidence something's not happening. Especially when it's happening in front of millions of witnesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
All of your examples provided there have something in common: evidence. To wit, the stab wounds, the knife, the blood.
Everyone claiming anti-conservative bias is missing evidence. In your analogy, they're running up to the officers and claiming they've been stabbed, with zero stab wounds in evidence.
Show me the stab wounds. You said you could, so what's the delay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"You said you could, so what's the delay?"
Huh. Dead silence again. Shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Read what I said carefully, so that you do not misrepresent it in the future. I said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
because Techdirt knows conservatives are being disproportionately "booted off" platforms, as you and the other commenters have all essentially admitted, but Techdirt denies it's happening.
If something that you admit is entirely permissible is happening, then it isn't a problem. That which is not expressly prohibited is permitted.
But you keep on talking yourself into that corner. I'm sure you'll start complaining about your comments being hidden shortly. That's typically how you perpetual victims tend to operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Wait, hold on buddy … you may have inferred I think something is a problem. I never said that. I haven't talked myself into any corner. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion either way for or against it being a good or bad thing. Not a discussion I'm interested in, because those are opinions.
This is a discussion about facts, not opinions.
What I have said, unequivocally, is that it's a fact that conservatives are more likely to be booted off Big Tech. And that Techdirt, being not completely deaf and blind and retarded, know that. And since they claim otherwise, they're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Then provide some facts to back up your claim.
And I invite you to prove it. Provide the evidence that shows that it's a fact that conservatives are more likely to be booted off Big Tech.
Then, provide the evidence that shows that Techdirt knows this.
Remember, this is about facts, not opinions. I'm gonna need to some facts out of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Uh … okay, maybe he was wrong … he should've guessed that, statistically, there are Techdirt commenters who are blind and deaf and retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
And you'll find them in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
This is about facts, not opinions.
Please provide some facts to support the existence of an anti-conservative bias.
I've said "statistically significant" and "disproportionate" enough times by now that you should understand what counts as supporting evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Where is you evidence, which by the way will only be believable if it covers almost all cases of people being booted off of big tech. Personal observations do not count as evidence, because people always have an inbuilt bias in the choices of people they follow, which means they see a bias in the politics of those being deplatformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yeah, I'm aware you - like TFG did above - won't accept any evidence presented. But I appreciate you stating it outright the way you did so I don't need to waste my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yes, I'm aware that you will take any excuse to not provide the evidence you said you had.
Probably because it doesn't exist. I'd appreciate if you stated outright that it doesn't exist, so you can stop wasting your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Depends how you define "waste" of time, TFG.
Some might say that the fact that whatever a normal American says on Techdirt will get "flagged as abuse" means it's a waste of time.
Someone else might say that the fact that probability dictates there's a high likelihood that there are other normal Americans lurking here who aren't intimidated by the scary comment expansion button, who find this discussion either enlightening or amusing.
Finally, someone else might say that normal Americans getting Techdirt Blue Checkmarks asking mommy for their binkies later tonight is reward enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Some might say that the fact that whatever a normal American says on Techdirt will get "flagged as abuse" means it's a waste of time."
Why yes, a racist or bigot who wants to describe themselves as a "normal" american would complain about that.
That's not a problem with techdirt. It's a problem with their assumption of the racist and bigot that americans in general are moral midgets made out of hatred and fear just like they themselves are.
You seem to take for granted that a "normal" american is someone who finds racism and bigotry acceptable - and calls it "conservatism" to adopt the values which were out of style a generation ago.
Factual reality begs to differ. But you do you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
The waste of time, in this case, is continuing to try to argue a premise without first providing the supporting evidence that shows it has merit.
The evidence you said you could provide, but haven't, likely because you actually can't provide it. I guess you were lying when you said you had it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
TFG, it's gotten you personally to think harder with a lot more vigor about anti-conservative bias in Big Tech. That's not a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
I am certainly more certain than ever that there is no evidence of anti-conservative bias, and that it is, in fact, a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"This is a discussion about facts, not opinions. What I have said, unequivocally, is that it's a fact that conservatives are more likely to be booted off Big Tech."
...and that's not fact. It's false assumption and false equivalence.
Racists and Bigots are being booted out of Big Tech's property for violating the terms Big Tech has stated is the requirement for being allowed to squat on Big Tech's property.
It's no different than a bar owner putting up a sign saying you aren't allowed to drop your pants and shit on the floor. And then boots people for doing exactly that.
And the reason we're all not accepting a damn word you say is because you keep trying to make this about conservatives - which it isn't, unless you are stating that every US conservative today is a racist and a bigot.
"And since they claim otherwise, they're lying."
Nope. But I guess that as long as you don't have the moral courage to at least own up to your own ideals and instead keep trying to borrow the credibility of calling yourself a "conservative" then Newspeak is your only way to even start the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Well, Scary Devil … if you can find anywhere on here where I called myself conservative, I'd sincerely appreciate if you could point it out.
But I do find … ha … your attempt to casually drop references to Orwellianism as a right wing worldview in here! Nice. I don't believe I've seen that before!
All those right-wing made-up Newspeak terms, like:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"All those right-wing made-up Newspeak terms, like:"
...he said, and proceeded to define the transgender concept, white privilege and gay marriage as terms as literally false as "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery".
I guess the "right-wing" or at least the alt-right have gone full circle and embraced the propaganda methods of classical communism. Not too surprising, really, since racism has always been more of a collectivist belief.
"...if you can find anywhere on here where I called myself conservative, I'd sincerely appreciate if you could point it out."
Well, no. It's pretty clear you are't a conservative by any of your arguments. By the logic of which you are either a troll or someone who truly feels it lamentable that the KKK aren't being given a free pass to recite their views on someone else's platform.
So what are you? Trolling for the sheer hell of it, or - as demonstrated by your choice of terms above, a bigot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
He's not conservative, he's just got his head shoved up his rectal cavity in a bid to bend his back over just to carry conservatives' water. It'd be funny if white knight simp incels weren't already a meme onto themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Man, there are some creationist FB threads I'd love to set you guys loose on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Scary, I'd be interested in seeing a list of those right-wing Newspeak terms you were talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
It's that word "DISPROPORTIONATELY" that seems to be messing you up, as you have yet to show anything other than an OPINION that this is the case.
You can't prove disproportionality by opinion, it has to be statistical, and hopefully more than a 51%/49% split (which is not disproportional), now a 80%/20% split would be disproportionate, so for every 4 conservative posts 'deleted' there should be 1 non-conservative post 'deleted' (on the same subject matter and using the same attitude/tone in the messages).
Anything less and it's just your opinion... yes people are kicked off 3rd party platforms all the time for expressing themselves in non-appropriate ways (regardless of being a conservative), but you haven't shown the disporportionate piece at all (and NO HE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST OR MOST OFTEN ISN'T THE ONE WHO's RIGHT...AMIRITE?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Of course, disproportionality in output does not reflect bias when there's the exact same disproportionality in the input.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Toom, are you sure you want to say that outcomes don't matter? Are you absolutely sure?
(Before you answer, you might - just a suggestion - want to research busing, affirmative action, Title IX …….)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Why would I need to be "sure" of something I never even remotely said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"disproportionality in output does not reflect bias"
Toom, talking about racial disparity in SAT scores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I doubt you understand what that actually means, but it aptly illustrates your shallow thinking but it also reinforces the point being made that many people who profess to be conservatives see nothing wrong in saying what you just said without even understanding the real issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I'm just trying to prevent someone confusing Toom with one of those Nazis who wrote "The Bell Curve". You know, that Jewish Nazi Richard Hernnstein?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Anyone literate won't be confused by what I wrote, and the opinions of the rest are unworthy of consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Cutting out half of what I said to lie about it like Prokect Veritas is an especially dumb move when anyone can scroll up and see the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"(on the same subject matter and using the same attitude/tone in the messages)"
That's of course the issue. If say "I hope everyone enjoys themselves on the beach today!" and stay on Twitter but some knuckledragger says "Let's all go to the beach, no masks and infect everyone we can!" and gets banned, it should be obvious why the difference in reaction exists. Basic humanity and intelligence seem to be the first casualties in this discussion from the self-proclaimed victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"It's that word "DISPROPORTIONATELY" that seems to be messing you up, as you have yet to show anything other than an OPINION that this is the case."
No, not really. He could probably produce an 80/20 or even 90/10 case. But he really doesn't want to since, as he let slip rather early in the thread, he's redefined systemic bigotry as a core conservative value.
That's why he keeps parroting the word "conservative" in every other sentence. He knows damn well it won't go over well with anyone if it emerges that he's really protesting on behalf of the Very Fine People who hold the "conservative" beliefs that certain religions, gender identities, ethnicities etc belong to the lesser races.
He does have facts at hand. We all do, rather easily. It's just that those facts show that his "conservatives" all wear teutonic solar wheels and/or white hoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Scary Devil, sincerely:
Do you admit that the opposite of "conservative" is "liberal" (in America, within the last say 100 years)?
(If "no" to the two above, then I commend your caretakers having helped you negotiate your way through life so far.)
These positions: for affirmative action, for illegal immigration, for influence of Islam spreading, for gay marriage, for people with penises in girl's bathrooms, for hormone blockers for minors …
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Do you admit that the opposite of "conservative" is "liberal" (in America, within the last say 100 years)?"
Since what was "liberal" a century ago is "conservative today, then no, obviously not. Any other false assumptions you'd like to slip under my nose and have me sign to? Before you proceed to run with rhetoric based on an outright falsehood?
Also, more concerning, someone who is primarily concerned with other people's worth and value is primarily a bigot, not a conservative. It is quite possible to be a liberal conservative - like Eisenhower, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Apparently they needed caretakers, then, being clinically insane and all?
"If "no" to the two above, then I commend your caretakers having helped you negotiate your way through life so far."
Right. So in other words you assume that the belief that human society changes with time is insane. And many of the founding fathers and great republican presidents apparently needed caretakers, then, being clinically insane and all?
That explains why so many of your stated assumptions are written as if an outraged 18th-century calvinist penned down his latest rebuttal of modern "immoral devilry". You think "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites. They're not, but your assumption that they are tells us all which crowd you learned the definition of those words from.
I guess when what you define as "conservative" is actually collectivist scapegoat ideology meant to pin societies failings on The Other it might look the way you posit.
Liberalism's ideological opposite is Bigotry. Not conservatism. This is where you keep falling off your horse before getting it to the starting line.
"These positions: for affirmative action, for illegal immigration, for influence of Islam spreading, for gay marriage, for people with penises in girl's bathrooms, for hormone blockers for minors …"
"Are those conservative positions? Is that, somehow, your premise?"
Whether your strawmen and false equivalences are "conservative" positions or not depends largely on whether you actually DO represent the modern American "Conservative".
Someone who is more of a political conservative than an outright bigot would state that whatever two consenting adults do with one another is nobody elses business. And that the one and only sovereign of ones own body is oneself and no one else. In that regard a real "conservative" wouldn't really give two shits about whatever you used to produce your strawman brigade, above. The bigot, however, certainly would care.
The belief that other people get to determine who and what you are is not a conservative view. Bigotry is collectivist, which puts it decidedly on the extreme left of the spectrum. This is why systemic racism fits better in Hitler's "national socialist" model than under any form of government based on equal rights and core values.
Your argument is identical to the ones once carried against Women voting, black people being born free, jews being able to purchase and own property, and justice by court and jury.
But, by all means, keep putting up straw men and false analogies. Knowing how you define a conservative tells us much about where you learned it. I think your arguments would be better received back on Stormfront where those definitions come from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Scary,
You seem to have it pretty clearly in your mind what you consider to be actual conservatives (not just self-labeled conservatives) and actual liberals (not just self-labeled liberals).
In your opinion, in 2020, in America:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Even if what you say is true (and it isn't), there is nothing unlawful about it. Maybe it's time for a group of conservative tech people to create Assbook where you're free to boot people with liberal views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yeah, and for the 80th time, I never said there is anything unlawful, illegal, or even wrong about it happening.
But yeah, it absolutely, definitely is happening - and you're lying that "it isn't" - and you know you're lying. The question: why ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Why do you continue to not answer the simple question at the root of it all?
Can you show that it is, in fact, happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Now, TFG, I am starting to doubt my previous position that you aren't stupid.
Because, for the fifth time, here is the answer to your simple question:
You: "Can you show that it is, in fact, happening?"
Me: "Yes."
Do we do this again a sixth time somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"You: "Can you show that it is, in fact, happening?"
Me: "Yes.""
Yet, you seem to ignore the rest of the conversation:
Him: "OK, can you show us the proof that you have seen to come to that conclusion?"
You: crickets
If you're tired of repeating the start of the conversation, perhaps you'd like to try continuing with the rest of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Paul, maybe you didn't read TFG's comment at 4:33. Actually, it seems you didn't even read your own comment before you posted it.
Here, I'll answer you, sir.
You: Can you show that it is, in fact, happening?
Me: Yes.
Him: OK, can you show us the proof that you have seen to come tot hat conclusion?
Me: Yes.
Oh, you mean will I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yes, it's very simple - where is this evidence you claim to have read? Why do you refuse to provide it in the discussion that's now devolved to a bunch of people telling you to provide the evidence you claim to have in your possession?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
So you're just whining - got it.
Perhaps you should go complain somewhere where someone might give a shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Well, you can ad hominem if you like. But again, since I'm not saying it's good or bad either way, I don't believe you can (non-disingenuously) say I'm complaining/whining/bitching (whatever phrase makes blows your skirt up).
But so you don't get confused, without me placing a value judgement on said censorship of conservative opinions, I'm definitely stating it's happening. And that Techdirt and you know it. And that to deny it makes you a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I'm definitely stating it's happening.
I'm sure it is. And I bet there's a grassy knoll involved too. Maybe the CIA and the deep state are behind it while we're at it.
And the Illuminati too. Might as well go for the nutjob trifecta, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe next he’ll say it was the New World Order (4 Life).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, he's got True Faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Guy at 7:35...
"I'm sure it is" happening.
Uh, yeah … me too. Can you read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Then show the evidence that it is happening, and the evidence that Techdirt knows its happening.
Without showing the evidence to support your claim, you're just lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Wasn't that called Conservapedia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"...because Techdirt knows conservatives are being disproportionately "booted off" platforms..."
Techdirt knows full well that racists and bigots are booted off platforms. Most of us still give the "conservatives" the benefit of the doubt and believe that there are plenty of conservatives still writing happily away in all these platforms because their brand of conservative ideals does not include bigotry and medieval views on women.
Now if what you say is true and racism is inherently part of the american conservative today then getting booted off platforms is the least we'd want to see.
What you won't get is to rebrand racism and bigotry as "conservatism" in the mistaken belief that this will whitewash it sufficiently to allow it passage back into civilized society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Scary, I see you have a borderline sexual fetish for scare quotes.
Can you say something about conservatives without the scare quotes? I'm sincerely interested in what you think a conservative is - I mean actual conservatives, what you think their positions are, without the scare quotes to distort your opinion or misdirect.
Give me some core conservative - actual, unscarequoted conservative - positions are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Scary, I see you have a borderline sexual fetish for scare quotes."
Everything you don't like appears to become linked to sexuality in some form in your mind. I'd advice you talk to someone about that.
"Can you say something about conservatives without the scare quotes? "
Unfortunately quotation marks are necessary hwen what you discuss isn't, in fact, conservatives.
A conservative - a liberal conservative, in fact, would be Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
Being a conservative does not mean being the opposite of liberal - except when a horde of bigots and racists attempt to borrow the credibility of the word by redefining it.
A conservative is someone who is primarily cautious about change. So a few core conservative positions would be.
Now if you instead believe that what should dictate your actions are the fear over someone elses religion, creed, or gender identity then you aren't primarily a conservative. You are simply a bigot and it no longer matters whether you try to justify your bigotry through twisting conservative or liberal values.
We've already seen that your own definition of conservative values look like a quote from Mein Kampf with only one or two items missing to complete Hitler's bingo card. I posit that if your ideology is shared to such an extent with only the worst scum acknowledged by humanity as a whole then perhaps it's time to rethink where your ideology has brought you.
In the end, however, it's a dead argument. When bigotry is what prompts Twitter and FB to block users then the only response possible is "good".
That those same racists and bigots desperately want to belong to the cool kids and try to make it look like everyone who self-identifies as a "conservative" must share their views - notably about gays and black people - is a different issue entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Scary, thanks for the clarification. Sounds like your definition of conservative is "classical liberal".
Okay.
Now, what percentage of people in 2020 calling themselves conservatives do you think fit your definition?
Who are some big-name, prominent conservatives in 2020 who fit your definition? So far, the names you mentioned were prominent in the 18th century … and one in the 1950s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
Islam is a foreign government. Most people don't even know enough about it to know what it is.
Morrocco, iraq, iran, and india and China's "Islam" are are equally Islam.
Muslims are the religious adherents of their state religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Islam is a foreign government"
?
"Muslims are the religious adherents of their state religion.
That's a theocracy, like the one Evangelist "Christians" are trying to turn the US into. What's your opinion on US Muslims who don't swear allegiance to any other government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
The US pledge of allegiance doesn't say "and all foreigners are banned" clause in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I worded that wrong.
It doesn't have a no foreigns clause in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"It doesn't have a no foreigns clause in it."
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"The US pledge of allegiance doesn't say "and all foreigners are banned" clause in it."
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Islam is a country just as much as Christianity is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yes several countries have a form of Christianity as a state religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
This old world map I have is a bit torn and ragged, perhaps you might assist me in locating this country named Islam as I am unable to do so on this map I have. Which hemisphere is it in, what continent does it reside in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Please post a photo of your ticket to Christianland. I'm pretty sure that isn't a country and you're just being obtuse. At least I hope you are because the alternative is not a good look for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Would that be a rapture pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Islam is a foreign government."
The same way Christianity and Atheism, you mean?
"Most people don't even know enough about it to know what it is."
Including, apparently, you.
"Morrocco, iraq, iran, and india and China's "Islam" are are equally Islam."
Complete and utter bullshit. About as factual as claiming that every american is a pennsylvanian from Podunk city.
Here's a fact - Iran is about the only centre of shia Islam. Above their hatred of Israel, the US, or anyone else, really, they hate, above all else, the Sunni bastards in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
China's "muslims" are either 100% chinese citizens, or they're sitting in a concentration...err, "re-education" camp.
The indian Sikhs and Sufi are considered blasphemous heretics by both Shia and Sunni.
Where the fsck is this "country" you keep babbling about? Right next to the Deep State, at the edges of the Flat Earth, run by the Lizard people in the Illuminati?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
When bigots start banging on about Islam nations, it's always fun to try and explain how Sunni and Shia have been at war with each other for so long and how other nations have Christians constantly at war. Facts and nuance always get that deer in the headlight look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Islam is a religion (actually a supersect)
The Islamic state has the same kinds of end goals as the Great Commission. If you're going to say Islam is a foreign government, then it by the same arguments Christendom is also a foreign government, and the Holy See and megachurches (such as the GCM or SBC) who have profound influence on the US federal government should be regarded as foreign entities.
If you don't want to do that, then Islam gets demoted to just another group of religions which are free and welcome in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
They're not being silenced because they're conservatives, they're being silenced because they're bigots.
People who've spent much of the last hundred years delighting in the majority oppressing minorities should appreciate the irony in their bigoted subset of the conservative movement becoming a minority in itself and losing what they imagine to be rights due to the majority of americans not wanting to have to put up with their hateful rhetoric and people being treated like that anymore. Even if you don't, they should appreciate the fact they're being treated a whole lot better than conservatives treated gays, lesbians, African Americans, Latin Americans, religious minorities, liberals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Bloof -
So essentially what you said is that conservatives are being silenced. Right? Your argument is that it's because they're bigots - okay, that's a valid opinion to have - but the end result is that conservatives are being silenced. Right?
Because that is not what Techdirt has repeatedly claimed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Let's face what the real problem conservatives have for a change.
They don't like that they're being kicked off of mainstream social media. So they roll their own, failing to acknowledge that if they just act like bigoted assholes amongst themselves, it's not quite the same.
That's the heart of the issue, isn't it? You can't own the libs unless we're forced to listen, and just whining to each other has got to get old fast.
You're not entitled to an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I don't think it does get old for them. Drop into Breitbart's comments section some time. But don't stay long. You lose IQ points by the minute reading that garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Guy at 11:47.
You're saying that Breitbart's commenters are conservative, yes or no?
Do you think those commenters would be booted from Twitter in a greater proportion than DailyKos commenters, yes or no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I don't know - I was booted from Breitbart's forum for my liberal views, as were several of my friends, I heard.
Got any comment about that? I'm feeling persecuted for my liberal views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PLEASE READ THIS
Do you want me to comment on that, truly? I will, if you like. I argue in good faith, so I'll assume the same about you and answer your question. (Will also assume you're telling the truth about it, like I am.)
Well, despite Breitbart being in nobody's definition "Big Tech", and therefore unrelated to this conversation about people being booted from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google and the other companies everyone agrees comprise "Big Tech" …
Despite that … I think it's weak of Breitbart to do so. I think it makes Breitbart look like crybabies and cowards and sissies. (I know 'sissy' makes some here uncomfortable, but you asked for honesty.) I think it means they're afraid of opposing viewpoints. I think it's Orwellian and un-American.
(I don't think it makes you or your friends 'persecuted' - that seems to be Masnick's latest buzzword, but if Breitbart wasn't trying to kill you or put you in jail or threatening you with violence or threatening to #CancelLiberalPeople, it's not persecution.)
But no, Breitbart are un-American, Orwellian weaklings who are afraid of dissent for booting you for Breitbart, or flagging your comments.
Is that clear? That's my comment.
If the Masnick and Masnick's Blue Checkmarks and other commenters on here read nothing else I've written, I hope they read this. I stand by everything I said above, 100%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
From what I've seen, they're more likely to be barely-educated conspiracy theories who joined the sight after they were scared by the presence of a black man in the White House. So, for myself I would say yes, those people are more likely to get booted from other sites than saner people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Paul, is President Obama black?
The ol' one-drop rule, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This rhetorical gimmick will not work here.
And besides, conservatives aren’t being “silenced”. They’re being booted from a platform with a huge potential audience. Someone banned from Twitter can still go to another platform and say the exact same shit that got them banned. So if a conservative can’t find an audience on a platform outside of Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, well, too bad. The law doesn’t guarantee them an audience, and those facts don’t care about their feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, it's funny that you talk about "rhetorical gimmicks".
Why is the semantics around censorship your favorite hobby horse?
Silenced, censored, suppressed, deplatformed, moderated, blah blah blah. Choose whatever phrase you want.
Just as I have with other commenters, I am quoting your own words . If after reading them back they seem nonsensical, be more careful with your wording next time. Quoting someone back and trying to come to consensus on what was said/meant is not a "rhetorical gimmick" - it's how people discuss topics and come to conclusions. (The conclusion may simply be that they disagree, but at least they're not talking past each other and understand what the other was trying to say.)
You said, "They're being booted from a platform". They being conservatives (your words); platforms being Twitter, Facebook, YouTube (your words).
I know you're not a Techdirt writer, which was who my original question was addressed to, but it sounds like you , individually as a person, are outright admitting what Techdirt denies: that Big Tech suppresses conservative speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please provide statistically significant data (against the backdrop of millions of moderation actions per day) displaying a disproportionate amount of moderation actions against those who hold conservative viewpoints strictly for holding conservative viewpoints.
Not because they broke out the slurs or attacked people in general.
Method matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TFG, let's see if you can answer this question honestly, we'll go from there:
Of all the people booted off Twitter for TOS violation and who self-identify as either "conservative" or "liberal", do you think the majority booted would be:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter. Twitter can ban anyone for violating the TOS, and if a pattern shows up that consistently proves one “side” receives bans more than the other “side”, all that says is that “side” does more to violate the TOS. The issue, then, wouldn’t be with Twitter — it would be with the “side” that prefers vice signalling instead of following the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter twice over because it's a loaded, dishonest question.
People aren't being kicked off of Twitter because they're conservatives, they're being kicked off for rules violations involving bigotry, so to frame it as 'conservatives vs liberals' is a dishonest tactic because that's not the factor that's relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is why I didn't ask "are people being kicked off Twitter because they're conservatives". What I did ask is: is someone kicked off Twitter more likely to self identify as conservative, or self identify as liberal?
Picked at random, of which is that deplatformed person more likely to identify?
You know the answer, which is why you and rest of the Techdirt crew just won't answer it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter. Twitter can legally ban people for vile expressions of their political beliefs. Whether they identify as liberal/progressive or conservative is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Matters to Masnick, sir. Absolutely matters to him. Conservatives complain they're being disproportionately booted from Big Tech. When they do, Masnick's cadre writes articles about it.
If it doesn't matter, then your argument is with Masnick. When his cadre stops writing lies about it, there's nothing to discuss about it on Techdirt. Then I go away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, since you insist on staying to embarrass yourself, stopping you seems like the crueler thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand that when you say "embarrass myself", it means I make you uncomfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like a housefly, if you like that comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means you keep gladly taking the rope we're providing you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Toom, in 2020, the reference to "rope" is pretty insensitive. It brings to mind the lynching of people of color that was happening very, very, very, very recently (the 1930s) and that some certain white people who speak for people of color say people of color are still affected by.
Hate speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"What I did ask is: is someone kicked off Twitter more likely to self identify as conservative, or self identify as liberal?"
Nazis and the KKK have always self-identified as conservatives. Doesn't mean they are, but there you go.
This invites the question whether nazis and the KKK should be kicked off Twitter. And that's where we get to the words "private platform". No private entity owes another private entity an audience. And twitter and Facebook both know full well the civilized audience won't accept having a hysterical bigot around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, we get that, Scary. We do.
What we don't get is you having failed to define what you think conservatives - nonscarequote conservatives - actually are .
Be interesting to see what you believe they are. I wonder if it matches reality. I wonder if it will be legitimate.
(Hint: if you're just going to define them in such a way as to be about 10% of the self-professed conservatives, you're doing it wrong.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That the complete and utter ignorance of economics, law, the constitution, germ theory, amd middle-school math that forms the foundation of the disinformation of anti-lockdown also are prerequisites for being Republican/Libertarian doesn't make platforms' anti-disinformation efforts biased either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Toom, is that you, in so many words, agreeing with the small handful of honest Techdirt commenters and admitting that:
conservative=bigot
If so, please be clear. I'd like to count you amongst those with the courage of their convictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Must be a bad batch of Stoli that has you hallucinating so hard, comrade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess that means "no"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some bigots self-identify as conservatives.
Some bigots self-identify as liberal.
Some conservatives are bigots.
Some liberals are bigots.
Bigots are often moderated in social media.
What conclusion can you draw from the above statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What conclusion can one draw from the above statements?"
That your powers of observation are terrible if you sincerely believe there are any liberal opinions (defined by liberals as liberal) that are considered bigoted by Big Tech in 2020, and banned by Big Tech terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong again as usual.
It means I'm not falling for your feebleminded attempts at loaded questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think Masnick's Blue Checkmarks need education in, possibly more than anything else, how to have actual convictions and state them clearly.
(I mean besides the one strong conviction of hating normal Americans.)
Being this flaccid and wishy-washy online must be even more difficult in meatspace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What sort of education are you talking about? Forced conversion to your point of view in a re-education camp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC: to answer that question honestly requires data I don't have. I will not answer it because I cannot answer it honestly.
Can you answer my request for data that supports your position honestly? Do you have the data I've requested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No he doesn't, his position is supported by faith or belief not facts or statistics, that if he says it enough times, others will chime in and agree with him, thus growing the 'conservative support' for his position, no doubt.
We could prove the existence of God using nothing but math (Pi and a square root function) before he will be able to prove his 'conservatives being disproportionatility' being kicked off platforms with factual statistics (it's just as easy to make up numbers as it is to claim a false opinion about something).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what "data" don't you have?
Do you, TFG, think/guess/estimate a higher proportion of self-identified liberals or a higher proportion of self-identified conservatives have had their Twitter accounts closed for any reason - any reason whatsoever?
Ignoring all the surrounding discussion, just the one question above, if you had to bet. Based on your experience as a seemingly intelligent adult human that's observed the world around him.
It's not a riddle, it's not long division, it's a simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The data that is missing is the data that I have asked you for repeatedly:
Statistically significant data displaying disproportionate moderation actions against "conservatives" for their viewpoints.
Without this data, there is no honest answer to that question.
Ignoring all the surrounding discussion, as I have from the beginning, I am asking you to answer, actually answer, just that one question. Can you provide the data?
It's not a riddle. It's not long division. It's a simple question that asks you to provide evidence that your premise is correct. Will you answer it, or will you evade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He will evade and confront, as the rules for that Ferengi game Tongo allow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I will refocus the discussion to the one salient point that he keeps trying to evade, every single time, and confront on that point. Every single time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TFG, your life must've been awfully tough.
I can't imagine the embarrassment of your compulsions prompting you, when a teacher asked you at what time two trains approaching each other at a given speed from a given distance would collide, to respond … "I uhhhhh can't answer that … need more data! Where are the trains coming from?? What is their cargo?? What are the maiden names of the engineers' mothers?? Neeed morrre data!" In front of the whole class.
Embarassing. Sorry, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you still aren't providing the evidence you said you could provide.
I guess Anti-conservative bias really is a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, TFG, you absolutely can answer it honestly … which would then not allow you to subsequently claim conservatives are not disproportionally affected by Big Tech TOS. It'd be more honorable, but also you'd have to admit you were wrong earlier.
You won't answer it, which is different.
(Or you could answer it dishonestly, which would make your continued lying even more obvious. So thanks I guess(?) for having no convictions and keeping your lying comparatively subtle.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide the evidence that shows a statistically significant history of disproportionate moderation actions against conservatives.
The evidence you stated you had.
Or were you lying when you said you could provide it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I said before: Using “censorship” when someone hasn’t been censored, or when information hasn’t been banned from public access, cheapens the concept. I was suspended on Twitter once for using an anti-gay slur as part of a discussion on anti-gay views. I didn’t consider myself “censored”, even though Twitter made me delete that post before I could access my account again. Twitter admins moderated my speech on their platform — which they had every right to do.
Speaking of which…
…Twitter has every right to make that decision, too. Even if I grant the existence of an actual anti-conservative bias at Twitter, so what? The First Amendment, combined with Section 230, gives Twitter the right to act on that bias. But I still say that if Twitter bans a self-proclaimed conservative for expressing anti-LGBT views, the problem lies less with Twitter’s TOS and more with the person who conflates anti-LGBT views with conservatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, wait … I "conflate" anti-LGBT views with conservatism? Really?
What do you think? Do you think conservatives are "pro-LGBT"?
Please state clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In generalized, broad strokes, black-and-white thinking? No. The Republican party vehemently opposes LGBT civil rights, including the legalization of same-sex marriage via Obergefell v. Hodges. The generalized record of American conservatives on such issues bears out that opposition.
In particular, fine strokes, shades-of-gray thinking? That depends on the self-identified conservative. One such person might be for gay people’s civil rights but draw the line at trans rights. Another might be for LGBT rights in full. Yet another might be for same-sex marriage, but not same-sex adoption. And yet another might think all discussion of LGBT civil rights is moot because “the queers don’t deserve ‘special rights’ ”.
While I accept the common conclusion that conservatives in general are opposed to LGBT civil rights, I also accept that such generalized thinking leads to the kind of black-and-white thinking that divides us. But I still hold to my original conclusion about a supposed “anti-conservative bias”: If Twitter bans a self-proclaimed conservative for expressing anti-LGBT views, the problem lies less with Twitter’s TOS and more with the person who conflates anti-LGBT views with conservatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why I said many times that most conservatives are, for instance, against gay marriage. Not offshoots or exceptions, like Log Cabin Republicans or TPUSA.
You seem to agree with me: "conservatives in general are opposed to LGBT civil rights". This utterly contradicts the idea that I'm "conflating anti-LGBT views with conservatism".
We've both stated that, essentially, being anti-LGBT is a conservative position. Essentially, because your nuance is that there are many shades of gray; my nuance because one might equivocate that being against gay marriage isn't being anti-LGBT. But essentially, it seems we both agree that conservatism is more anti-LGBT than it is pro-LGBT.
So then some odd wording: "If Twitter bans someone for expressing anti-LGBT views".
So, Stone, does Twitter ban people for expressing anti-LGBT views? Or, if you don't want to answer that for whatever reason: Stone, is Twitter more likely to ban someone for anti LBGT views, or for pro LBGT views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except it is. Saying gay people don’t deserve the right to marry but straight people do expresses a discriminatory position. You can’t advocate for the civil rights of gay people and say “but they shouldn’t have this specific right” simultaneously.
In a generalized sense? Probably. In a nuanced sense? They ban people for expressing anti-LGBT views in ways that violate the Terms of Service.
I literally used the slur “f⸺t” in a post attacking anti-LGBT attitudes and Twitter dinged me for it. It’s not about the views, it’s about how they’re expressed. But people who hold anti-LGBT views are more likely to use such language, so…yeah…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, since you seem kind of open to a discussion about nuance and specifics, how about this … the trans thing seems to be the area where a) conservatives and liberals strongly disagree, and b) there have been absolutely unquestionable very recent and strongly enforced TOS changes on many platforms vis a vis trans.
You know the person Manning that was imprisoned for leaking classified material?
I don't think anyone would question that most conservatives mostly think that person should be referred to by the name under which that person used when that person committed the alleged crime (the same one assigned to that person by that person's parents at birth).
I also don't think anyone would question that most liberals mostly think that person should be referred to by the name that person chose about, what, 3 or 4 years ago.
However, referring to that person by the name on the birth certificate is now called "deadnaming" (not a slang, actually used) that is prohibited by Twitter TOS.
Do you think a basically even amount of conservatives and liberals have been or will be booted from Twitter for deadnaming? Because I posit that a vastly higher percentages of self-identified conservatives will be kicked off Twitter than will self-identified liberals.
I think Masnick would agree that that's the case - he's not blind nor an imbecile.
A perfect example of what was once acceptable, very recently redefined as unacceptable, and that results in conservatives being removed in much higher proportions than liberals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter. If deadnaming is against Twitter’s TOS, Twitter has every right to ban people for doing it. That conservatives might be more likely than liberals to do it, and thus be banned for doing it, says more about conservatives than it does Twitter.
And even if — if! — I grant that Twitter bans conservatives far more often than liberals for the same TOS violations…so what? No one has ever told me why I should care. Twitter isn’t a monopoly; it’s one platform out of many. Conservatives who don’t like how Twitter operates (or how they think Twitter operates) can go find another platform or make their own. When Tumblr instituted its now-infamous “porn purge”, I left that platform, and I didn’t whine about how Tumblr was “censoring” anyone because I recognized that it had every right to make that (rather awful) decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, I believe I've answered in very very clear language every question you've asked.
Yet, when I ask you a simple question, you edge ever so close to providing a clear answer … and then back away. What is it you're afraid of? Can you answer something unequivocally, without hemming and hawing with a bunch of caveats and "doesn't matters" and equivocations.
(So we can put it to bed, for the 60th time, I acknowledge and support Big Tech's right to ban/boot/moderate whoever they want, at any time, for any reason. You might be arguing with someone about that, but it's not me! I absolutely assure you Stone, it's not me !)
Now, I get that you say " IF Twitter is booting conservatives at disproportionate levels". Do you see that I understand that?
But what I'm asking you, Stone, personally, as an individual person … do you think they ARE ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Do you think a basically even amount of conservatives and liberals have been or will be booted from Twitter for deadnaming? "
Have a basically even amount of Twitter users on each side been doing that to begin with? This is the key point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Paul, are you sincerely asking me that? If you are, I am happy to provide an answer. I assume you think you'll be tricking me into something, but I assure you, I will absolutely answer that sincerely. There's chance you'll return the courtesy.
If that's the key point, as you say, I'm fine with it.
Your question (tell me if I'm misparaphrasing here): Have a basically even amount of Twitter users [conservatives v. liberals] been violating the Twitter TOS to not deadname trans people?
My answer, and I'd bet a large amount of money I'm right, is: ABSOLUTELY NOT. I bet conservatives have violated this Twitter TOS in much, much higher percentages than liberals. Probably in the 80-90% range.
Now, Paul, since I answered your question honestly, will you do the same with this question (with no caveats or hemming and hawing), do you think:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, are you sincerely asking me that?"
Yes, in fact it's only thing that actually matters.
If 10 "rightwingers" are being transphobic assholes, and 10 "leftwingers" are being transphobic assholes, and all the guys on the "right" are banned and not the ones on the "left", then there would been to be an indication of a bias.
If, however there's 18 on the "right" and 2 on the "left", then there's no bias when many more on the right are blocked. That's on your guys being transpobic assholes.
So, can you provide evidence that there was equal bad behaviour on both sides?
"I bet conservatives have violated this Twitter TOS in much, much higher percentages than liberals. Probably in the 80-90% range."
Where's the evidence? Numbers you pulled out of your ass do not count for anything here.
"Now, Paul, since I answered your question honestly"
No, you really didn't.
"For violating Twitter TOS or any other reason you choose, are a disproportionate percentage of conservatives in comparison to liberals booted from Twitter"
I don't believe so, but I'm not the one making a positive claim here. The burden of proof is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't answer the exact question honestly? Please point out the portion(s) of my sentence that are dishonest:
"I bet conservatives have violated this Twitter TOS [deadnaming] in much, much higher percentages than liberals."
Also, I commend you, a Blue Checkmark, from actually answering a question. Thank you, sir. Of course, if that's your honest belief then your powers of observation are terrible. But you did answer, so thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Please point out the portion(s) of my sentence that are dishonest"
It's not that you were dishonest, it's that you didn't answer the question with factual information. "I bet" is only telling me what you imagine in your mind, not what exists in verifiable reality.
Do you have any facts to back up your assertions with any real data, or are we being expected to just accept whatever your imagination tells you is true without evidence? Because your displayed grasp on reality in this thread is tenuous at best.
"a Blue Checkmark"
Again, with this weird thing. Tell me, what do you think having an account here means, other than to differentiate us from the cowards like yourself who refuse to offer a name? It's something that you could do yourself if you possessed the intellectual honesty to do so.
It has nothing to do with the term you're using, which is specifically a Twitter term to indicate that someone has had their identity verified to avoid impostors. That doesn't happen here since nobody except staff posts under their real names, so what relevance do you think that has?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I explained the Blue Checkmark phrase elsewhere on here, maybe it wasn't to you.
So far on this page of comments, every person with an account name has been a sycophant and endorser of Masnick's lying.
There might be an normal American with a Techdirt account somewhere...but if so, they've not shown up on this page yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Normal American
I don't thing that word means what you think it means.
I suspect you're imagining some sort of stereotype, perhaps one that agrees with you. Probably the same people that Trump imagines agree with his Hydroxychloroquine regimen and his policies to haphazardly close borders to prevent COVID-19 infection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I explained the Blue Checkmark phrase elsewhere on here, maybe it wasn't to you."
Then, either explain it again, or consider using language that's not so out of place that you have to keep explaining what you mean. Also:
Did it occur to you that maybe the issue is not the people responding to you with their honest opinions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please provide data that supports your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TFG, are you sure you want to ask this one particular question? Really?
Because, by asking it, you are putting your name on a supposition in front of everyone that there exists in this world even a possibility that you, TFG, think it might even be possible that self-identified liberals deadname trans people at equal or greater percentages than do self-identified conservatives.
Which would make you look extremely confused about how the world works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I would like you to provide data that supports your position. It would be very nice if you would do the thing you said you could do. It would show integrity on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you are suggesting is that conservatives will ignore the rules so as to be offensive. If they do, they are still being thrown off for being offensive, rather than conservative. Hint, where the law allows someone to change their name, it is being deliberately offensive to ignore a persons change of name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. "Deadnaming" is banned from Twitter specifically because anti-trans assholes will use that as a way to attack trans people. He thinks he's being clever, but all he's really doing is confirming that conservatives are more likely to be anti-trans assholes who will try to attack them rather than engage in conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul, thanks for answering my question. So.... keep going buddy … you've almost finished connecting all the dots...
Your answer: conservatives violate Twitter TOS by deadnaming, liberals don't...
Here's the part you didn't finish saying:
… which results in a disproportionate number of conservatives being booted from Twitter than liberals.
Which Masnick says isn't happening. Which is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"which results in a disproportionate number of conservatives being booted from Twitter than liberals."
Ah, I see the issue - you don't know what "disproportionate" means in this context. Disproportionate would be that equal numbers on both "sides" act like assholes but only one "side" was banned.
But, as you just admitted, that's not the case. More on the "right" are banned because more on the "right" are assholes. Now, you can argue that this means that assholes are disproportionately represented on the "right", but that's hardly Twitter's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul, your first paragraph is wrong in the sense that I never claimed "both 'sides' act like assholes but only one 'side' was banned". Never said it, didn't claim it. Someone somewhere might've, but not me on Techdirt.
However, your second paragraph: Yes, Paul, yes ! You're starting to get it!
"MORE ON THE RIGHT ARE BEING BANNED". Exactly , sir.
Which Masnick claims is not happening. Which is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide the evidence you said you could provide that supports your premise as being accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If they do, they [conservatives] are still being thrown off for being offensive, rather than conservative"
...which still results in … wait for it … a higher proportion of conservatives than liberals thrown off Twitter.
Which Masnick says isn't happening. Which he's lying about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide statistically significant data showing a disproportionate moderation response against people for holding conservative viewpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which results in ... waot for it... an equal proortion of abusive Conservatives as being banned as abusive Liberals being thrown off
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"So essentially what you said is that conservatives are being silenced. Right? Your argument is that it's because they're bigots - okay, that's a valid opinion to have - but the end result is that conservatives are being silenced. Right?"
Only if we accept that conservative == Bigot.
And no. Them being kicked out of every private place where civilized people gather is not *silencing them. It simply means they're being kicked out of every place where civilized people gather. For which the civilized people are duly grateful.
The skinhead doesn't get to play the victim card just because he's not free to kick black people and call them "N__gers" in other people's living rooms anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Be interested to learn which state in the USA had laws on the books that ever allowed a "skinhead … to kick black people … in other people's living rooms".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
Twisty wording. Bigoted viewpoints may be what most conservative hold, but that doesn't mean that any platform must also hold them and allow their bigoted speech. I don't think Techdirt has expressed an opinion about that type of speech, other than calling it bigoted.
Techdirt has expressed the opinion that platforms, as private entities, have the right to not carry that type of speech. Techdirt does not claim that bigoted speech is not being silenced, they claim that the platforms have a right to do so. So they are not saying it isn't happening, what they are saying is that the speech is not being silenced because it is conservative, it is being silenced because it is bigoted, and that the platforms that do so have a perfect right to do so.
Untwist your thinking. The silencing is not because conservative, the silencing is because bigoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Anon Anon - twisty wording? Not really. In fact, I specifically said I think it's any platform's right to censor whoever they want. Not arguing that. What I'm critical of is Techdirt claiming conservatives are not being censored. Which is what they've claimed, many times, in very clear language (e.g. "Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives").
Do you deny that the following are conservative positions: "being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Can you please expand on those positons? And can you please explain why those are "conservative" positions, in the traditional sense, as opposed to outside views that have attached themselves to what is traditionally conversativism?
Additionally, can you please provide evidence to the effect that the moderation actions taken against those you claim are the targets of this bias is due to the fact that they hold those beliefs, rather than due to the methods they use to express them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
TFG -
Can I expand on those positions? Can I explain why those are traditional conservative views and not "outside views"?
Yeah, I could, but I really don't think you or anyone else needs me to. I think you and most others here know it's not necessary, because you know damn well those are traditional conservative positions. C'mon, man, really?
Whether people on Techdirt dislike or like them or not, I could name off a series of people who consider(ed) themselves conservatives - and who society widely identify/identified as such - and I guarantee most of them would agree with most of the positions I listed.
Russel Kirk, Rush Limbaugh, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, William Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan.
Is anyone really going to argue that most of those people aren't "conservative"? I know someone here is going to consider most or all of them far right extremists, but that would be silly. (Like it'd be if someone said the following people are far left extremists: Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russell, Tip O'Neill, etc.).
And is anyone going to argue that those prominent conservatives were/are not mostly: "against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action"?
As to the second part of your question, I'm going to hold off until we can agree that we're talking about the same thing with "conservatives". Because, like it or not, those are in general what actual, real-life, no-question-about-it mostly believe. If someone can't see that, I don't feel there's any point to engaging with that person, because they're - how should I say this - uhh, stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You're conflating "conservative views" with "reasons person got kicked off."
Until one of these perpetual victims nuts up and shares the reason why they were shown to violate the ToS and kicked off, this entire rabbit hole you're going down is just a waste of time.
I'd be willing to bet that the reason they were kicked off was probably not "conservative views" but rather "acted like a giant douche" - hence the reason why we still have yet to see something other than this anecdotal bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Perpetual victims", "giant douche", etc.
Yeah, as I've repeatedly said, I understand from your ad hominems that you personally and people like you dislike conservatives, and you like that they're being deplatformed, and I'm outright stating that it's a valid opinion to have. That's fine. It'd be great if Techdirt could just admit that.
It's the lying that it's not happening that I have a problem with.
For clarity:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I still don't see that Techdirt is lying.
In all the example cries of Conservative Bias, the examples provided are people who got kicked off because of how they present the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves.
Please provide the data that shows these people are getting kicked for the viewpoints themselves, rather than the method they are using to express it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Here is how you're wrong:
I am neither republican nor democrat yet I lean to the conservative side. In this black and white world that makes me a conservative. I do not hold any bigoted views against races, religions, genders or anything else (that I'm aware of). Therefore being a bigot is not tied to being conservative. I assert that being a bigot is tied exclusively to being an asshole and assholes should not be surprised when they get kicked off of a platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Who did you vote for in the 2016 presidential race?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Tyrion Lannister
No shit. I voted for a fictional character rather than vote for either of the turds we were offered.
Being conservative doesn't mean I like Trump. That man was an enormous mistake, one I hope we as a nation correct this year.
I'm not a superfan of Biden but given a choice between the two I'll take Biden every day of the week. I disagree with many of the things he says but he has to be better than our current corrupt liar in chief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Being conservative doesn't mean I like Trump" - didn't say it did. Saying you voted for Trump wouldn't tell me anything either way.
But saying you're voting for Biden does. So yeah, you're wrong. "I lean to the conservative side". No you don't. Good try, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You're suggesting that conservative are not allowed to dislike Trump. Reasonable people, from the entire spectrum of political thought, can come to the realization that Trump's blatant incompetence with regard to handling the pandemic is killing people without any consideration to their political standing.
Unreasonable people will blindly vote the party line. You pretend to be a reasonable person, but you suggest blindly voting the party line, proving you are not necessarily reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Anon Anon -
No, I'm not saying conservatives aren't allowed to dislike Trump. In fact, I said "telling me you voted for Trump wouldn't tell me anything either way." His vote for a fictional character didn't tell me anything either. He and you both jumped to the conclusion that I would've surmised something from a Trump vote.
What I did say is that voting for Biden is definitely not a conservative position. If he had said "I voted for Clinton in 2016", that would have also told me he's not a conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
Just whom do you think conservatives that don't like Trump are going to vote for? A third party that won't get anywhere close to winning, and will aid Trump by doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
"Just whom do you think conservatives that don't like Trump are going to vote for? A third party …?"
Yes. (This is provided we're talking about an actual conservative.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
There is a huge gap between far left and far right. It is entirely possible to be just over the line into "conservative" territory and still hate Trump so much that Biden is a better choice.
But in your view, like most right-wing nutjobs, "You're either with us or against us. Yeehaw!". It's become a sad joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
No, it's not possible to be "just over the line into conservative territory" and vote that way.
Because that "just over the line" part is what makes that person "more conservative" than "more liberal" (or if you want to be pedantic, "more right wing / left wing" or "more Republican / Democrat").
No self-identified liberal/left person is going to say "You could be just over the line into liberal/left territory and vote for Trump". They'd correctly point out that, nope, if you vote for Trump, you're more "just over the line into conservative/right territory".
To state it clearly, nobody thinks a vote for Trump is somehow "more liberal", and nobody thinks a vote for Biden is somehow "more conservative".
You could be a moderate or independent and vote either way, but one is going to be a more conservative vote and one is going to be a more liberal vote. (A third party vote is something completely different, but it's not what the original commenter said.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expl
Your world view is pretty narrow if you really believe that. I've already stated that I lean right of center and yet would vote for Biden over Trump. You might call me centrist. I don't really care, call me what you like. But in your black-and-white view of the world, leaning right of center would make me a "conservative".
Many of my views are conservative. Many are liberal. On every topic I choose what makes the most sense to me. I think anyone who is 100% liberal or conservative is just dumb, too dumb to make their own decisions and so they vote the party line.
So, despite agreeing with more conservative talking points than I do liberal, I would still vote for Biden because I believe he'll do less damage than Trump given another 4 years. You can call that whatever you like and it won't change my opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yeah, as I've repeatedly said, I understand from your ad hominems that you personally and people like you dislike conservatives
Just ones that whine about being ostracized for their views, while simultaneously doing the same thing in the name of "conservative values."
You know what I'm talking about - the "christian" values of loving your neighbor, welcoming the stranger, and all that other horseshit they wear on their sleeves while doing the opposite.
Come on, man. Be ingenuous, but stop being obtuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I'm not being obtuse. I'm flat out stating my position in exact language; the opposite of being obtuse. (And I definitely didn't bring Christianity into it at all.)
So again, to be clear: traditional conservative positions, unchanged for many decades, now run afoul of Big Tech terms of service. This results in a far higher percentage of self-identified conservatives being booted from platforms than are self-identified liberals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All this tells me is that society has changed to the point where what was once acceptable among a large enough segment of the population to be considered “normal” is now “unacceptable”. Society changes; so does what views it broadly considers “acceptable”. Being anti-gay, for example, used to be considered “acceptable” but now it isn’t.
And sure, maybe some of this has to do with protecting corporate profits and business interests. But if corporations think being pro-LGBT is more acceptable to the general public than being anti-LGBT, well, that says a lot about how society has changed in the past few decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, okay, what you said is absolutely true. Now we are getting somewhere!
(See, TFG, this is a discussion, this is not talking past each other. It can be done! Stone and I, I think, share diametrically opposed worldviews. But he's being honest with what he's saying. So am I. So see, people who disagree can talk honestly which each other.)
Stone, you might also be shocked to learn that I pretty strongly agree that "some of this has to do with protecting corporate profits and business interests". Especially and very strongly when it's a platform like YouTube that runs on advertisements. And somewhat with a platform like Twitter. For Twitter, the business interest is Twitter itself finding easier to put up with complaining from conservatives versus the hammering from GLAAD, SPLC, ADL, etc. For YouTube, it's those groups hammering the advertisers, and the advertisers hammering YouTube. Twitter gets hammered directly.
But, Stone, then I think we're back to what I originally posited: that the end result is more (a lot more) conservatives than liberals being booted from those platforms.
Which, again, is what Techdirt says is not happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sure you believe that, but you haven’t shown the data that definitively proves it. Show us the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, you say you're "sure [I] believe it". You've also said "it" is untrue. Which implies you think I'm delusional. (Like, some people sincerely believe they've been abducted by flying saucer people; when Whitley Strieber tells his stories of abduction, he believes an untrue thing. I.e. he's delusional).
If I "believe" and "untruth", then I'm just delusional or stupid; I'm not lying.
If you think above is wrong, that I am lying - i.e. that it's an untruth I know to be untrue - that's fine, you can say that instead.
I'm just trying to get clarification here, because I'm not saying Techdirt writers are delusional (sincerely believe an untruth) or stupid. I'm unequivocally claiming they're lying: that it's untrue that conservatives aren't disproportionately silenced by Big Tech, and that Techdirt writers know it's untrue. I also unequivocally claim they think we're stupid, because they think we'll believe their lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
OR, maybe, STS is an Idiot in Capital Letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can believe that conservatives are being banned from Twitter at higher rates than liberals/progressives if you want. But if you want me to believe it, you need to show me proof. (Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence.) And if you want me to care about it, you need to explain why I should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I'm unequivocally claiming they're lying: that it's untrue that conservatives aren't disproportionately silenced by Big Tech,"
Yes, and others are asking for the evidence of that, which you refuse to give to them. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Around and around and around we go, and the simplest, most basic of things remains evaded at all avenues.
Please provide the evidence that shows a statistically significant history of disproportionate moderation actions against conservatives.
The evidence you stated you had.
Or are all your convictions predicated on wispy dreamstuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Psst-
Those aren't ad hominem, liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Your position is that all conservatives are bigoted and that it is not possible for one to be conservative without being bigoted. Another way to look at this is that all bigots are conservative. I don't think that either position is correct.
It may be that some, maybe even a majority of conservatives, are bigoted, and that there are some bigots that are not conservative. Your insistence that conservative and bigoted are 100% conflated is what gets you in trouble.
The fact that at least some of the bigoted speech was from, at least self professed conservatives (in your mind), means that they were silenced for being conservative, not that they are bigoted. I bet that there are some who are conservative but not bigoted people who wholeheartedly disagree with you, and haven't been silenced,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
No, it's not my position that conservatives are bigoted. It's that the people who control what gets deplatformed on YouTube, Twitter, etc whose position is that conservatives are bigoted.
If you think those things I said are not what most conservatives mostly believe, you are naive or ignorant of actual conservatives. None of the positions I attributed to conservatives are currently considered "extreme" by people calling themselves conservative, and - more to the point - were considered very "extreme" by most Americans even 10-20 years ago (whether they disagreed with the conservatives or not, most people didn't think those positions were only held by "fascists" or "far right extremists" or "Nazis" or choose the denigration ala mode).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The position you hold is as follows:
If someone gets banned from Twitter for expressing those views, consider three things:
Modern American conservatism values bigotry and hatred and disdain aimed at anyone who isn’t a straight White Christian cisgender person.
The parts of society that control communication platforms such as Twitter have deemed those views incompatible with the values and goals of those platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Modern American conservatism values bigotry and hatred and disdain aimed at anyone who isn’t a straight White Christian cisgender person."
(Short version: conservative = bigot.)
That's Stone having an actual conviction and stating it as clear as day. Take note, Blue Checkmarks!
Stone, do bigots get booted from Big Tech in higher proportion than do non-bigots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Short version: conservative = bigot."
If you are against Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action etc? Then yes. You are a bigot.
It doesn't follow that every conservative is a bigot because not all conservatives subscribe to the idea that you need to Hate and Fear other people's skin color, religion or sexual mores simply because they're different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Scary, what percentage of self-professed conservatives in America in 2020 do you think/guess are bigots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Scary, what percentage of self-professed conservatives in America in 2020 do you think/guess are bigots?"
I would personally guess that they're not in a majority position, but since they scream the loudest with either non response or active defense from the non-bigots, they have a disproportionate influence over all conservative messaging.
Perhaps your energy would be better spent affirming that the behaviour of that minority does not represent the normal conservatives out there, than by you demanding that bigots be allowed to spread hatred because you think they're on your "team"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I am still waiting for evidence that the people you claim are the subject of a bias against conservatism are in fact banned for the views they hold and not for the method they use to express them.
Did they get banned/their post deleted/whatever because they don't support gay marriage, or because they decided to go break out the slurs?
Method matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Okay, TFG, I'll do your thought experiment about 'method matters'. We'll do it together, deal?
Person 1 says a slur about group X (slur defined as "group X says it's a slur").
and
Person 2 says a slur about group Y (slur defined as "group Y says it's a slur").
Person 1's Twitter account gets locked. Person 2's Twitter account stays open.
One of these people calls herself a conservative; the other calls herself a liberal.
Which of these two people do you, TFG, think is more likely to be the conservative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better question: For what reason does it matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If by "For what reason does it matter" you mean "in American society", I never said it did. Not what I'm discussing.
If by "For what reason does it matter" you mean "on Techdirt", it matters because Masnick and Techdirt writers think it matters. Conservatives complain they're being silenced, Masnick and company write an article about it.
Masnick et al say those conservatives are lying. I say Masnick et al are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you say doesn’t matter if you can’t back it up. Show us the data that says they’re lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Masnick et al say those conservatives are lying."
With documented evidence.
"I say Masnick et al are lying."
...with zero evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Paul, do you agree with the evidence Masnick presented, which was that people in Big Tech told him so?
If you don't believe me that that was his evidence - which I wouldn't blame you, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous - just check out his comment on this very page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paul, do you agree with the evidence Masnick presented, which was that people in Big Tech told him so?"
Masnick has no need to disprove the existence of Russel's Teapot.
You're the one with the extraordinary claim. Produce evidence to back your assertion or find it summarily dismissed.
So far we've got nothing but a horde of confirmed bigots clamoring that "conservatives" are being kicked off Twitter, aided by a few politicians who should know better.
And you, claiming this proves Twitter has an "anti-conservative" bias. Proving that claim is entirely up to you.
So far there's only two ways of doing that, looks like. And of the two you've opted the one where you try to convince us that the racism and bigotry those users were booted for is an inherent part of US conservatism.
By now I'm not sure whether you are a bigoted moron trying to look smart while persistently taking your own arguments out back and shooting them...or a smart guy with a hateboner against US conservatives trying to look like a bigoted moron.
Either way the only message you're bringing is that US conservatives should be considered hateful bigots and racists. That surely can't be the end you were aiming for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scary, you like to talk a lot about "should be" and "were" and "if". That's fine for discussing philosophy and history and thought experiments.
However, we're talking about the world we actually live in, which is a world of "are". "Are" is reality.
You said I think: "US conservatives should be considered hateful bigots and racists." That got very close to what I actually said. Very close indeed!
Change two words and you have exactly what I'm saying:
"US conservatives are considered hateful bigots and racists."
YES. Precisely what I've said from the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given we're talking about reality, where is the evidence that what you claim is happening is actually happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
And there's your problem. Obviously, bigots don't usually consider themselves bigots. I can't count how many times I've heard someone say "I'm not racist but..." immediately before saying something racist. But believing yourself to be or not be something does not make it true.
If you say bigoted things then you are a bigot. End of story. If most conservatives say things that are bigoted then most conservatives are bigots. If they get the boot from Facebook, Twitter, etc it is their own damn fault for being terrible people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
So you are amongst the many commenters here who admit that:
1) conservative opinions = bigoted opinions, ergo conservatives = bigots
2) Ergo, the opposite of conservative (liberals) = non-bigots
3) bigots get banned by Big Tech more than non-bigots
...so can you bring yourself to finish to the conclusion, the one that I think only one or two commenters have been honest enough to say, the one that is inevitable if both 1, 2, and 3 are true, as you yourself stated...
4) that conservatives get banned by Big Tech more than liberals
And #4 is what Techdirt is saying is a myth; that is, they're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
See, your inability to handle basic logic, as you demonstrated so handily just above, is why your bullshit claims keep failing so miserably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
What is actually happening:
1) Right-wing bigotry gets banned
2) Left-wing bigotry (which only some dipshit's strawman claims doesn't exist) also gets banned
3) In the real world, both "sides"' bigotry gets moderated at essentially the same ratio as it appears.
4) Thus, to claim that right-wingers are banned "disproportionately" without and against evidence is the lie, no matter how much louder the right-wing snowflakes REEEEE-ing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
To the innumerate, 81 vs 9 results in raw numbers might look "disproportionate."
But the input split is 90/10, and both are hit equally for 90%
What would be biased, disproportionate treatment would be if the result were an 89/1 out of 90/10 input, but that's what here's zero provided evidence of happening in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
(Well, the actual discussion was conservative versus liberal opinions, not right-wing versus left-wing opinions. It becomes to easy for people to throw in outliers like Maoists and National Socialists and Stalinites and Fascists and Hebrew Israelites and British Israelists. None of whom anyone sensible claims are either conservative or liberal, in the United States, in 2020.)
So, as I've provided numerous examples above of conservative positions - that conservatives themselves claim as conservative - that are considered bigotry in 2020.
Please, Toom, sincerely, provide examples of liberal positions - that liberals themselves claim as liberal - that are considered bigotry in 2020. I guess I must be a "dipshit", but I sincerely can't think of a single one. If it's a strawman to make that claim, please enlighten me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You have not provided evidence of disproportionate moderation actions against those with "conservative" viewpoints, despite saying you can.
Where is your evidence? If you are honest, you will support your premise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Toom, you have not provided evidence of such a thing as a liberal position considered bigotr….
Oops, sorry, TFG …. I had been talking to Toom.
Our conversation, TFG, was elsewhere. You responded to the wrong thread. Oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
I responded to the threat I meant to respond to. Please provide the evidence you said you could provide, and have since ignored all calls to provide it.
Your failure to do so indicates you were lying about being able to provide it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
Our conversation, TFG, was elsewhere. You responded to the wrong thread. Oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
I responded to the thread I meant to respond to.
Where is the data you said you could provide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Now that it's morning and not the wee hours of the night, I want to clarify the wording of this post.
The word "bigotry" I used for the sake of brevity was more an inartful catchall for what actually triggers moderation action: behavior - The bullying, harassment, slurs, lying, and disinformation-spreading that are what are more against sites' TOS than the troll AC's myopic distraction of 'bigotry.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
We're still waiting, Toom, for the liberal positions that are considered bigotry in 2020.
They are...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a conservative expresses opinions equated with bigotry, yes, they are a bigot. If conservatives as a group express more bigotry than not, or refuse to condemn such expressions of bigotry, the same conclusion applies. And I’d hold the same for liberals/progressives as well.
Liberals/progressives can be bigots. But they’re less likely to be bigots — or, at least, to openly express their bigotry — because they generally hold more inclusive political beliefs.
Other than platforms run by actual bigots, who would want to run a platform full of bigots?
The Plaintiff's failure to cite the substance of their claims, as is required for those claims to be taken seriously, compels dismissal. (In other words: Show us the data that proves your claim or have it dismissed entirely.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's interesting that almost every time I ask a question of a specific commenter, that commenter never answers … but other commenters do. I wonder why that is?
Stone, I've given several examples of conservative positions, that prominent and recognized conservatives state are conservative positions …. that are now in 2020 considered bigotry. And those opinions, because they're bigotry circa 2020, get the conservatives kicked off social media. LBGT seems to be he one you've highlighted, but there's also affirmative action, trans, illegal immigration, racism in policing, probably a dozen more.
I'd be very interested to see your (or anyone here's) examples of liberal positions, that prominent and recognized liberals state are liberal positions … that are in 2020 considered bigotry. I honestly cannot think of a single one. Maybe there's a blind spot I'm not seeing, but I can't.
(Again, liberals have to claim them as liberal positions.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Catch your red herrings yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s how message boards and comments sections work. Learn to live with it.
No, you’ve given examples of political positions that conservatives in general are prone to hold. Not that long ago, such positions might’ve been held by a large number of liberals/progressives as well. (Being pro–LGBT civil rights, for example, wasn’t a politically “safe” position for both “sides” for a long time. It still isn’t for conservatives in general, but that’s what you get when you hinge all your success on bigots, evangelical Christians, incels, and alt-right chuds.)
Yes, society and what it generally considers “acceptable” has changed since you were born. Imagine that~.
It’s not the opinions themselves, it’s the expressions thereof. I’m fairly certain you could find tweets on a Twitter account for a conservative Christian blog that link to anti-LGBT posts. But so long as those tweets don’t contain language that violates the Twitter TOS, the account likely won’t face any punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd be very interested in seeing you actually provide the evidence of anti-conservative bias that you said you could provide.
Where is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I'd be very interested in seeing you … etc"
You would, TFG? Why is this the first I'm hearing of it?!
You probably ought to copy/paste the same question all over the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you provided what you were asked to provide instead of haring off to do anything other than the one thing that would show your argument has merit, we could finally move on to the next thing, instead of returning to the one critical point that you refuse to address.
Please provide the data you said you had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You probably ought to copy/paste the same question all over the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
That AC troll set up a pretty transparent strawman here by re-wording the "There's no real-world evidence that Conservatives are being disproportionately banned" fact into his "So you're saying no conservatives are banned from anywhere, ever" fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
He came equipped with mobile goalposts from the start because that's what bad-faith trolls do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
The answer to your question is that Techdirt is located in CA where the people are ALL this way.
If that gives you pause then consider that the head of DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, et are ALL in DC and that everybody in DC is this way.
And if that sets you back consider ALL the financial dealings occur in NYC and they are the same way.
What makes these places so different?
Could it be that they they are ALL propagandized by the same main Stream Media.
Now consider that the ALL the main stream media is controlled (not owned) by the same small click which has an agenda, not of truth but propaganda, their way or the highway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
Yeah, being against human rights is hate speech. Who would have guessed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
(This)[https://www.grammarbank.com/reading-comprehension-test.html] might help you see where you went wrong with that conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
One of Techdirt's weirdest editorial policies is this constant claim that conservative voices aren't being silenced by Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
It's not an "editorial policy," it's called being accurate. We have yet to see ANY legit evidence to support this claim.
This is factually untrue and I don't understand how anybody can say it with a straight face (and expect to be taken seriously).
Because no one seems to be able to present any evidence to support the claim. You saying "it's obvious" is not evidence.
You living in an echochamber of conservative snowflakes whining is not evidence. Just because you don't see people outside of your bubble also getting moderated on these platforms doesn't mean it's not happening.
What Techdirt seems to claim is that no, conservatives aren't being deplatformed, only "hate speech" that violates TOS.
That's not what we say at all. What we say is there is no evidence that any of the policy making is disproportionately impacting conservative viewpoints. And we would never say "only hate speech that violates TOS". Have you seen what we've written about hate speech?
The problem with this viewpoint is that in the past "hate speech" was limited...
Again, you are arguing against a straw man. We have regularly pointing out how hate speech policies are abused.
Those have been and still are the viewpoints of the majority of American conservatives. Many of those same viewpoints are now banned by various terms of service.
You're now arguing something different. That traditional conservative viewpoints are considered hate speech. I see many others in the comments have challenged that claim. For what it's worth, it certainly appears that merely expressing opinions on any of the subjects you list above is not regularly being banned. What is being banned is when the discussion of those topics is used not to debate, but to attack, diminish, intimidate, and threaten. And those seem like legitimate reasons to moderate someone -- not for their views, but for their actions.
It's fine if Techdirt thinks those conservative opinions being silenced is a good thing … but to claim it's not happening is just ridiculous.
Again, no one has yet shown any evidence to support this claim -- least of all you.
It's a disingenuous claim, and it makes you look foolish. It is very clearly happening. "Who you gonna believe; Techdirt or your lying eyes"?
It is not disingenuous, because, again, no one has provided any evidence, and all of the evidence I have seen has suggested it's bullshit. The problem is you live in a bubble of whiny snowflakes who dish it out but can't take it. And when someone calls them on their boorish behavior, they crumple like little whiny victims.
Find yourself a better crowd of people to surround yourself with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Mr. Masnick, can you answer this question honestly?
Between two groups of Twitter users:
Members of Group A) say they personally agree with: Russel Kirk, Rush Limbaugh, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, William Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter.
and
Members of Group B) say they personally agree with: William Spock, Robert Reich, Bertrand Russell, Betty Friedan, Eleanor Roosevelt, Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, Howard Zinn.
Which do you think has had a higher percentage of their users booted for TOS violations, Group A or Group B?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Your question asks for an opinion in the absence of evidence and data to inform that opinion. You are asking for an honest answer to a question that fails to mean anything in the matter being discussed, as it can only ever be based off of assumptions that run the very real risk of being inherently flawed.
Can you provide data that displays a statistically significant trend of "conservatives" being disproportinately moderated for their views, and not for their methods of expressing those views?
This is going on the tenth ask of this, with no straight answer. Can you answer this honestly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Group B - now prove me wrong.
This is exactly the same argument you're making absent any factual data to prove otherwise. There should be no reason for me to provide any other justification apart from "that's what I think because I know someone who heard from someone, who knew someone that read that someone complained about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Group B? I don't have to prove you wrong.
Because there're basically two explanations why someone would say Group B:
or
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Can you provide data that displays a statistically significant trend of "conservatives" being disproportinately moderated for their views, and not for their methods of expressing those views?
Or will you continue to ignore this question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
TFG -
Let me address your point so you can rest your Gish gallop. I acknowledge your tone argument question. I will answer it (well, that's up to you to decide, actually) - after I can get a straight answer from you. So far you just keep sliding around the issues I've raised. This could be one of those discussions where one side keeps answering questions (me) and the other side keeps not answering questions (you). But those aren't discussions, they're you basically telling me you're not interesting to talk to.
"Absence of evidence and data"? What are you talking about? The question was self-contained. I asked for Masnick's opinion on a likelihood given the parameters of the question. Simple.
The reason you won't answer it yourself, TFG, is because if you say:
I mean, it's an extremely simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Gish gallop is a bunch of questions. TFG is asking you only one: Can you provide data that displays a statistically significant trend of "conservatives" being disproportinately moderated for their views, and not for their methods of expressing those views?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I have asked you exactly one question multiple times in different ways, which you continue to ignore. I will continue to ask it until you answer it, or just stop talking.
Can you provide data that displays a statistically significant trend of "conservatives" being disproportinately moderated for their views, and not for their methods of expressing those views?
You see, this particular question is the at the root of everything. All of the issues that you have raised are predicated on the idea that the bias exists. This question asks you provide evidence that the bias exists.
If you cannot provide evidence that the bias exists, none of the issues you have raised exist.
You keep sliding around this very simple, very critical point. I would appreciate an honest answer from you, instead of questions that cannot be answered honestly in the absence of the evidence I am asking you for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Group A will have more people booted than group B. The reason is simple: There are more bigots in group A who can't keep their stupidity to themselves and regularly excrete textual diarrhea all over the internet. Platforms that don't like textual diarrhea boot the excreters. Simple.
If everyone could behave like civil people not trying to rile others up then none of the above would happen.
Liberals tend to view others of all stripes more favorably. They don't require everyone around them have the same skin color, worship the same god, prefer a "correct" gender or even hold the same political views. Conservatives tend to be the exact opposite of that: bigots.
When a liberal takes to the public stage they generally don't engage in discrimination to make their political points. Bigotry is almost exclusively the only point conservatives have.
I mean, do the math. Admit that conservative are bigots and we could have a much shorter and more productive conversation instead of all this "You answer first!" "No, you!" bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Holy hell, yes, this is the honest answer. Thank you, sir, whoever you are, it's a breath of fresh air.
(See, TFG, it's not that hard to answer a simple question. This guy did it.)
And I will answer him honestly as well...
Yes, I admit that by the 2020 definition of what is considered bigotry, conservatives are bigots. As I said earlier, all these are now considered bigotry, and are also traditional conservative positions: being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, transgender rights, affirmative action.
I've stated this all explicitly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
If it's not hard to answer a simple question, why haven't you answered the one that I've been asking you since the beginning?
Do you have any data to support your supposition? See, this guy doesn't. He's pulling his answer out of a morass of assumptions based on anecdotal observation. There's no evidence that shows he is correct.
There's no evidence that shows you are correct.
Will you provide evidence that the bias you claim exists actually exists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
There's no evidence that shows he is not. There's simply no published evidence either way. But why argue over this detail? There's no political group trying to investigate a perceived anti-liberal bias so why not accept that probably more conservatives get kicked than liberals? Why belabor this point for so long unless your goal is to simply feed the troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Because this detail is the foundation on which everything rests. The idea that there is a anti-conservative bias has been spun out of nothing. There is no evidence that it exists - or if there is, no one has ever bothered to provide it.
Without evidence of its existence, it does not exist, and all claims around it are meaningless. Everything else is fluff, nonsense, and misdirection.
There is no discussion unless the basic premise can be supported. I belabor this point for so long because I want to show that, once again, there are claims here that are based dreams. I'm force-feeding the troll a brick wall.
I'm That Fucking Guy. I will do this until they either put up, shut up, or miraculously come around to my point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Well, if by 'shut up', you mean, am I gonna walk away from the computer at some point? Yes.
If by coming around to your point of view, you mean, am I also gonna start lying about an obvious fact? Nope.
If by 'put up', you mean am I going to answer all your questions and not get any of mine answered by you? Nope.
For the gentleman at 3:47 who said "There's simply no published evidence either way." Oh yes, there is definitely, absolutely published evidence in one direction: that conservatives are four times more likely to be booted from Twitter than are liberals. Just not from any source TFG wouldn't find a way to ignore.
TFG, you can call me a troll, a dreamer, etc. Really I've not said anything ad hominem about you or Masnick. Unless you consider "liar" to be ad hominem.
'Cause you definitely are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
By 'put up' I mean provide the evidence that supports your premise, on which everything else is based. You've said elsewhere you have it.
So show it.
Without, I guess you're just ... lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
Are you arguing that there is no anti-conservative bias? Or only that this poster hasn't offered any evidence that there is? The meaning of all this is getting lost...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
Nope, many times you've asked me if I have evidence back up my claim.
And each time, I've answered: Yes. Every person with access to the internet has it.
"So show it" … oh, I see the problem. You didn't ask me if I will show it. If that's your question, I'll answer it the same way I did before, which is: that's up to you, TFG... I will provide the evidence after you answer my many questions to you... none of which you've answered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You made the claim first. Prove it or shove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expl
My first ever ask of you was for the data itself: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200520/09524444537/so-wait-people-really-think-barr-dojs-investi gation-into-google-is-good-faith.shtml#c247
The version you answered was shortened for the sake of brevity. If we're going off of chronology, I asked you first.
I prefer logic, though. Your questions all flow from your unsubstantiated premise that conservative viewpoints are disproportionately moderated against.
I take issue with the premise, since there is no evidence that it is true. Your questions are meaningless in light of the unsupported premise.
Support your premise first, and then your questions may have merit.
Provide the evidence you said you had. Or were you lying when you said had it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No response? I guess they were lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They"?
Do you think I'm a group of people?
Or is this one of those ze, zim, Latinx things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me the evidence you said you could, you liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
He's going to continue to ignore the question.
You can't prove what isn't true.
He knows it. At this point, he's being the typical dicktard that gets kicked off other forums for gaslighting. Then he can chime in on how he's persecuted for his views.
Typical victim mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
By the widely recognized definition of gaslighting: some person or group claims Event X is happening. But this person or group is repeatedly told "nope, it's all in your mind … Event X is not happening." The thing is, Event X definitely is happening, it's obvious. But some person or group of people (the gaslighter(s)) keep saying Event X is not happening. They are gaslighting; i.e. they are lying.
"Nope, I know you think the Titanic is sinking, but it's all in your mind. I know everyone around you is also saying the Titanic is sinking, but that's not true. I know you're drowning right now. I know you're trying to climb into our lifeboat. I know everyone else in the water is also drowning. I know everyone, including me and everyone else in this lifeboat are currently watching the ship go from parallel of the ocean surface to perpendicular to the surface. But the Titanic is not sinking. Something else is happening. But the ship's not sinking."
Gaslighting.
"Nope, I know many more conservatives than liberals are complaining they're being booted from social media by Big Tech. I know that many more conservatives than liberals in fact have had Twitter accounts that are now closed. I know that many more conservatives than liberals in fact have YouTube videos that once had advertising are now demonetized. But it's not that Big Tech is censoring conservatives disproportionately to liberals. That's not happening. It's all in your mind."
Gaslighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick question: Even if conservatives are being disproportionately banned from Big Tech platforms, for what reason should anyone care? Those conservatives can always go start their own platforms and show people how to do it “right”, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, you want me to copy/paste my response from when I answered this the eight other times you asked?
I will, if you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By your logic, if you said “Group A”, we wouldn’t have to prove you wrong, either.
Either offer statisically significant proof that Twitter punishes self-identified conservatives more than it punishes self-identified liberals/progressives or shut the hell up about the alleged “anti-conservative bias”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Since you claim conservatives are being silenced at a disporportionate rate are you?
A) You are Deliberately lying. Maybe for rhetorical or debate purposes, which is my guess. But either way, they're saying something they know to be a untrue (aka lying).
or
B) You are really - and I mean really - stupid. As in, ignorant of reality, not smart, mentally retarded, unqualified to care for themselves, or a combination. But either way, adult humans should consider them unworthy of engaging with intellectually.
So come on, which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
It's even simpler than that.
Every time this topic comes up here it always, without fail, boils down to a few vocal conservatives admitting that they're bigots without actually using those words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yes, and, I agree with everything you said … but finish up your point....
You said "if conservatives are disproportionately being banned, it's because of X, Y, Z".
Now, finish your point. ARE they being disproportionally being banned?
Because that is what Techdirt is denying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Well, buddy? Are they?
There's no evidence that shows they are. Can you provide the evidence that shows they are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
TFG, leaving aside the question of whether it's actually happening, do you think there are more conservatives complaining about being booted from Twitter, or more liberals complaining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I will not leave aside the question of whether it's actually happening. That is the whole entire question - everything else is fluff. Is it actually happening? Can you provide evidence that it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Yeah, TFG, again, we get that the only questions you are interested in are the ones you ask. We get that you don't have any convictions.
Here, I'll answer the questions you just asked me:
"Is it actually happening?" Yep.
"Can you provide evidence that it is?" Yep.
Asked and answered, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Okay then. Do so. Time to put up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
Because there're basically two explanations why someone would deny conservatives are more likely to be booted from Twitter for any reason than are liberals:
◾They're deliberately lying. They're saying something they know to be a untrue (aka lying), and unworthy of engaging with intellectually.
or
◾They're really - and I mean really - stupid. As in, ignorant of reality, not smart, and unworthy of engaging with intellectually.
TFG, I think you're probably not stupid, leading me to conclude you're just a liar. But either way , unworthy of engaging with intellectually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
Nothing in this post has any relevance to what I requested.
You said you could provide evidence. Provide the evidence.
Or were you lying when you said you could provide evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet you keep trying to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, that's true, sir. I do bring it upon myself by bothering to respond to TFG, when he's already expressed his opinion that no evidence will be good enough for him, won't answer extremely simple questions that require no outside or additional work, just a 'yes' or 'no'. In other words, he's arguing in bad faith.
Even if TFG doesn't have convictions and is therefore unworthy of being engaged intellectually by adults, there are definitely people reading this discussion with convictions who might say "You know what, he has a point … for some reason conservatives are being disproportionately censored from social media".
They're not the Blue Checkmark commenters. They're not the ones who flag comments, nor are they the ones who don't open flagged comments for fear of seeing an opinion they don't like. And for the most part they're not even going to comment as an Anon.
But the probability suggests that there are lurkers out there reading this who formerly believed Masnick's cadre's lies but now no longer do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence. Provide stastically significant data that proves Twitter punishes conservatives more than liberals/progressives at disproportionate rates. We’ll gladly take a look at it to see if we draw the same conclusions as you. Until then: Your failure to cite the substance of your claims, as is required for those claims to be taken seriously, compels dismissal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. I laid out the requirements for evidence to be accepted from the very beginning.
Against the backdrop of millions of moderation actions per day, small datasets vanish into meaninglessness. Anecdotal evidence (which, interestingly enough, hasn't been presented by this particular AC, making me wonder if they even have that) isn't going to cut it.
I've asked for one thing from the start, and rather than answer honestly, it's been evasion, evasion, evasion.
Put up evidence or admit it doesn't exist. It's very simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
I believe they are banned at a greater rate than liberals. Liberals get banned, too, as asshattery is not the exclusive domain of conservatives. But I'm fairly sure, completely without evidence, that more conservatives get banned than liberals due to taking bigotry, a central tenet of ignorant conservatives, too far.
Not all conservatives are assholes and not all liberals are wonderful people. Dickheadedness spans the aisle. But when your biggest complaints boil down to bigotry, perhaps find a better way to discuss the issues without resorting to racial slurs, moronic slang and deaf, blind, unsubstantiated attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
You believe conservatives are banned at a greater rate than liberals.
You have that belief because you have eyes, ears, a brain, and a tendency towards honesty.
I think Masnick's Blue Checkmarks have the first three. It's the last one they struggle with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
"Masnick's Blue Checkmarks "
I'm interested in the use of this phrase. Are you honestly trying to suggest that having a login here either means that an identity has been verified or that Mike has any control over how we utilise our free speech?
If so, you're even dumber than I thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
No, I didn't mean Masnick has verified you. My bad for not clearly communicating.
"Masnick's Blue Checkmarks" means you're all - to a man, woman, otherkin, and clovergender - Masnick's sycophants.
Did that clear it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
So all those others that clearly display conservative views here that also have an account are sycophants?
I'm not in the least surprised that you willingly insult them too, since it seems you are like a poo-flinging monkey (which is an insult to poo-flinging monkeys because they don't know any better). Your life must really suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
Rocky, please let me know the Usernames of the people with Techdirt accounts on this page to whom you're referring. I don't mean other pages, I mean this comment section.
Because, so far, all the Blue Checkmarks in this comment section countenance and endorse Masnick's lying.
I've seen:
If you'll kindly let me know the normal Americans with an account who've weighed in here, I'd appreciate it. So far, it's obsequious grovelers across the board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Masnick's lying"
Blue checkmarks... are you meaning the insightful flags? I am not seeing literal blue checkmarks.
You might get further by neutralizing your language.
Because, so far, all the Blue Checkmarks in this comment section countenance and endorse Masnick's assertions
...Masnick's position
...Masnick's claims
Once you start using hyperbolic language, it marks your comments not as positional or argumentative, but as propagandistic and desperate.
At least it does to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Masnick's lying"
Uriel, I agree with you about hyperbolic language.
However, Masnick's assertion/position/claim is that conservatives aren't disproportionally censored by Big Tech.
Which he knows to be untrue. Which means he's lying.
If you can show me any (non-anonymous) commenter here so far who - in clear language - admits Masnick is lying, I'll eat crow.
(Has to be in clear, unambiguous language though; many have come extremely close to it, but wilt at the last moment in the face of the firestorm they know would erupt.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Masnick's lying"
"Which he knows to be untrue. Which means he's lying."
No, it means he's waiting for one of you knuckleheads to provide any evidence of that assertion. Given that there are still zero citations, we have to assume that it is you who is lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
I don't have an account. I just type a name in on each comment. Sometimes I forget.
By the way. Evidence. Got it or no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
So now you want to qualify what you said about ALL accounts earlier? You aren't a particularly honest person, are you? As I said earlier, your life must really suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, I'm reminded...
That's Oliver Crangle, a dealer in petulance and poison. He's rather arbitrarily chosen four o'clock as his personal Götterdämmerung, and we are about to watch the metamorphosis of a twisted fanatic, poisoned by the gangrene of prejudice, to the status of an avenging angel, upright and omniscient, dedicated and fearsome. Whatever your clocks say, it's four o'clock, and wherever you are it happens to be the Twilight Zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To
Yea and no.
It was never really unclear that you had nothing but deranged hallucinations backing your positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This
Toom, let me know the part(s) of anything Masnick said in this comment section that you vehemently disagree with so I can count you as the first non-sycophant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain
Let me know when you have an argument that is backed up by more than dreams and make-believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter. Twitter can legally boot anyone from either group over their political beliefs. Show me the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, it only "doesn't matter" if the premise is that someone here said Twitter is or should be required to host those opinions.
However, that's not the premise.
The premise is: Big Tech policies disproportionally boot conservatives. Techdirt knows this. Techdirt claims otherwise. Techdirt is lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To prove your premise, you first must prove that
A) Big Tech policies disproportionately boot conservatives (for conservative veiwpoints, and not because of bad behavior in expressing those viewpoints)
B) That Techdirt does, in fact, know this, by showing that the evidence for A) exists and that it has been presented to this.
Techdirt claims otherwise because evidence for this bias has never been presented. You want to prove they are lying? Put up with the evidence that shows it, like you have been asked to do around a dozen times now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can believe that all you want, go right the hell ahead. But if you want me to believe it, I’ll need more than the say-so of some random jackoff in a tech blog’s comments section. Show me evidence that proves Twitter punishes conservatives at a higher rate than liberals/progressives. Give me statistically significant data, too, because the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
If’n you can’t do that, well, that sounds like a personal problem. Don’t expect me to solve it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes … and ... between self-identified conservatives and self-identified liberals, which do you think are more often considered bigots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Answer the question:
Can you provide data supporting the proposed conservative bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TFG, how many times do you want me to answer it?
YES. Can you read? The answer to your question is YES.
Asked and answered, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time I've asked it, you had yet to answer it.
Now, since you can provide the evidence, do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he can't. That's why this is the same conversation that happened further up the chain.
If he could have, he already would have. The fact that this is 160+ comments long without any data proves it.
Just another troll, who's convinced that conservatives are being persecuted. When will you guys ever win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say persecuted. Masnick kind of claimed I said conservatives are persecuted victims. (Actually, he went a step further and said I claimed I am a persecuted victim.) Which, if it'll help anyone avoid the unnecessary step of putting words in my mouth (when I've said plenty outright that makes Masnick and co uncomfortable) … here: No, I'm not being persecuted, and no, conservatives aren't being persecuted.
Well, I understand the tactic of just calling someone who's opinions you don't like a "troll". It's not really why the word was invented or used, but I understand it's part of the vernacular nowadays, and used quite often here.
However, Techdirt has provided a very handy way for you to avoid scary opinions that make you uncomfortable or do something you prefer not to do, like think critically.
It's the handy red button, that just hides all the scary opinions that Techdirt commenters don't want to have to encounter. After I switched computers and saw that nearly every comment I've made has been "flagged as abusive/spam/trolling", you're protected now.
My advice, so you can sleep without a nightlight, don't expand anything (comments, your mind, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ve claimed, over and over again, that conservatives have been disproportionately moderated by Twitter. Your claim is one step removed from “conservatives are being censored by Twitter”, which all but denotes a type of persecution (censorship based on political belief). The only reason you’re playing semantics now is because people challenged the validity of your claim, you refused to back it up, and now you need a way to backpedal at least some of your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, not backpedaling. That would imply I've changed anything I've said.
Stone, here, does this make it clear?:
I know you giving you even the slightest reason to dig really deeply into your fetish for describing your self-invented differences between moderation and censorship and, well, frankly, I forget your other favorite buzzwords. Which is why I try, when I can remember, to not get you all excited by using the "C" word.
Which means we've found yet another Stone definition that doesn't match whatsoever the rest of the English-speaking world's definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please provide the data that shows this is happening. The data you said you had, and could provide. The data that you've been asked for since the beginning, and have never once attempted to provide.
That data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation, censorship, and discretion — and trust me when I say that you’re gonna want to hold onto that thought. 😁
I understand that claim. I don’t understand how you can make that claim and refuse, multiple times at the insistence of multiple people, to prove your claim with actual data.
Twitter admins moderating speech on Twitter is not “censorship”. I once made a post that used an anti-gay slur in a discussion that attacked anti-gay attitudes, and I got dinged for it — but Twitter didn’t tell me I couldn’t go say “f⸺t” anywhere else on the Internet. Suppression of speech — that is, actual censorship — involves the use of government power to either censor previously published speech, prevent the release of unpublished speech, or chill speech not yet said out of fear. That can be a government official using their position to intimidate critics into silence or a lay person threatening to sue over alleged “defamation” that isn’t. But Twitter saying “we don’t do that here”? That isn’t censorship.
…but again, hold onto that thought. 😁
Offer the proof that this happens. Then explain why I should care even if it does happen.
Most of your posts have involved saying “conservatives are banned on Twitter more than liberals based on political beliefs”, which is literally a step removed from “conservatives are being persecuted for their political beliefs”. That you are now trying to play semantics by saying “oh, conservatives are being banned more than liberals based on political beliefs, but that’s not persecution” is the backpedal. You are attempting to divorce your belief from the only reasonable interpretation of that belief. You have failed, at least, in trying to make me miss that backpedal.
Don’t pull semantics with me, son. You’re not intellectually equipped to play that game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, you don't know what "censorship" means. You don't know what "backpedaling" means.
Now we learn you don't even know what "literally" means?
It seems your grammar school English teachers weren't "intellectually equipped" to play that education "game" with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It bothers you that much that people visiting a small website can't read what you had to spout without clicking one line? So much so you had to switch to a different computer just to allay your own insecurities? Why does it mean so much to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you can attribute me switching computers to mean I did so to allay my insecurities. Or....
(Bear with me an pretend you're a non-sociopath for a second...)
… you can assume that I was at a certain location with one computer … and later I went to a different location where a different computer resides. And you can further assume I changed locations as the normal part of my daily routine, unrelated to allaying insecurities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your mouth-frothing rush to get the answers you were hoping for, you chose to return to this thread like a stereotypical beaten wife to clutch your pearls and tremble your lips in outrage. Maybe in some universe you think that doesn't sound like a sign of insecurity over your reputation as an anonymous nobody on the Internet, but whatever helps you sleeps at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Beaten wife".
You know, that font of humor called domestic abuse. Classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've been up in this thread for hours trying to defend the honor of a man who was made famous by his boast of grabbing women by their pussy. Beating women is your level of humor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please point me to the post where I defended President Trump.
Thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Give it time.
Impulse control was never a strong suit for your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Which do you think has had a higher percentage of their users booted for TOS violations, Group A or Group B?
I don't have the data, but if I had to guess, based on what I've seen and my conversations with the people at these companies, the answer is that it would be about even. You don't see this because you appear to only hang out in one of those groups, and not in the other, so you miss how moderation decisions also impact the other side.
Now, having read through many of your other comments here, I already know that your response to this is that I am either lying or stupid. You are free to have your opinion. What I will say is that in everything I have seen, and all of the information I have seen to date, I have seen NO EVIDENCE that there is any anti-conservative bias in how the platforms police their content.
There are efforts to stop abuse and harassment, and you seem wholly unaware that abuse and harassment occurs frequently across a variety of political beliefs. And people get moderated for it.
I have seen literally no evidence at all that there is any bias against conservatives, or that moderation has disproportionately impacted conservatives. If it is your position that conservatives are more likely to engage in abuse and harassment, that's an interesting position for you to take, but it is also one that I have not yet seen supported by the data.
If you have data to the contrary, please provide it. So far, in this thread, the only thing I've seen you present is "it's obvious," which is not evidence, and one misleading out of context link from Project Veritas, an organization that specializes in presenting information out of context and in misleading ways.
Neither of those are evidence of anti-conservative bias.
You cling to your faith-based belief that you are a persecuted victim. I get that. I think it's a little sad, but I see no reason to discuss this further unless and until you can present evidence, not your un-backed up claims of "obvious"ness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Mr. Masnick,
I see …
Project Veritas showing directly a Google exec saying they have to "prevent the next Trump situation"? Not evidence. (Oh, wait, Project Veritas was banned from YouTube? Hmmm.)
Sarah Jeong not being kicked from Twitter for saying things about white people; Candace Owens saying the same things but replacing "white" with "Jews" and immediately getting kicked off? Not evidence.
The dozens of articles her by your own writers on Techdirt about conservatives claiming they're being deplatformed? Not evidence.
Zero articles on Techdirt about liberals claiming they're being deplatformed? Not evidence.
A PhD conducting a 2019 study showing that of 22 prominent and explicitly political Twitter users kicked off the platform since 2005, 21 supported Donald Trump and 1 supported Hillary Clinton? Not evidence.
A 2018 Pew poll finding that 72% of Americans believe that Big Tech companies censor opinions they dislike; same poll finding that 43% of Americans believe that Big Tech favors left/liberal over right/conservative? Not evidence.
But your position, based apparently on people accused of banning conservatives saying to you, "nope, we're not doing that". That's evidence?
And my belief is "faith based"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence. Project Veritas lacks credibility. Facts don’t care about feelings or opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
When the bits of "evidence" you claim that aren't fabricated or "belief" don't even support your conclusion -
Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Project Veritas showing directly a Google exec saying they have to "prevent the next Trump situation"? Not evidence. (Oh, wait, Project Veritas was banned from YouTube? Hmmm.)
No. It's not evidence. It's evidence of typical Project Veritas shenanigans. The person in question was not in the content moderation team, and the comment, in context, was obviously about preventing RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION VIA FAKE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS. Whether or not you believe Russia interfered that way, you have to admit that it is reasonable for a site to not wish to have fake foreign propaganda invading its election. The person in question, who, again, was not particularly high level and not involved in content moderation, was just saying that Google is trying to put in place policies to prevent their system from being gamed for nefarious purposes.
That is not, in any way, evidence of "anti-conservative bias." Google's policies on things like that apply equally to "liberals" like Tulsi Gabbard. And she's sued the company claiming they were biased against her too.
Sarah Jeong not being kicked from Twitter for saying things about white people; Candace Owens saying the same things but replacing "white" with "Jews" and immediately getting kicked off? Not evidence.
See this is where you DO need to get out of your bubble. Sarah had her account frozen over her tweets. She eventually had to delete some tweets to get her account back. She just didn't whine publicly about it like the crowd you hang out with. And, even then, Sarah's comments in context were clearly not racist. They were making fun of racists. But even so, Twitter froze her account.
So... nope. Not evidence that supports your viewpoint. Also, just a single anecdote, and one where youare wrong.
The dozens of articles her by your own writers on Techdirt about conservatives claiming they're being deplatformed? Not evidence.
Can you point to those actual articles? Because I am unaware of them. I've seen some whining from people, but not a single one has shown that they've been deplatformed for conservative ideas. Either way, it sounds like more anecdotes, and not data.
Zero articles on Techdirt about liberals claiming they're being deplatformed? Not evidence.
Do you not read Techdirt? There have been people on the "liberal" spectrum complaining about moderation, including the aforementioned Gabbard. We've had stories about LGBT people deplatformed. I've written about people who had their accounts shut down for repeating racist slurs that were said to them. There have been plenty of stories. Just recently, I wrote about Cory Doctorow's account being shutdown because he was calling Trump fans "assholes."
It's just that when those happen, no one is stupid enough to claim they were hit for their "liberal" viewpoints.
So, no, not evidence -- other than of your own blindness and confirmation bias.
A PhD conducting a 2019 study showing that of 22 prominent and explicitly political Twitter users kicked off the platform since 2005, 21 supported Donald Trump and 1 supported Hillary Clinton? Not evidence.
No. Not evidence. We wrote about what a ridiculous, non-scientific study that was. It involved cherry picking data, and including things like the "American Nazi Party" as an example of a conservative account. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190221/16154641652/does-twitter-have-anti-conservative-bias-just -anti-nazi-bias.shtml
A 2018 Pew poll finding that 72% of Americans believe that Big Tech companies censor opinions they dislike; same poll finding that 43% of Americans believe that Big Tech favors left/liberal over right/conservative? Not evidence.
No, not evidence. What people believe -- often influenced by ignorant people like yourself spewing nonsense and trying to work the refs, has no power in terms of what is actually happening.
But your position, based apparently on people accused of banning conservatives saying to you, "nope, we're not doing that". That's evidence?
No. My position is on the evidence I've actually seen. You have failed to show any actual evidence to the contrary.
And my belief is "faith based"?
Yes. You should really stop that. It's silly. I thought conservatives were all about "facts not feelings." Yet you've been stomping around these comments spewing no facts, and only feelings. Grow up, snowflake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
A few of the things you said, I'll concede, since I was not aware of them, or you attempted to make valid points about them.
For instance, if the American Nazi Party was included as "conservative", that's not cricket. Right wing? Yes. Conservative? No.
However, by looking at the list of 21 right wingers banned versus the 1 left winger - right versus left being determined solely by explicit support of Trump versus Clinton - I bet we could remove obvious (we'd both agree are far right and not just conservative) names, like David Duke … and then even remove names that you'd claim are far right extremists (but identify as conservative, and more importantly, are identified as such by other conservatives) names, like Gavin McInnes … and I bet it'd still show what I've claimed all along: higher proportion of conservatives booted - for any reason - than liberals. (Kind of hard to overcome that glaring one liberal booted.)
I mean, do you want me to do that? I will give you those (my guess) 5-8 names if you want. But c'mon, we both know you'll find another reason to say it's not evidence. So, okay, consider that point conceded.
Here's the other point I'll concede: you say there are plenty of Techdirt articles about liberals claiming disproportionate banning by Big Tech. Okay, I'll take your word for it. I mean, I don't recall seeing any headlines that say "It's a Myth That Big Tech Censors Liberals". I've definitely never seen any tag called
"anti-liberal bias" - correct me if I'm wrong, maybe one exists. And you did a lot of hemming and hawing with the "oh, tons of liberals have said they're being deplatformed … they just, you know, don't 'whine' that it's because they're liberals". But okay, consider that point conceded.
The final point I’ll concede, but only because you misunderstood what I was saying, which was my fault for not writing clearly and for a typo.
“The dozens of articles her [sic] by your own writers on Techdirt about conservatives claiming they’re being deplatformed.” What I meant to say but was unclear, is that Techdirt definitely has many articles saying that conservatives are claiming they’re being deplatformed. I didn’t mean to imply your writers thought those claims were valid - only that they exist, which also proves (if nothing else) that lots and lots of conservatives make this claim. My point: you and your writers are aware conservatives are making this claim. Whether they’re lying or confused or insane is another question. I mean, one can argue that something happened to those videos, those accounts, those posts, etc. I don’t think there are any complaining conservatives “whining” about videos that are still monetized, accounts that aren’t deactivated, posts that aren’t deleted. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt … I guess you’re not? (Seems kind of silly to me if a conservative is saying “hey, Twitter permanently deactivated my account!” if you can go to Twitter and see, nope, it’s still there. Then, yep, that person is stating an untruth. If anyone’s doing that, I bet it’s a number infinitesimally small enough to be statistically zero.) But, okay point conceded, sir.
I won’t concede the point about the Google CEO saying “prevent the next Trump situation”. You say it was “obvious” she meant the Russian interference situation. We disagree there. I don’t think it’s obvious. I think if it was “obvious”, she’d have said “prevent the next Russian interference situation”. Not conceding that one, but I’ll let it lie, because – by being extremely naïve to the point of Pollyanism – one could (indeed, you did) give her every benefit of the doubt that, “yeah, she said Trump, but she meant Russian meddling”. Since that’s an interpretation (I submit a wrong one) that we could go back and forth on, I’ll let it lie.
The problem, Mr. Masnick, that you absolutely will in no way, shape, or form be able to overcome is the absolutely bold-faced lie that “No, no, Sarah Jeong was making fun of racists” when she said really hateful things about white people.
I guess your “proof” that she was only joshin’ when she said “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” … is that she claimed four years later that she was, what, I guess “kidding”? She was making fun, you see, of racists when she said “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions”. Her hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople”, well, I know it sounds like she advocates CANCELLING WHITE PEOPLE … but when she says “CancelWhitePeople”, what she means is …uhhh, racism is uhh, like, bad.
I mean, I know I apparently live in hivemind bubble, even though I pulled all those quotes from Vox.com. I know I’ve been looking for the last few hours for any proof to back up your claim that Twitter deleted them. What, in 2014 Twitter deleted them? If so, please show me where a reliable source said that. Or did you mean to say that someone (Jeong) deleted them after in 2018 after a few “persecuted victim whiner snowflakes” said, “Uh, hey NYT, are you absolutely certain you want a ‘white person canceller’ working for you?” Because, Vox.com in a 2018 article defending Jeong, said, quote “A survey of Jeong’s past commentary on Twitter reveals…” Meaning, a Vox.com researcher in August 2018 was able to go onto Twitter and see these tweets.
Now, I noticed you didn’t do the usual thing here when a ‘person of color’ is caught saying hateful things about white people, which is to say “Well, only white people can be racists, ‘cause of those like power dynamics in 2020 and slavery and Jim Crow and stuff” or “It’s not racist if the target is a white person, ‘cause, like, you know, ‘punching up’ and stuff”. So I guess it’s good that you didn’t pull that absolutely fake absurdity, which would’ve made you look fucking ridiculous.
No, instead you claim Jeong wasn’t expressing her sincere opinion that “white men are bullshit” or that she finds “joy” in being “cruel” to old white people. Which makes you an outright fucking liar. Ha, what a joke you are! Oh man, the absolute lack of awareness and scruples to think you could get that one by me (and the few non-Masnick-Yes-Men lurking here).
When all is said and done, it’s actually kind of nice to be considered a “snowflake whiner Nazi evil bad guy jerk” by such a bold, blatant LIAR such as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
And at the end of the day, you have not provide statistically significant evidence of disproportionate moderation.
Just anecdotal accounts.
Still waiting for you to put up what you said you could put up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And again I ask: So what? Conservatives don’t have a greater right than liberals to use Twitter. They don’t have any right to use Twitter. The same would be said about liberals if they tried to make that claim…
…but liberals in general don’t try to act like crucified martyrs for free speech by using a whole bunch of other platforms to claim that Big Tech “censored” them when they got the boot from one specific platform.
You’re right — it does prove nothing else.
You’re right — something did happen. Those things were deleted.
You’ve never heard of the concept of “shadowbanning”, have you, Squidward?
Jen Gennai was not, and still isn’t, the Chief Executive Officer of Google. She was (maybe still is?) an executive for one of Google’s myriad departments — in her case, the head of Responsible Innovation. Do not mistake one executive out of many for the highest executive in the company; you do only yourself a disservice when you spout such mistruths.
Also, what she said in the video provided by Project Veritas (which can’t be trusted to be the full, unedited video) was this: “We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn't just us, it was, the people got screwed over, media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we're rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.” That isn’t saying “Google is trying to stop Trump’s reëlection”; it’s saying “Google is trying to stop the same bullshit interference and disinformation campaigns that happened in 2016”. That anyone conflates the second interpretation with the first is their own problem.
You don’t know what “cancelling” means in this context, do you, Squidward?
Bigotry isn’t racism. Anyone can be bigoted and prejudiced. Racism requires an element of power — a privilege, you might say — that people of one race can wield over all others. And last time I checked, the United States was founded by [checks notes] a bunch of White men who thought White people should have the legal right to own Black people as property, enslaved Black people should only count as three-fifths of a person, and free Black people shouldn’t have any real civil rights at all. All of the major systems that hold the country together were founded on and largely continue to operate according to the myth of White supremacy.
In short: Black Americans can be bigoted as fuck, but only White Americans can be racist.
As a White man, it gives me great pleasure to say the following with complete sincerity: White men are bullshit. And so is the privilege they have by virtue of being White men in a society built to protect that privilege.
If you want to accept that label, nobody here will stop you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The following discussion is entirely separate from everything going before.
This is the first I'm hearing of the requirement for an unequal power dynamic as a component of racism. To my understanding, racism has always been, in all cases, bigotry predicated on the element of race, without further qualification.
I personally don't see any value in making that distinction, either. There are too many pitfalls in it, to my thinking. Being prejudiced based on race isn't racism just because they can't act on those prejudices in a wider manner?
What happens when there's an equal power dynamic? Consider the wide-spread racism against the Chinese ... and the racism the Chinese have against non-Chinese. In the context of someone in China and someone in the US of A having a racism-filled exchange, neither has a power dynamic over the other. Is it not racism, then?
It feels like the distinction is made to emphasize the lack of agency that Black Americans have had throughout the history of the US of A, but doing so in this manner appears disingenuous. Why not simply say "yes, that is also racist. It still does not excuse the history of and continuance of racism against non-Whites in the US of A, and there remains no systemic oppression of White people based on the factor of race."
In whatever manner is appropriate to a discussion. To my mind that does the best job of keeping things focused, while also not putting the 'hypocrisy' argument on the table, regardless of how specious it might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TFG, "This is the first [you're] hearing of" this?
If that blows your mind, you really ought to go down into the Orwellian bizarro world and check out this "intersectionality" concept.
It's a hoot. It might even make you begin questioning whether you want to continue siding with the camp you've chosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where's the data you said you could provide, my dude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short: Black Americans can be bigoted as fuck, but only White Americans can be racist.
I've seen this argument before and I still don't buy it, as it means that the exact same behavior, discriminating against someone simply because of their race is dependent not on the behavior but the location it takes place in as to whether or not it's racist.
A hypothetical to highlight what I see as the absurdity of this argument that came to mind the last time this argument came up was as follows:
Say you take the most racist white person in the US you can find and fly them to a country where whites are no longer the majority with the power but blacks are. The plane and staff on it are owned and employed respectively by the country they are going to. The racist in question does not in any way change their views or behaviors throughout the entire trip or after it. At what point during their trip do they stop being racist?
When the plane takes off?
When it leaves the country?
Just after the halfway point to the other country?
When it enters the other county's airspace?
When they land?
I'll agree that different types of racism can be more or less damaging depending on the power dynamic and history, but if you define racism as discrimination against a person or group due to their race then location doesn't matter and anyone of any race can be racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As a White man, it gives me great pleasure to say...: White men are bullshit."
I've heard this kind of thing before from other white people. All that hatred of ancestors and family members makes me sad. It makes me particularly sad for the children of parents who say this.
If your objective, Stone, was to make me sad for you, you succeeded. No sarcasm. It makes me sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Stone* , please explain...
"'Her hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople”, well, I know it sounds like she advocates CANCELLING WHITE PEOPLE'
You don’t know what “cancelling” means in this context, do you, Squidward?"
Stone, to me, "cancelling" sounds like erasing, destroying, making nonexistent, killing, wiping out. That's what it sounds like. "White people" are a thing, a group. Cancelling a group sounds like making that group not exist. And since this particular group is solely defined by an immutable characteristic, that sounds like genocide.
Maybe you're implying "cancelling" means only on the internet? If so, while not as disturbing as genocide in meatspace, it's still advocating not allowing white people on the internet. Which is still extremely disturbing.
Since you claim I don't understand the "context" of Jeong's posts, can you please explain how one can interpet this:
"oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men'
… as anything other than Sarah Jeong derives JOY (pleasure, ecstasy) from being CRUEL (mean, sadistic) to OLD (elderly, aged) WHITE MEN?
Please enlighten me on an alternate interpretation.
Also, I don't know what a squidword is, please explain. It's an insult(?) I've not encountered before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
HOLD IT...
WAIT..
Lets balance the field here..
EXPLAIN YOUR SIDE of conservative.. and how Conservative.
RED RIGHT RELIGIOUS..
Or Corporate stooge, led believing everything said by TV and evangelists.
And if you go by EITHER, then even the bible said God is the Judge, NOT YOU.
IF you want to follow the Old BS, Propaganda about the races.. you are Full of that same BS.
If you Love the thought that the blacks took your job...Then lets just say they GOT HERE the same way your forefathers DID..by SHIP.
And if you cant explain the Mentality of the EU white Man wondering the world Landing in a far away land and declaring THIS IS MINE, it belongs to MY country... Even tho it was discovered Long before and/or there were ALREADY PEOPLE THERE(just not yours). I loved how CHINA kicked all white Men OUT of the country. You took the ideal of Land ownership AROUND the world, when no one ELSE cared, and they SHARED the lands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost me there.
This [conservative voices aren't being silenced by webservices] is factually untrue...
Lost me there. If you're going to make a claim like that you need to cite examples or credible reports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lost me there.
Yes, I could start compiling a long list of could who've, say, had their Twitter accounts disabled or their YouTube accounts closed, but what would be the point?
What you and the rest of the Techdirt crew would do with the list is say a combination of the following:
Again, no point. Almost every other commenter here has essentially admitted conservatives are disproportionately booted by Big Tech. You dislike conservatives, so you think it's good - which is a valid opinion.
If only Techdirt would be honest and admit the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lost me there.
Actually backing up your claim with data, as you've been asked to multiple times.
We do not know this until you actually provide it. That's the whole point of proving the existence of a bias: you have to actually consider the left-wingers who get kicked off, and show that there is a real discrepancy. Failing to consider what happens to the "other side" leaves a giant gaping hole in your argument. After all, if the list of the "other side" getting kicked off is bigger, then where does that leave you?
So, yeah, you need provide the statistically significant data showing disproportionate moderation against "conservatives."
Method matters. Why they were booted is very important. To support your claim, you need to be able to show that they were booted for their views alone, and not because they broke out the slurs. If you can provide a statistically significant amount of instances where they were booted off without there being slurs, insults, etc., you have a leg to stand on.
There's every point. It's the only point. Put up the evidence, and we might actually believe you.
Techdirt is honest: they say there isn't any evidence that these claims are true, because no one has ever provided any.
Can you be honest and provide the evidence that shows the bias exists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lost me there.
then there is no point in trying to refute your point, and you lose by sheer magnitude of opinions...
There are a lot more AGAINST your stance than FOR it (based on the comments, not just stating an opinion and claiming it's a fact like 'some' are doing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Just let him forfeit. This utterly unproductive non-discussion has dragged on long enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
I disagree that it's been unproductive. I think many commenters on here have clarified their own positions, maybe even to themselves.
Some have said conservative opinion = bigoted opinion. A valid opinion.
Some have said conservative = bigot. A valid opinion.
Some have said conservative opinions should be censored from platforms. A valid opinion.
Some have said it's legal for Big Tech to censor conservatives. While I don't know of anybody who claims it's not (other than the curmudgeon that lives in Stone's head so he has someone to argue with), still, yep, a valid opinion.
And some - a few - have stated a fact: conservatives are disproportionally booted by Big Tech. Which isn't an opinion, it's a fact. The problem is Techdirt won't admit it's a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Which means you can prove it. Where's the proof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Yeah, kind of waiting for even one of you Blue Checkmarks to actually answer a question (honestly I mean, not for rhetoric purposes) before I answer any more of the dozens I've already addressed.
Barring everything else said here, do you (AnonAnonCoward) think there are more self-identified conservatives complaining about being banned, or more self-identified liberals complaining about the same?
And why is the group you named complaining more than the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Yeah, kind of waiting for you address the one question that you've been asked multiple times, without evading it.
Do you have evidence to provide, or do you not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
TFG, yes, for literally I think the third time, here is me directly answering the "one question" you've asked me multiple times, without evading it:
"Do you have evidence"?
Yes … as does anyone with eyes, ears, a functioning brain, and access to the internet.
Again, sir: asked and answered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
So you have it, now show it. Otherwise your just a gasbag blowing noise out your ass, and then lying about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Please provide the data, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
"Yes … as does anyone with eyes, ears, a functioning brain, and access to the internet."
Yes, and that states the opposite of what you're claiming. What is the rest of the world missing that's so easy to see? All I can see is whiny little children wanting to be let into the big boys club again after they were caught pissing in the coffee pot and saying it's not fair because Billy's still allowed in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
Paul, I'll say this for you: you have some pretty inventive analogies. This is one of a few from you I've seen.
I mean, they have nothing to do with reality, and sound like the word salad from a schizophrenic, but they're definitely unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives in general love to play the victim of mean ol’ Progressive Society because it helps with their right-wing grifts. An anti-LGBT activist is more likely to have people feel bad for them if they say “I’ve been silenced for expressing traditional values” instead of “I’ve been silenced for saying ‘we need to jail all the f⸺ts’ ”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, this'll help you grasp the definition of "backpedaling" you've been struggling with:
Elsewhere on here you've claimed you don't think "conservative" is necessarily synonymous with "bigot"
That's backpedaling. (Keep trying … you'll get it eventually. You can do it!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lost me there.
Let us suggest..
Why dont they create their OWN site to scream and yell and Curse all they want?
It ISNT that hard.
Its like the Old way, we used to have, in most parks. To stand up and Say/extol our comments to anyone that would listen.. But you had to bring your own soapbox..
Like TV, pay for the Channel, and Complain all you want. Become the Next Rush, Falwell, Tammy faye..NewsMax, Fox, Sinclair, Sky, OAN...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lost me there.
"Why dont they create their OWN site to scream and yell and Curse all they want?"
They did. Then they realised that they had almost no way of generating revenue, since nobody wants to advertise with them, and the toxic community that resulted would never grow enough to reach their needs by subs or other community funding. That's why they need to co-opt the platforms made by others.
"Become the Next Rush, Falwell, Tammy faye..NewsMax, Fox, Sinclair, Sky, OAN..."
Most of what you listed are too "liberal" for these morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
Being a sensible person, I disagree with your statement, "Most sensible people would agree that these American conservative viewpoints include being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action, etc.", therefore it's obvious that sensible people DO NOT agree with your viewpoint, which makes you the minority (even if you are a conservative).
Now for the PROOF... Please list all the posts, since there should be thousands the way you are ranting (or even 1 on each topic) that include the SUBJECTS gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, and affirmative action (used in a derogatory fashion, as conservatives do) that are posted by non-conservatives that are still up and not being 'taken down'. This is what's needed to prove your point, otherwise you are just a gasbag full of hot air who doesn't know when to shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
As to your first paragraph, are you straight-facedly telling me that the following people: William Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly, Rush Limbaugh, Russell Kirk … they are/were all for gay marriage? For affirmative action? For transgender rights (people with penises in girl's locker rooms, hormone blockers for minors, changing information on birth certificates, etc)? They want the influence of Islam to expand?
Because if you thought those things, you'd be wrong. Those things are defined by conservatives as conservative. And if you thought those people are far-right extremists and not considered "conservatives" by mainstream sources, you'd be wrong.
And in your second paragraph, I'll admit to being confused. (You said "non-conservative" … no, that could be a politically neutral person - we're talking bout the opposite of "conservative", which most agree means "liberal".) Because all those opinions above, a liberal would not (sincerely) express them...why would they? It'd make that person a conservative.
Or did you mean a liberal saying the exact opposite of those conservative opinions (i.e. saying liberal opinions)? Because if so, you're just proving my point. I am saying that conservative opinions are now being redefined as bigotry/hate/discrimination/choose whatever bad word you like to use, as violations of TOS. And liberal opinions are the opposite; they're allowed by TOS.
Now, if you think there is such a thing as a liberal position in 2020 - that is define by liberals as liberal - I would very much like to see it. I have thought quite hard and can't come up with a single example. If you can think of one, please enlighten me. I'd sincerely like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Are you straight-facedly telling me that a list of five people, with no explanation of the moderation actions taken against them, if any, is statistically significant?
There are millions of moderation actions per day. Five people is less than a rounding error.
If there is an anti-conservative bias, there should be hundreds of thousands of examples. Where is the evidence you said you could provide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous liberal positions
There are plenty.
It's typical among liberals to say they want a public-servicing federal government with a robust safety net for Americans, a fair justice system not driven by the private prison complex and a military agenda not driven by the military industrial complex. (I list the notorious AOC agenda that scared the snot out of Conservatives in 2018 here.)
However, we've watched Obama, Clinton and now Biden become our candidates who allegedly would move the US towards these goals. (Obama was the Hope and Change president... until he moved into office.) It's been a disappointing run across eras.
Now, watching the progressive agenda disintegrate in Washington, many of us (probably not most) are coming to terms that we may not be able to achieve our ends within a system in which the Boss Tweeds have tight control over the primaries and who becomes a candidate.
And some of us have realized that radical action now (involving the fourth box of liberty) may be the only way we can achieve the nation we want and the nation we were told as children the US was. Also a nation in which the rule of law prevails, and our society isn't stratified into aristocrats and peons, the former of which are afforded robust protections against excessive punishment and the latter of which are funneled into prisons from middle school.
While I can legally say (according to precedent) Nothing short of violent revolution will be necessary to turn the United States towards public service and rule-of-law I cannot say We need to revolt and take arms against the institutions of the US. The latter statement crossing into the realm of incitement, and Twitter might be obligated to remove it.
But I and some people in the US are pretty sure that the former statement is true, and that to make the United States into the nation of promise that we were taught, so is the latter, even if this means sacrificing ourselves to proverbially feed the tree of liberty, so that our children may prosper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous liberal positions
And if, instead of asking for "liberal positions in 2020 that would violate Big Tech rules" I asked for "dangerous liberal positions", your comment would be relevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dangerous liberal positions
Aren't you getting tired of moving the goal-post every time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terms of Service
You asked for a liberal position in 2020 that would violate TOS. TOS are not consistent between different web services, of which social media is a subset. It varies from place to place. Techdirt's TOS is more relaxed than most.
Hence I we can only broaden to scope to positions that might be regarded as dangerous or against the law. But this is to say such positions exist and people sometimes feel compelled to express them, at risk of being silenced, sometimes investigated or even arrested.
Not that US law enforcement is particularly fair about it. Incidents of arrests and big deals made due to benign social media posts are a common news bulletin on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification regarding Islam
Those of us who are not right-wing or conservatives are not (as I infer from your list) in favor of the expansion of Islam. Rather we we are concerned about the expansion of influence of any religious institution, especially when they pressure sociopolitical institutions to enact their creeds of faith into law.
Law should be secular and justified by secular causes, and just as concerned about a Mosaic state (or a Catholic state or an Anglican state) as a Sharia state. We're also concerned about non-religious ideologies guiding our legal systems, rather than utilitarian or contractarianist constructs defining the laws we live by.
(This is to say none of us are very good at making a legal system that actually works.)
At the same time we're not especially threatened by the philosophical Islamic state any more than we are about any other ambitions of globalized ideology (none of them have yet proven to be particularly good at sustaining a public-focused government). We don't like that Islamic state because of its use of violence and perpetual crimes against humanity to sustain itself. But it's the killing and oppression we have a problem with, not the religion. And we don't presume that all Islamic states have to enforce their existence through such measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification regarding Islam
Uriel, are you a self-identified liberal? I don't think you are, maybe I'm wrong. I'm aware you're left-wing, but I'm asking if you're a liberal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-identified
I've stated plenty of times that most of our self-identification labels (feminist, evangelist, conservative, furry, whatever) are not particularly useful. In groups this large we're going to find incidents of a full spectrum of positions, even ones that seem contrary to the expected axioms or creeds of that group.
(When researching a recent essay on explaining nondenominational churches I learned that only around 30% of the 80 million American self-identifying Evangelist Christians actually understand the bible enough to have opinions about it. The remaining put a fish on their car and wear a cross ornament and revel in their new justification to hate gays or sing on Sundays or not worry because Jesus is their copilot. So my position that labels are not all-that-useful stands firm.)
So, no, I'm one who is called far-left or left-wing. I'm called liberal, I agree with some policies that are labeled as progressive. I've recently been called an accellerationist for believing we will continue to fail to achieve a public serving government through within-the-system means. But I don't tend to take any label to heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain This To Me
"But in recent years, the definition of "hate speech" has vastly expanded to now include many viewpoints that have always been considered conservative . Most sensible people would agree that these American conservative viewpoints include being against gay marriage, illegal immigration, Islam, transgender rights, affirmative action, etc."
The same way being against women voting and the natural state of the black man being that of a slave was at one point considered core conservative values. They're not anymore.
Today if you call a black man the n-word you're being racist. No doubt about that. Same thing if you discriminate against someone because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
"Those have been and still are the viewpoints of the majority of American conservatives."
Let's hope not because if that were the case then american conservatives today occupy the same moral ground as the KKK.
"It's fine if Techdirt thinks those conservative opinions being silenced is a good thing … but to claim it's not happening is just ridiculous."
I think most commenters here on Techdirt actually give the "conservatives" the benefit of the doubt and assume that being a conservative isn't all about being defined by Fear and Hatred of the Other.
Are you really sure this is the hill you want to die on?
""Who you gonna believe; Techdirt or your lying eyes"?"
Well, we could assume you are correct and that todays american conservative is a venomous misogynist who defines himself by hatred and fear whose closest moral neighbor is indeed the KKK and the american neo-nazi party.
But if we did it follows that the "bias" hasn't gone far enough. If conservatives are indeed - as you imply - brothers of the KKK, then we are treating american "conservatives" too damn nice by far. Bigotry and race hatred deserves NO respect. None.
And the conservatives who fought and died in the last Great War just to keep your kind down aren't likely to judge you well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain This To Me
Scary,
You, like all the other Blue Checkmarks here, seem to have trouble completing thoughts or stating firm convictions about conservatives.
There were a lot of "ifs" and "hopes" and "assumes" and other conviction-avoiding turns of phrase in there.
You said I think 2020 "american conservative is a venomous misogynist who defines himself by hatred and fear whose closest moral neighbor is indeed the KKK and the american neo-nazi party" [sic for basically the whole thing].
What I'd like to see is your opinion on that. Are 2020 American conservatives those things, Scary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt anyone seriously believes it. One side of the political spectrum knows Barr is weaponizing the DOJ against Trump's enemies and the other side also know he's doing it and are thrilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Now, about that encryption...'
In addition to the other reasons listed for why he'd go after tech after ignoring telecom, I have little doubt that encryption will come up, purely as an aside, as an 'issue of concern' that 'could be dealt with to assuage concerns'.
If you're going to use the system to bludgeon your enemies no need to half-ass it after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course it is! why would anyone think it is anything else? shame on you! the USA is fast becoming the very thing it broke from England for, nothing but a country run by the elite and the security forces! the people have virtually no rights, no freedom and no say in anything that happens or even if it should happen in the first place!! what a shame! a mega-disaster in full flow!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm personally excited for Techdirt's future articles about the state AG antitrust investigations into Google.
They'll be filled with the propping up of the outdated Consumer Harm antitrust doctrine, which Masnick is a huge fan of from what I've seen of his articles and on his Twitter feed. You know the doctrine that caused antitrust to become toothless and frail in the first place.
There will also be the playing coy about what kind of antitrust action could actually be taken against Google. The question will be asked, "Oh, if you really want to break Google up, then how are you going to do that?" while ignoring that Alphabet itself provided very clear lines by which you could break up the companies, as well as splitting up the products that are under Google itself.
Then there's everyone's favorite, the Telecom Whataboutism. "Why is so much attention being paid to Big Tech companies like Google when AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are the real anticompetitive corporations here?!?" which ignores that multiple antitrust cases can be brought up at a time.
Lastly, there's also gonna be "Do we really need to break up Big Tech like Google?" pleading while linking to the "Protocols Not Platforms" paper in an attempt to move the goalposts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm...
Mark the above as trolling for being so divorced from any real-world events, or funny for beig so pathetic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmmm...
Mark the above as trolling for playing coy about the content that Techdirt has put out about Big Tech antitrust over the years consisting mostly of all of that, or mark the above as trolling for talking about flagging like I'd downvote someone for talking about downvotes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So flagging the troll for pushing the phony "Techdirt is always pro-Google" narrative and not understanding the "talking about downvotes" rule to boot is is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never said Techdirt was pro-Google. I'm just exhausted with the way that Techdirt treats current events revolving around antitrust, and I can see the writing on the wall for how they're going to be writing about the upcoming AG inquiries.
I saw the way they tried to Tech-Bro mansplain to Elizabeth Warren that her plans to break up Big Tech were bad, as if she just didn't "get it", despite her qualifications to be writing on and creating policy around the subject. The idea that they'll give these Attorneys General and their arguments any more respect or credence than they showed to Warren is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can offer you a simple solution to your weariness of such articles:
Don’t read them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lets see..
Until you can show me at LEAST a B.A. in the subjects they are legislating...I dont think any of them know anything about Something.
I would NEVER allow them to fix my plumbing. NOR tune my TV.
These folks ended up in this position based on Family and contacts, and sucking up tot he party.
Its the only excuse they have, for how they are running this country, and the Amounts of money SPENT, to get the Jobs around the states. Why in HELL would you spend Millions for a State job?? then to the state Senate. then to the Fed??
Its Amazing how this country is changing, and not for the better.
Its not who you know, its Who you Blow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Elizabeth Warren was a law graduate and taught as a law professor at multiple esteemed universities before becoming a member of Congress. She knows what she’s talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Law?? and a professor?
Ok, how good is her plumbing?
How about tech? Computers?? Can she tune her radio? Can she at least program her VCR? Sorry, DVD..
Can she reprogram a remote control? Ok, I give up..She cant do any of that.
And if Anyone thinks they can MAKE the internet do anything...You are asking if you can change MANKIND, not just christian mentality.. EVERYONE..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. Assholes derail the thread right out of the gate any chance their whiny asses get.
So yeah, about that antitrust shit - the cable/telcos were mentioned. How about the agribusinesses? Like, 3 of them account to 90% of the "brands" consumers can buy at a grocery. There are also a lot of other brand-vacuum companies out there, some with more diverse portfolios. And hey, i think Murdoch had already been mentioned obliquely - monopoly much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partisanism is the norm.
If Hitler possessed by Cthulhu was acting as Attorney General, had developed a long history of partisan inconsistency and then went after Google on an anti-trust case, it would still be taken by some people as a credible investigation because of either loyalty to the administration or animosity to big tech (or specific companies in the industry).
People crediting notoriously partisan and inconsistent smack-talkers is an unfortunate norm in news media and the blogosphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are people who believe there are sealed indictments against Dr. Fauci for trying to overthrow the country....
So yes, they think this is all about making sure they aren't shadowbanned or muted for calling people named but other people can;t hurt their feels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Fatth
So Wait, People Really Think The Barr DOJ's Investigation Into Google Is In Good Faith?
Um, Duh.
How would anyone with a pulse think that Google should continue to do their evil?
What kind of person would NOT understand that Google is a cheating, tyrannical, crazed, off the rails monopoly?
How is that not bleedin' obvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed the point
Let me help you remember the point:
The point is not that Google is good. The point is that Barr's DOJ can't be trusted to do this correctly, and shouldn't be the ones behind an anti-trust investigation of Google et al due to the prior history of failure.
The article itself sums things up quite nicely:
You can hate on Google all you want, but don't make the mistake of trusting the Barr DOJ to do this in a good faith fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading 101, refresher course
Looks like I need to bring this one up again: Read entire article, then post.
Literally the last paragraph:
None of this is to say that there aren't very obvious monopolistic problems Google presents that need addressing. And the separate antitrust inquiry by state AGs (expected this fall) is far more likely to be conducted in good faith, even though there too you have a lot of AGs that were just fine with monopolization in sectors like telecom. But anybody who thinks the Barr DOJ's effort in particular is driven by a genuine interest in reining in monopoly power simply hasn't been paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Fatth
So wait, People really think the Barr DOJ is not completely corrupt?
What kind of person would not understand the present administration has gone rouge?
This is going to be one hell of a train wreck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Fatth
Barr hasn't seen anything wrong with Trump & his children cashing in on their offices... nothing wrong with Kellyanne violating the law... oh and of the 4 insider traders only the one Trump has an issue with is STILL being investigated... he found an "intresting" way to summarize the mueller report...
This is a witch hunt based on the same thought process that said lets inject lysol to fix it.
There is no way anyone can think that this is in good faith, this is a political hit job to appeal to Trumps base.
For all of the evils everyone claims Google does, they sure manage to overlook it in other industries... I guess its only bad if they silence conservatives while doing it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assigned titles in the service of the king
Is there an opposite to a Meddlesome Priest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Youtube, at least, the facts and data point to any perceived anti-Right bias being pure fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, unless you define the right as 'hate speech and lies', but I can't imagine anyone would be crazy enough to do that in a desperate attempt to salvage the idea that policies against those things are anti-right/conservative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only someone with an ample supply of straw would be able to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like this thread a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slaying the Google Dragon
We have seen plenty of failed to adapt newspapers blame Google for "killing them and stealing their business" when in truth they are helping them and they just objectively suck at their job. That they go between gutless nocommital cowardience to anyone remotely attached to power but knives out hit pieces whenever their agenda is threatened only demonstrates further why they have decayed so far. It isn't in good faith because they are delusional, corrupt, and cowards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn, Shiva Ayyadurai's sniveling lapdog has been busy today hasn't they? You know Hamilton got a nerve struck when he's resorting to masking his IP address multiple times...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find these comments to be equally as tiresome, if blessedly less numerous, than the ones you're mocking.
Just so you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, I'll be sure to remember that the next time I give sweet fuck all about what people think when idiots are getting made fun of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Between the ability of a handful of trolls to live in the heads of Techdirt's users rent-free, and the paternalistic attitudes of users who think that feeding trolls and disproving their same arguments over and over again while clogging up the comment thread is a necessary service to their fellow users who could be led astray by said trolls, TD's community is a lost cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, you come back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I know. It's a bad habit that I'm trying to break. Similar to the way that you can't help yourself when a troll pops up; you gotta feed it, you gotta refute the same arguments that you've been refuting for years on end and make excuses like you'll change their mind eventually or you're doing an essential service so that users don't get led astray.
You and everyone else on this site that perpetually feeds the trolls are just running around in circles in the most unhealthy of ways. 300+ comments of back and forth on this article alone and you'd think that'd lead to some sort of introspection on yours & the community's part, but nope, y'all jump right back into the fray like you're living in Groundhog Day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, you come back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then, given that you think you're so superior with your ability to defend poor, poor oppressed bigots, break the goddamn habit already.
What did you think was going to happen? That idiocy was going to be tolerated just because you tried to guilt everyone in the saddest example of passive aggression?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, what was Won, by google, amazon and
a few others still alive after all the battles in the last 20 years over the internet?
They dont sell access, and if the gov. got a (stupid) hair up the wazoo, and CLOSED it. What would happen? NOT really that much, except the ISP's, Cable/TV/Sat/Phone corps would have to Shut down. Or create their OWN backbone(they are trying to do this, wireless)
I really dont see any of this happening(unless stupidity runs this country) as the first things brought up would be Every other non-internet company that is Also a monopoly. How in hell we got 2-5 Middlemen between most Product sales in the USA(Reagan did it, and even told us). Fixing how the stock market could be fixed(shoot it in the foot and let it bleed) that every transaction must include Transfer of Materials purchased. Not sit in a Warehouse/truck until the final sale 3 months later.
Why is the gov. and its policing agencies Abit upset? Thats Easy. They want what they already had BEFORE, everyone went to cellphones. It was so easy to walk into a Phone relay, Give a person $100 and Tap any line they wished. Including Judges, and other police agencies.
They also Hate 2 things... 1. translators(they have fired so many of them, they dont know what anyone is saying(including english, they interpret things Their own way) 2. They dont want the idea passed around that they cant handle ALL the different tech being EVERYWHERE...and the real secret is, the cat is let out of the bag, as someone has mentioned We are all being monitored. In 1 form or another. And they cant keep up with the tech.
Not to forget that a handheld computer can do Allot of things. including encryption.
Their idea of privacy Ends at the curb/fence/alley of your home.(by their definition) Anything that gets past that point, they wish to know about.
The FBI has had problems with a few things...How to monitor a rich person or public servant if you cant? How do you find the money being laundered/hidden/buried/transferred out of reach?? There are REAL private banks You cant get into. Esp when you setup your company in another country. And those in the USA are only(considered) outposts.(ask BP how much the USA gov. pays them, and they are not a USA corp)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks to this thread, it's easy to tell when the work shift in St. Petersburg starts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]