The “Russian Hoax” part was not connected to the Clinton part. Nor was there any limitation given. All of that info—incriminating or not—was covered by the plain language of the tweet.
Re: HA! You state they're hosts! They're NOT publishers, then!
As final proof, everyone can SEE what happens to dissent here, no matter how mild. IT'S CENSORED.
Setting aside that hiding a post but still letting it be seen with a simple click is not censoring that post, there’s a user named eMark who has been posting multiple disagreements here. As of right now, none of their posts here have been hidden or “censored”. Clearly you’re wrong that all dissent gets “censored” no matter how you look at it.
The laws and rules governing the OTF explicitly state that only the board can remove existing members or add new members. Neither Trump nor his appointees have any authority over the OTF, period. Don’t like it? Tough.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bhull Aspergers, and the negative ef
Empirical evidence must be recorded as data. The plural of anecdote is not data. There is a distinction made between empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence. Do you have any data, not more anecdotes, about gang-stalking?
The answer is yes, public figures still need to a statement meet the actual malice standard to be successful in a defamation suit over that statement. There are no real exceptions to that, nor is there any legal reason for the QAnon conspiracy theories to change that. Some claims may meet the “actual malice” standard; most or all of them probably don’t. Either way, that doesn’t change the justifications underlying the current standards for defamation of a public figure.
That said, they can still sue over it; the suit is just doomed to failure if they fail to plead/prove actual malice.
Tom Hanks and/or his lawyer(s) are likely aware of this, so it is unlikely that they will sue over the accusations made by QAnon-ers, at least unless they feel they have a really strong case that the statements are both false statements of fact and made with actual malice. Well, that and Tom Hanks is a fairly nice and chill guy (at least in public) who’s (probably) willing to just dismiss the accusations as nonsense not worth the time and money to deal with in such a heavy-handed way.
I understand that many countries do things differently, so I accept that your question was indeed asked out of pure curiosity rather than advocacy for the actual malice requirement to be overturned or something like that. As such, I’ll (briefly) summarize the basics of why the actual malice standard exists.
Simply put, public figures are expected to be subject to more public scrutiny than private figures, and as such, the founders would want to encourage even more robust debate over such figures. This is especially true of those who willingly and/or knowingly step into the public eye, like celebrities and politicians. Public figures also have better access to alternative means of combatting false information about them, so they don’t have to resort to legal action to fight back. I believe there were other justifications given in the opinion that established the standard and subsequent opinions on the issue, but that seems like a decent enough summary.
You can't discuss any alternative treatment for Covid. Every Post I've made on FB is censured.
Considering all the misinformation spreading around about COVID-19, that’s hardly surprising. Even if some posts that are relatively benign are removed in the process, that’s hardly surprising given the scale at which FB operates.
You can't discuss anything about Biden's Mental health, It too is scrubbed by them.
Unless I see the posts in question, I can’t really say much on this one. That said, I don’t see any reason why Biden’s mental health is bad to begin with.
No, there isn’t. What evidence do you have that there is?
That’s a separate example that I believe Mike also disagreed with. He has been quite critical of many of Obama’s policies. Are you new to this site? Also, that wasn’t a business deal either, or interference in one.
No one I know of says that this nation was successful because of slavery, though I will point out that slaves were considered “private property”.
“Do no evil” isn’t biased; it’s subjective. There’s a difference. And again, the question is whether the bias is political in nature and is against conservatives. That conservatives are in the minority in these organizations tells us nothing.
As for the employees crossing a line, please provide more detail because I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I also do not fall for your bait and switch antics. If there were equal or even more liberal bias, it would not make it any more acceptable! Duh! Bias is bias!
It’s not anti-conservative bias if both sides are treated equally or the other side is treated worse. It’s also not bias at all if both sides are treated equally.
As far as the AR-15, it was never used in combat, it was never effective enough by military's standards to protect our soldiers! It is not an automatic weapon.
I confess ignorance to the details of specific models of firearms or the official definition of “assault rifle”. I assumed for the sake of argument that AR-15s are not, in fact, assault rifles, and I never argued otherwise. I only argued about how an AI and ignorant people might think that they are. I’m also not getting into the gun debate here. Basically, the only question to be answered on this particular topic is whether that example is clear and convincing proof of bias or are there other plausible explanations. I argue the latter.
And again your bait and switch, it's not important whether lots of people think it's an assault rifle. It is not the job of a search engine to alter my search slanting me toward a narrative, especially one I know to be false.
My point is that the AI doesn’t know it’s false, and it wasn’t necessarily programmed to do that, specifically. When it comes to image searches, AIs often just funnel particular queries into more general categories. Image searching works differently from other searches. Basically, it was an error that wasn’t definitively made by the programmer/developer. That it comes up with incorrect results doesn’t prove bias but faulty programming. I refer again to Hanlon’s Razor. That the results may appear biased doesn’t prove that the ones behind them are biased. And frankly, you’re reading way too much into that. One mistake isn’t proof of an agenda.
These tech companies are not 'mom & pop' outfits that could be excused for mistakes. They are Billion Dollar state-of-the-art organizations, manipulating us through high tech psychology, secret algorithms, and even child-like pastels to give the impression they are harmless.
Dude, at the scale these companies operate at, making a number of mistakes isn’t just excusable; it’s inevitable. Again, you’re reading way too into this.
I write blogs and the Google rating as to how attractive my title is caused me to change 'One too many parties' 45% attractive, to 'A toxic media & PAC ‘rats gnaw at America’s free choice' which gave me an attractive rating of 93%! This may be accidental, but big tech Google is inciting more emotion and potential violence by their 'monetizing algorithms!
Again, that doesn’t prove anti-conservative bias or what you asserted.
Now that you know they recommend about 50 to 55 characters in your title, including emotional word, unusual word, and power word, notice the titles of YouTube videos. Interesting, now when you look... You can't 'un-see' it!
I strongly support the Constitution as it was intended
It was intended to set up a federal government and establish what it can and cannot do. Nothing more, nothing less.
and oppose the murder of over 800 black babies every day by the institutions created explicitly to carry out that genocide
What are you talking about?
I am guessing I was banned too because when I tried to log on after months of not logging on, the site had a banner say, "Access forbidden" and it cycled between logging me out and trying to load the feed.
That’s not what happens when you’re banned. That’s completely different.
I fount the site to be clumsy to navigate and didn't bother going to it for months until tonight when I follow an email link from a Sarah Carter article that I want to read.
Your point?
In any event, there is no evidence that I was banned for being a lefty.
You called yourself a conservative, so no duh.
However, I was suspended by twitter for calling AOC a racist hag when she called black Republicans "tokens".
I can see that, and Twitter absolutely has the FA right to do that. I’m not seeing bias here.
I refused to remove the comment and deleted my account instead of being subjected to that cancel culture brown shirt behavior.
I mean, you have the right to do that, but that’s not what cancel culture is.
I remember a hippie leftist teacher I had in the 80's who said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I would die fighting for your right to say it." Now, the Dems are more like Brown Shirts than Americans who recognize that we are legitimate opposition to one another and that can only lead us to settling our differences by feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and Dems alike.
You misunderstand that quote. We’ll protect you from government interference in your right to say it. That’s different from the right to be heard or to say it on a privately-owned platform.
I never claimed anything about the number of genders at all, only that which gender a given individual is isn’t always clear cut. I certainly never claimed 70+ genders. (I’m not saying there aren’t, either; the exact number is immaterial to my argument.)
“Some” means “there exists” in logic and statistics. That they exist among humans necessarily means that, biologically speaking, not every human fits neatly into exactly one of two sexes, let alone genders (there’s a difference). I was disproving an absolute statement; any number of counterexamples would suffice.
We’re not talking about classifications of species, though I should point out that there is no strict definition for what makes two organisms the same species or not. There are organisms in the same species unable to reproduce with each other but able to reproduce with some others, while others where they are different species but are able to produce fertile offspring together. Besides, we don’t classify humans the same way we do other organisms; no other species has an equivalent to race or religion that we can tell from which we can distinguish individual groups of the same species.
My point was that determining the gender of a given individual, especially at birth, isn’t always easy. It’s not black and white. You may consider it a “rounding error”, but given the sheer size of the population, 1.6% is actually quite a few people.
Even outside of intersex individuals and transgender individuals, there are a number of cisgender, nonintersex females who appear fairly masculine and cisgender, nonintersex males who appear fairly feminine. That’s not even getting into androgynous individuals. Why do I bring them up? Because it means, as a practical matter, identifying someone’s birth sex by appearance is very error-prone. So basically, why do you care if their identity differs from their assigned sex at birth? How would you even know for sure?
At any rate, my main point wasn’t even all that. Whether or not Twitter made the right call here in our opinions is immaterial to the point I and others were focusing on: Twitter has the legal right to make whatever decision they want when it comes to moderation.
If you don't see big tech bias you should you need LASIK surgery.
I don’t see clear and convincing evidence that any of the “big tech” companies’ platforms/services are more likely to remove/hide/demonetize actual conservative viewpoints/users than liberal ones or for presenting core conservative values (like sound fiscal policy, supply-side economics, deregulation, etc.) as opposed to things like tone, harassment, spam, etc. The burden of proof is on you.
Burying effective conservative blogs, removing years of their content,
[citation needed]
Seriously, I need specifics and statistics. Maybe they had blatantly false information or foul language or something. Maybe they were white supremacists or misogynists or something. Maybe they just didn’t have the link-backs or page views or whatever to rank highly on Google Search. I don’t know, partly because you’ve given me nothing to work from.
Furthermore, have you not considered that “effective” liberal blogs might also get buried or removed for the same reasons? And what exactly constitutes an “effective conservative blog”? Or “burying”?
Finally, the plural of anecdotes isn’t data; we need statistics that show that there is a significant difference in treatment that specifically disfavors conservatives for conservative viewpoints.
belittling their points with overlays to refute their views.
I’m sorry, but since when is providing context evidence of bias? And how are the things that are getting overlays conservative viewpoints? It’s mostly flat-Earth, COVID, and vaccines, none of which are partisan issues. And as for mail-in ballots, a lot of conservatives use mail-in ballots and it wasn’t until very recently that Trump turned that into a partisan issue. So again, that’s not anti-conservative bias; that’s anti-disinformation bias.
Okay Google, Show me images of the AR-15... When I did using the Google AI in my Pixel 3aXL, I got a bright a cheery voice saying, "Okay, here are images of assault rifles."
I don’t see what’s nefarious about that. Lots of people think AR-15s are assault rifles, and a lot of the media coverage on AR-15s have called them assault rifles or otherwise associated them with assault rifles. It’s perfectly reasonable that an AI would come to equate “AR-15” with “assault rifle” based solely on it learning from various media outlets, blogs, and social media posts, no direct input from the programmers necessary. That’s not necessarily proof that Google is biased; it could just be the contents of the internet are biased/misinformed. The results are just reflective of the sources it pulls from, not the programmers’ biases.
I would also call that “ignorant” or “misinformed”, not “biased”; not everyone knows the difference here, or even what makes something an “assault rifle” or not.
Basically, Hanlon’s Razor suggests no bias here. It’s certainly not “an obvious one” like you say it is.
On the post: Twitter Fixes Its Bad Policy On Blocking 'Hacked' Documents
Re:
First off, most people of any political leaning know that NYP in general is sketchy, like the National Enquirer.
Second, if you read the previous article, you’d know exactly why the whole thing was sketchy.
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re:
The “Russian Hoax” part was not connected to the Clinton part. Nor was there any limitation given. All of that info—incriminating or not—was covered by the plain language of the tweet.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: Re: "room-temperature IQ"...
I’m sorry, but how is this relevant?
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: HA! You state they're hosts! They're NOT publishers, then!
Setting aside that hiding a post but still letting it be seen with a simple click is not censoring that post, there’s a user named eMark who has been posting multiple disagreements here. As of right now, none of their posts here have been hidden or “censored”. Clearly you’re wrong that all dissent gets “censored” no matter how you look at it.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: Re: Re: Twitter and Facebook are not moderating when REMOVE
Only if the government is the one doing or enforcing it.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ability for a platform to “put a finger on the scale” like that can be justified using comparable logic to the huge donations bit.
On the post: Court Says Trump Appointee Had No Authority To Fire Open Technology Fund Board; Says They Remain In Place
Re: Rule by Judges
The laws and rules governing the OTF explicitly state that only the board can remove existing members or add new members. Neither Trump nor his appointees have any authority over the OTF, period. Don’t like it? Tough.
On the post: Dear Reuters: This Is NOT How You Report On Dishonest, Disingenuous Talking Points From US Officials Regarding Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bhull Aspergers, and the negative ef
Empirical evidence must be recorded as data. The plural of anecdote is not data. There is a distinction made between empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence. Do you have any data, not more anecdotes, about gang-stalking?
On the post: ICE Spent Your Tax Dollars Dragging A Journalist Through The Internet Sewer Over A Mistake She Apologized For
Re: Re: So much WRONG just in headline!
And the retribution was (at least arguably) disproportionate to that offense.
Take it up with the Supreme Court.
Umm, Techdirt won that case, remember?
Umm, even if you’re right, that still qualifies as a “mistake” as asserted.
On the post: Devin Nunes Asks Appeals Court To Invalidate Bedrock Supreme Court 1st Amendment Ruling
Re: A question about US defamation
The answer is yes, public figures still need to a statement meet the actual malice standard to be successful in a defamation suit over that statement. There are no real exceptions to that, nor is there any legal reason for the QAnon conspiracy theories to change that. Some claims may meet the “actual malice” standard; most or all of them probably don’t. Either way, that doesn’t change the justifications underlying the current standards for defamation of a public figure.
That said, they can still sue over it; the suit is just doomed to failure if they fail to plead/prove actual malice.
Tom Hanks and/or his lawyer(s) are likely aware of this, so it is unlikely that they will sue over the accusations made by QAnon-ers, at least unless they feel they have a really strong case that the statements are both false statements of fact and made with actual malice. Well, that and Tom Hanks is a fairly nice and chill guy (at least in public) who’s (probably) willing to just dismiss the accusations as nonsense not worth the time and money to deal with in such a heavy-handed way.
I understand that many countries do things differently, so I accept that your question was indeed asked out of pure curiosity rather than advocacy for the actual malice requirement to be overturned or something like that. As such, I’ll (briefly) summarize the basics of why the actual malice standard exists.
Simply put, public figures are expected to be subject to more public scrutiny than private figures, and as such, the founders would want to encourage even more robust debate over such figures. This is especially true of those who willingly and/or knowingly step into the public eye, like celebrities and politicians. Public figures also have better access to alternative means of combatting false information about them, so they don’t have to resort to legal action to fight back. I believe there were other justifications given in the opinion that established the standard and subsequent opinions on the issue, but that seems like a decent enough summary.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Considering all the misinformation spreading around about COVID-19, that’s hardly surprising. Even if some posts that are relatively benign are removed in the process, that’s hardly surprising given the scale at which FB operates.
Unless I see the posts in question, I can’t really say much on this one. That said, I don’t see any reason why Biden’s mental health is bad to begin with.
On the post: LAPD Officers Faked Reports, Added Innocent People To Its Gang Database
Re:
Hello again, ROGS. You sure took your time getting to this article, where the topic actually fits somewhat.
On the post: The TikTok 'Deal' Was A Grift From The Start: Accomplishes None Of The Stated Goals; Just Helps Trump & Friends
Re: Nose dive
Why?
On the post: The TikTok 'Deal' Was A Grift From The Start: Accomplishes None Of The Stated Goals; Just Helps Trump & Friends
Re: Re: Re:
No, there isn’t. What evidence do you have that there is?
That’s a separate example that I believe Mike also disagreed with. He has been quite critical of many of Obama’s policies. Are you new to this site? Also, that wasn’t a business deal either, or interference in one.
On the post: Trump Gets Mad That Twitter Won't Take Down A Parody Of Mitch McConnell; Demands Unconstitutional Laws
Re: Re: Re:
“Do no evil” isn’t biased; it’s subjective. There’s a difference. And again, the question is whether the bias is political in nature and is against conservatives. That conservatives are in the minority in these organizations tells us nothing.
As for the employees crossing a line, please provide more detail because I have no idea what you’re talking about.
On the post: Trump Gets Mad That Twitter Won't Take Down A Parody Of Mitch McConnell; Demands Unconstitutional Laws
Re: Re: Re: Big tech bias
It’s not anti-conservative bias if both sides are treated equally or the other side is treated worse. It’s also not bias at all if both sides are treated equally.
I confess ignorance to the details of specific models of firearms or the official definition of “assault rifle”. I assumed for the sake of argument that AR-15s are not, in fact, assault rifles, and I never argued otherwise. I only argued about how an AI and ignorant people might think that they are. I’m also not getting into the gun debate here. Basically, the only question to be answered on this particular topic is whether that example is clear and convincing proof of bias or are there other plausible explanations. I argue the latter.
My point is that the AI doesn’t know it’s false, and it wasn’t necessarily programmed to do that, specifically. When it comes to image searches, AIs often just funnel particular queries into more general categories. Image searching works differently from other searches. Basically, it was an error that wasn’t definitively made by the programmer/developer. That it comes up with incorrect results doesn’t prove bias but faulty programming. I refer again to Hanlon’s Razor. That the results may appear biased doesn’t prove that the ones behind them are biased. And frankly, you’re reading way too much into that. One mistake isn’t proof of an agenda.
Dude, at the scale these companies operate at, making a number of mistakes isn’t just excusable; it’s inevitable. Again, you’re reading way too into this.
Again, that doesn’t prove anti-conservative bias or what you asserted.
Again, that’s a separate discussion.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: "Conservatives" apparently banned too
It was intended to set up a federal government and establish what it can and cannot do. Nothing more, nothing less.
What are you talking about?
That’s not what happens when you’re banned. That’s completely different.
Your point?
You called yourself a conservative, so no duh.
I can see that, and Twitter absolutely has the FA right to do that. I’m not seeing bias here.
I mean, you have the right to do that, but that’s not what cancel culture is.
You misunderstand that quote. We’ll protect you from government interference in your right to say it. That’s different from the right to be heard or to say it on a privately-owned platform.
On the post: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Insanely Stupid Lawsuit Against Facebook
Re: Re: RFK's lawsuit complaint
Nope. I’m just a college programmer. I have read the information, though, and the anti-vaxxer arguments simply don’t hold water.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never claimed anything about the number of genders at all, only that which gender a given individual is isn’t always clear cut. I certainly never claimed 70+ genders. (I’m not saying there aren’t, either; the exact number is immaterial to my argument.)
“Some” means “there exists” in logic and statistics. That they exist among humans necessarily means that, biologically speaking, not every human fits neatly into exactly one of two sexes, let alone genders (there’s a difference). I was disproving an absolute statement; any number of counterexamples would suffice.
We’re not talking about classifications of species, though I should point out that there is no strict definition for what makes two organisms the same species or not. There are organisms in the same species unable to reproduce with each other but able to reproduce with some others, while others where they are different species but are able to produce fertile offspring together. Besides, we don’t classify humans the same way we do other organisms; no other species has an equivalent to race or religion that we can tell from which we can distinguish individual groups of the same species.
My point was that determining the gender of a given individual, especially at birth, isn’t always easy. It’s not black and white. You may consider it a “rounding error”, but given the sheer size of the population, 1.6% is actually quite a few people.
At any rate, my main point wasn’t even all that. Whether or not Twitter made the right call here in our opinions is immaterial to the point I and others were focusing on: Twitter has the legal right to make whatever decision they want when it comes to moderation.
On the post: Trump Gets Mad That Twitter Won't Take Down A Parody Of Mitch McConnell; Demands Unconstitutional Laws
Re: Big tech bias
I don’t see clear and convincing evidence that any of the “big tech” companies’ platforms/services are more likely to remove/hide/demonetize actual conservative viewpoints/users than liberal ones or for presenting core conservative values (like sound fiscal policy, supply-side economics, deregulation, etc.) as opposed to things like tone, harassment, spam, etc. The burden of proof is on you.
[citation needed]
Seriously, I need specifics and statistics. Maybe they had blatantly false information or foul language or something. Maybe they were white supremacists or misogynists or something. Maybe they just didn’t have the link-backs or page views or whatever to rank highly on Google Search. I don’t know, partly because you’ve given me nothing to work from.
Furthermore, have you not considered that “effective” liberal blogs might also get buried or removed for the same reasons? And what exactly constitutes an “effective conservative blog”? Or “burying”?
Finally, the plural of anecdotes isn’t data; we need statistics that show that there is a significant difference in treatment that specifically disfavors conservatives for conservative viewpoints.
I’m sorry, but since when is providing context evidence of bias? And how are the things that are getting overlays conservative viewpoints? It’s mostly flat-Earth, COVID, and vaccines, none of which are partisan issues. And as for mail-in ballots, a lot of conservatives use mail-in ballots and it wasn’t until very recently that Trump turned that into a partisan issue. So again, that’s not anti-conservative bias; that’s anti-disinformation bias.
I don’t see what’s nefarious about that. Lots of people think AR-15s are assault rifles, and a lot of the media coverage on AR-15s have called them assault rifles or otherwise associated them with assault rifles. It’s perfectly reasonable that an AI would come to equate “AR-15” with “assault rifle” based solely on it learning from various media outlets, blogs, and social media posts, no direct input from the programmers necessary. That’s not necessarily proof that Google is biased; it could just be the contents of the internet are biased/misinformed. The results are just reflective of the sources it pulls from, not the programmers’ biases.
I would also call that “ignorant” or “misinformed”, not “biased”; not everyone knows the difference here, or even what makes something an “assault rifle” or not.
Basically, Hanlon’s Razor suggests no bias here. It’s certainly not “an obvious one” like you say it is.
Next >>