Facebook is cleaning house

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
Do you have any links to verified accounts for any of those things? Or is that just random crazies spouting random shit.
I posted it a long time ago.... With Kate Morgan.
And The ISIS example is even in this thread



How is this not hate speech? You want more.? I can show you sons of these kind of examples for Facebook and Twitter.

By the way you should know by now that I do not make stuff up^^
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
2,775
5,172
645
Do you have any links to verified accounts for any of those things? Or is that just random crazies spouting random shit.
Try a couple of years' worth of Sarah Jeong's contributions. She now sits on the NYT Editorial board.

How quick you are to sink into selective amnesia when it suits you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
I posted it a long time ago.... With Kate Morgan.
And The ISIS example is even in this thread



How is this not hate speech? You want more.? I can show you sons of these kind of examples for Facebook and Twitter.

By the way you should know by now that I do not make stuff up^^
I agree 100%. She deserved to be suspended or banned for that Tweet. And obviously ISIS and other terrorist organizations should be banned as well.



EDIT: Oh wait.....she was already suspended.....

 
Last edited:

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,664
1,899
525
Canada
Not entirely sure. In fact idk if Twitter ever made that public now that I think about it. But we do know they were banned for breaking the ToS.
Odd that they aren't being transparent with the reasons why these people have been removed from their platform. I guess it is easier for the wild machinations of why they were removed to fester rather than the actual reason outside of nebulous TOS violations. That was twitter. What about facebook specifically? I know if I was basing an argument for deplatforming someone on "well they broke the rules, bye bye" I would like to know what rules they broke. Or are they worried that if they are specific then their double standards would come to light?
 

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
I agree 100%. She deserved to be suspended or banned for that Tweet. And obviously ISIS and other terrorist organizations should be banned as well.



EDIT: Oh wait.....she was already suspended.....

But it does not happen and there are tons of these examples. You just need to go to #black twitter and see how openly racist people are. Every fucking modern feminist has these kind of tweets. How about Journalists making fun of killing white people in a Hunger games scenario? How they joked that only white men would die and that it is fine etc. And these were fucking Journalists. Sadly I do not have these tweets anymore. But it did happen. Believe me or not., And yes they also have a Blue Marker
 

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
Yes, you are correct, this is what is being debated now that services like Facebook and Twitter are the new town square and the primary place for public political discourse.

I do find it interesting that when the left sees a small business not want to engage in labor to create custom artwork for a cake [though offered any non-custom cake for sale] and there is outrage. But when a huge corporation wants to silence free speech.... well, sure, you slay, facebook!
And this is the critical point. Taking something as ubiquitous as social media and forcing those platform holders to host content they find objectionable would be a first for public squares in general, not to mention a privately owned digital platform.

Should all speech be permitted, should only websites above a certain amount of daily users be subjected to this regulation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
And this is the critical point. Taking something as ubiquitous as social media and forcing those platform holders to host content they find objectionable would be a first for public squares in general, not to mention a privately owned digital platform.

Should all speech be permitted, should only websites above a certain amount of daily users be subjected to this regulation?
Yes every speech that does not go against the law. You never have to protect the speech that people agree with. You always have to protect the uncomfortable speech. The ones you disagree with the one that is ridiculous. As long it does not go against the law. Social media is a huge influencer. They can literally manipulate elections. and whole countries.
 
Last edited:

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
Yes every speech that does not go against the law. You never have to protect the speech that people agree with. You always have to protect the uncomfortable speech. The ones you disagree with the one that is ridiculous. As long it does not go against the law. Social media is a huge influencer. They can literally manipulate elections. and whole countries.
But the law itself limits speech. Public squares controlling bodies can choose to host certain viewpoints as long as they don't violate protected classes. Certain things are illegal to say in case they incite panic or violence. A local public library could ask Jones to leave if he started going on about how murdered children were a false flag. A public college could refuse to host a town hall for a person who claims he has scientific evidence that white people are the superior race.

Why should Facebook be forced to host all of that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
But the law itself limits speech. Public squares controlling bodies can choose to host certain viewpoints as long as they don't violate protected classes. Certain things are illegal to say in case they incite panic or violence. A local public library could ask Jones to leave if he started going on about how murdered children were a false flag. A public college could refuse to host a town hall for a person who claims he has scientific evidence that white people are the superior race.

Why should Facebook be forced to host all of that?
the first one alone is bullshit IMO. In Germany even Nazis can protest they will be protected by the police and as long they do not go against the law. It is all fair game.. Also protected classes my ass. Either everyone should be protected or no one. things like affirmative Action is discrimination FULL STOP.

If people can say the Wage gap does exist than so can Alex Jones say this. Both are lies and should be treated the same. And a public college should not be able to refuse a conservative speaker. Ben Sharpio for example had to pay 500k for his own safety to be able to speak on a campus that he was invited to by students. Milo was invited by the student council of the republicans and so on. Marie Le Penn should be able to speak at Universities.

A University should not be a save space. Especially a University should be challenge your views, ideologies and opinions. It should be sometimes uncomfortable to her different viewpoints.


And Facebook should be forced to host everything that is not against the law. Same with Twitter. Why? Because they can manipulate your whole world already. Journalists using these social media outlets to manipulate people's views and opinions. They fake outrage, against things they stand against. You now cold start wars with social media manipulation.

And right now Facebook is banning conservative people not hate speech. AKA ISIS modern feminist are still there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo
Jan 18, 2019
249
361
270
But the law itself limits speech. Public squares controlling bodies can choose to host certain viewpoints as long as they don't violate protected classes. Certain things are illegal to say in case they incite panic or violence. A local public library could ask Jones to leave if he started going on about how murdered children were a false flag. A public college could refuse to host a town hall for a person who claims he has scientific evidence that white people are the superior race.

Why should Facebook be forced to host all of that?
The only speech that is limited by law is incitement to violence. And the very concept of 'protected classes' is antithetical to the 14th amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunki

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,588
316
690
The only speech that is limited by law is incitement to violence. And the very concept of 'protected classes' is antithetical to the 14th amendment.
No, libel and slander, perjury, et al are all limits (infractions) of speech by the law. It's not simply a matter of incitement. There are plenty more examples thereof. And the concept of protected classes is a specification of the 14th's first section - hardly antithetical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,520
3,981
495
No, libel and slander, perjury, et al are all limits (infractions) of speech by the law. It's not simply a matter of incitement. There are plenty more examples thereof. And the concept of protected classes is a specification of the 14th's first section - hardly antithetical.
First, those are resolved by the courts and not the whims of massive corporations. They are subject to the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights, not the whims of a non-elected, private group of tech millionaires and billionaires.

Second, the reason those types of speech are legislated are incredibly complicated. However, the general idea, imho, is that knowingly publishing false information about another individual causes financial harm. I can't say you, specifically, are a murderer, if that is not true because it puts you in danger of retribution, you may lose your job, etc. To this end, calling some of these people alt-right is closer to criminal than what they've done, since criticizing a religion or ideology is not an attack on an individual. But since alt-right is a meaningless, half-defined word, and not a factual statement, they can do it with impunity. Certainly, however, this does not justify the actions taking place here.

What we are talking about here is a massive limitation on political speech, in opposition to everything the 1st was written about. Specifically, if anything is guarded by the first, we know it is religion, political speech, and criticizing the government. To use libel and slander as examples for the governmental precedent limiting speech is intellectually dishonest.

More importantly, we are now reaching the point that Twitter and company are deplatforming people and literally stopping them from participating in their ability to speak in the town square. They've have even banned political parties. While the fact that they are private companies is true, its neither than simple nor that final. The left spent two years incensed about Russian influence in the election. What is it when Twitter bans a point of view, or a political party, or political speech? Hiding behind 'private corporation' seems an ethical cop out. Do we really want Twitter and Facebook deciding who can speak?

Just look at any recent case in the media. Covington. Russiagate. Smollet. Do we really want to empower social media to ban the people early on that spoke truth in these cases, but went against the established media narrative and were thus called hateful conspiracy theorists until enough people saw the truth for themselves that the media was forced to retract?

Banning people does not solve anything. It divides people. It creates multiple conflicting realities where people can no longer discuss anything. It turns corporations into political agents, where we will see power plays for financial dominance to control who gets banned. Its dystopian. And anyone cheering this on seriously needs to understand the corporations do not give a fuck about you and will happily ban your speech too the second they can since it too affects ads and sales.
 

somerset

Member
Apr 15, 2019
136
238
160
Top down or bottom up? Top down or bottom up?

Did you know universal education is designed to train the masses to *only* think in terms of bottom up- the most fundamental mistake in understanding anything. So most of you here argue about "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin?"

In other words irrelevent dribble about the 'rules' fo facebook, and who 'breaks' those 'rules'.

Top Down- How *alphas* think. Tony Blair's vile goon, Nick Clegg, is in charge of 'wrongthink' *censorship* at Facebook. You yanks won't know his name- Google it- learn something.

Clegg is a literal monster. He was the fabian agent Blair placed into the Liberal party machine, and when Brits went looking for a change from Labour and Conservatives (like your Democrats and Republicans), Tony Blair already had his man at the top of the Liberal party. Clegg campaigned on a soft socialist and pro-education agenda. Once elected in alliance with the extreme-alt-left Conservatives, Clegg's first act was to raise the cost of British university education to the highest in the world (on average per student- England has no degree level education outside of the university system). When studnets revolted, Clegg sent in uniformed thugs to break heads, and many students received long prison sentences.

Clegg actively supported every new orwellian policy the Conservatives proposed, and of course all the new fabian wars.

Here's the thing. Put a yank in charge of censorship at an American company like Facebook, and you hit the issue of the left censoring the right, or the right censoring the left. But when a 'foreigner' like Clegg has the role, Americans stop looking at partisan politics, and find all kinds of reasons to excuse it.

We have elections in Brit land at the mo. And legal candidates that the fabians want 'disappeared' are all deplatformed on every major media outlet. An interference *for real* in the British elect- by US internet giants.

The same scumbags who invented the laughable *lie* of Russian interference in America elections are all loudly applauding the interference in British elections by American corporations. Notice the problem here?

Now it is a fact that the fabian power base in the UK that actually controls the major American political parties is demanding that the internet giants do this. So in truth it is a British inspired censorship- but that doesn't change the fact that it is done by US companies whose owners all demonised Russia for non-existent actions of the same nature.

A really dummy cheers when illegal and/or evil actions are used to hurt their 'enemy'- never getting that in such a world the same wrongness will hit them at some point.

So people who think themselves on the opposite political spectrum to those banned by Facebook, and have an IQ well below 100, are cheering these current bans. In other words cheering the growth of fabian orwellian control of the West.

What does the face of british fabian (alt-left) censorship look like when taken to its natural degree? Well before the days of the internet, fabians banned *all* 'hard-core' *vanilla* porn in Britain. Being an island, they could actually make such a ban work (back then). It wasn't really about the porn, but making every Brit aware that Big Brother chose what they could see, hear or read.

In a month of so, the fabians try to re-establish this porn ban in the UK. In a year they intend to extend Internet censorship to all British input to websites with pre-emptive upload filters. Every legal forum accessible by brits will have to have british government approved upload filters- code designed by Google and others to scan the text, and prevent 'wrongthink' from ever appearing.

Facebook's Nick Clegg is part of a team (Clegg is upper strategy management) designing the tools ready for the total censorship roll-out.

A year or so after the total censorship of the net is in place, a public 'outrage' event is to be used as the excuse for Britain, NZ and Australia to ban *all* 'violent' video games.

Censorship begets censorship begets censorship. Insular yanks have no idea what is happening in the rest of the West. The US Constitution makes America a unique member of the West. NZ now imprisons citizens for >10 years for doing something (looking at a state censored video) that could *never* be illegal in the USA. Australia makes it a serious *criminal* offense to *own* a 'banned' video game. NZ and Australia are pure fabian/alt-left societies. The weakest willed ex-brits form the populations of these two colonies.

Brits in Britain have far more backbone and moral fibre- but their spirit has been broken by mass immigration and societal warfare on the ordinary citizen. Since millions of Brits rallied in London to *oppose* Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq, the fabians have worked to make all future mass protest movements in the UK *impossible*. Protest planners are monitored and arrested pre-emptively using intelligence gathered from facebook and other online sources.

The only big protests in the UK are state sponsored and organised by agents of the alt-left. Fcaebook promotes these statist propaganda movements, of course.

Britain now arrests people who heckle war-mongering British MPs from the three major parties. Deplatformed candidates, at the same time, can be assaulted on the campaign trail while the police stand by and do *nothing*. I no longer need a History book to learn what 30s Germany was like. We now live it in Britain every day.

Idiots from the 'left' in the USA are told to cheer the censorship successes of the alt-left, cos it's really the 'same' team. Why do you think organised sport (originated by an early form of the fabians in the UK) was encouraged by the state? Ever hear of Ancient Rome's "blue vs green"? "Team Loyalty"- a concept sold to every dim-witted beta, is a perfect method of psychological control. The 'left' becomes a *sport team*, as does the 'right'. And idiots trained on the concepts of *big sport* take the same idiotic 'thinking' to politics.

"huh, huh, huh- my team is sticking it to those dirty right-wing players- duh. Winning, duh". Most of the defense of Facebook here and elsewhere takes this form. And there it was thousands of years back in Rome. Blue vs Green. Same thing for the same reason.

But for god's sake, understand this from top down. Fabian monsters using perfected psychological methods to control every aspect of the experiences of the vast majority of Humanity. Their leaders have been talking about this for more than *one hundred* years, openly and in public. And advances in tech were *always* seen as their route to final success. Stop arguing about 'angels' and look up and see the head of the snake above us.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,664
1,899
525
Canada
It's amazing to me that people still don't seem to understand what the First Amendment is. Being banned from Facebook or Twitter for breaking their ToS is not a First Amendment issue.
Why is your gospel the TOS when you can't even name the violations of the TOS that got some of these people banned?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Damage Inc

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
Why is your gospel the TOS when you can't even name the violations of the TOS that got some of these people banned?
Why is your gospel the first amendment when you can't prove that they didn't? See? I can do that too. If Facebook and Twitter say they banned them for breaking the ToS then I believe them. Especially considering the type of people they are banning. If you don't believe them then thats on you.


(And all of that is still completely ignoring the fact this has nothing to do with the first amendment in the first place)
 

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
I agree 100%. She deserved to be suspended or banned for that Tweet. And obviously ISIS and other terrorist organizations should be banned as well.



EDIT: Oh wait.....she was already suspended.....

I do no knowwhat she did but this tweet was not because of it. This tweet was like 2 or 3 years ago. And she was fine even people mass reported her back then
 
Last edited:

zelo-ca

Member
Jan 26, 2018
962
1,056
200
It's amazing to me that people still don't seem to understand what the First Amendment is. Being banned from Facebook or Twitter for breaking their ToS is not a First Amendment issue.
Question for you. Can the interpretation of the constitution change over time? Per example the second amendmant and modern guns. Yes or no?
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
Question for you. Can the interpretation of the constitution change over time? Per example the second amendmant and modern guns. Yes or no?
Of course. But there is not many ways that you can reinterpret the first amendment. And you sure as hell can't imagine it to mean "you can break the rules of social media platforms without consequences" no matter how hard you try.
 

zelo-ca

Member
Jan 26, 2018
962
1,056
200
Of course. But there is not many ways that you can reinterpret the first amendment. And you sure as hell can't imagine it to
Of course. But there is not many ways that you can reinterpret the first amendment. And you sure as hell can't imagine it to mean "you can break the rules of social media platforms without consequences" no matter how hard you try.
WHAT TOS DID PJW BREAK. Dude answer the fucking question. You cant, he was banned for wrong think. Simple as that. Gonna be fun when you bitch about some far left people being banned for no reason cause its gonna happen.
 

Sqorin Hammerfarf

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2018
2,862
5,372
340
It's amazing to me that people still don't seem to understand what the First Amendment is. Being banned from Facebook or Twitter for breaking their ToS is not a First Amendment issue.
Do you have that disease from that Adam Sandler movie where you wake up every day having forgotten everything that happened before. Because I know I’ve seen you have this exact discussion, with these exact same arguments and retorts before. And they didn’t work then either. Either you keep trying the same things over and over expecting different results because you can’t remember, or you are the definition of insanity.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,664
1,899
525
Canada
Why is your gospel the first amendment when you can't prove that they didn't? See? I can do that too. If Facebook and Twitter say they banned them for breaking the ToS then I believe them. Especially considering the type of people they are banning. If you don't believe them then thats on you.


(And all of that is still completely ignoring the fact this has nothing to do with the first amendment in the first place)
I never mentioned the first amendment. I was trying to understand why you would blindly default to TOS when they are not being transparent on exactly what part of the TOS was violated. It is clearly just some default position you take without much thought if you are just willing to go along with it because of the "type" of people getting banned.
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
WHAT TOS DID PJW BREAK. Dude answer the fucking question. You cant, he was banned for wrong think. Simple as that. Gonna be fun when you bitch about some far left people being banned for no reason cause its gonna happen.
I already did answer that question when someone else asked it.

And you won't see me complaining because I don't get upset when people are punished for breaking the rules on social media. I don't care whose "side" they are on.
 

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,520
3,981
495
Its not censorship. Milo is still allowed to spread his garbage wherever he wants. Nobody is stopping him. He just can't do it on Twitter. Twitter and other social media platforms are not obligated to provide a platform to people who break their terms of service.

Getting banned from Twitter or Facebook is not censorship.
You know, I've already responded to this, but I just wanted to add.... if supposed left wing personalities were getting banned, everyone across the political spectrum would be up in arms. We'd be on your side. It's truly disgusting to me the modern left has completely sold their digital souls and become such scum sucking, corporate apologist authoritarians. Anyone on the left worth their salt has denounced this shit, because they know in a few years the thought police would come for them and the positions of the far left are morally reprehensible.

That people like you applaud voices being silenced is a testament to the sad state of America today. But be thankful, because in your ignorance you are waking more and more people up, reminding people of how important liberty is, reminding people that people like you are ready to swoop in and silence their opposition at a moment's notice. And truth be told, it was time for a wake up call. I know, even 5 years ago, I wasn't particularly patriotic. I mean, sure, I knew my constitution, but I can't say I truly recognized how vital it was. Despite the warnings of our founders, I didn't realize how fragile liberty could be, how quickly a broken idealogy could swoop in and try to snatch it.... and I lived through the evangelicals, when everyone did unite to shut them down.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
475
1,178
230
I already did answer that question when someone else asked it.

And you won't see me complaining because I don't get upset when people are punished for breaking the rules on social media. I don't care whose "side" they are on.

So, to be clear, you’re completely okay with corporations silencing users (including public figures) based on a hidden arbitrary set of criteria about what political topics people can and cannot discuss?

You see zero problems that could possibly arise from the largest platforms of communication in modern world suddenly banding together and deciding to silence certain public figures desite those platforms not having a problem with those figures’ same behavior in the past?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Damage Inc

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,713
14,476
940
Australia
Try a couple of years' worth of Sarah Jeong's contributions. She now sits on the NYT Editorial board.

How quick you are to sink into selective amnesia when it suits you.
Neva 5get:

So I am not allowed to change my mind?


By that asinine logic literally everyone on this site is inconsistent. I had an kneejerk reaction and then took a deeper dive and decided to change my mind. Literally everyone has done that.

You are being utterly absurd now. Trump and the apartheid comments are not related to my opinion on her tweets.

Trump was me pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the people in the thread.


Apartheid was me falling for JordanN racebait bullshit.


You are seriously reaching.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/vimeo-removes-infowars-content-assault-on-free-speech-continues.1464624/page-2#post-253389863
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitesnake

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,064
3,644
250
The reasons however are bullshit when they left people on there like ISIS. Like feminist advising pregnant women with white boys to an abortion. Saying fuck white people etc. It is a political driven agenda

Also Social media like Facebook and Twitter have HUGE influence in our life. Hell "newsmedia" like CNN write whole articles about some people offended on twitter making it an fabricated outrage to push their political believes. If they want to ban people for breaking the rules. FINE., But they need to do it with EVERYONE who does break these rules no matter their political ideology.

You want to ban an Joseph Watson? Fine than also ban Shaun King

https://nypost.com/2019/05/04/mark-zuckerbergs-hate-ban-isnt-about-safety-its-about-his-own-ego/

Also the more you try to deplotform people the more they are being radicalized. They maybe gone for you. But they still exist underground maybe even plotting actual hate crimes because of this.

There is blood on the streets in Venezuela. But the Democratic Socialists of America are free to defend the Maduro regime on Facebook. Why? Because socialists don’t embarrass tech executives, but Alex Jones does


That sums up this whole farce pretty well
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,840
365
So, to be clear, you’re completely okay with corporations silencing users (including public figures) based on a hidden arbitrary set of criteria about what political topics people can and cannot discuss?

You see zero problems that could possibly arise from the largest platforms of communication in modern world suddenly banding together and deciding to silence certain public figures desite those platforms not having a problem with those figures’ same behavior in the past?
Its not hidden. The Terms of Service is something literally anyone can read at anytime.

https://twitter.com/en/tos

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


And once again nobody is being "silenced". They are not being "censored". They broke the rules of their chosen platform and were banned. Thats not the same thing. They are free to go literally anywhere else and spread their message and post their content. Getting banned from Twitter for breaking their rules is not being censored.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
475
1,178
230
Its not hidden. The Terms of Service is something literally anyone can read at anytime.

https://twitter.com/en/tos

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


And once again nobody is being "silenced". They are not being "censored". They broke the rules of their chosen platform and were banned. Thats not the same thing.
Hidden as in their specific criteria of what’s allowed and what’s not isn’t known. They have policies on “hate speech”, “abusive behvaior”, etc but they get to define (and redefine) what those terms mean at their convenience. A sizable portion of Facebook and Twitter’s content is guilty of what their ToS would claim is “hate speech” and “abuse”, but it stays up all the same. They get to pick and choose who gets the banhammer without any regards to consistency or transparency.

And you can’t really say “but they broke the rules” if you can’t even cite what rules they broke. But that’s understandable, as facebook doesn’t seem to know what rules they broke either.

You’re assuming they broke the rules without any actual evidence. “They got punsihed, so they must be guilty!” What if you applied to this to any other punitive system. Do you believe there’s never been any cases of people being falsely incarcerated, because you take the judges and law enforcement at their word when they say “well they broke the law” and leave it at that? If not, do you trust the corporate executives at Facebook more than judges?

Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they’re guilty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Damage Inc

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,551
16,441
685
CNN is now posting opinions as new stories and not labeling them as opinion pieces.

They are masquerading opinion as fact, and using activist talking points / rhetoric.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

gela94

Member
Aug 24, 2018
161
63
170
The real scary thing about this, is not facebook or twitter but that most people don't care or think people who speak up about this are hyperbole, if it becomes so bad that even everyday people will notice it then it probably will be too late. I'm very sad that even to this day people still didn't realize what power they have but I guess everybody is busy making nudephotos and posting it. Most people don't seem to realize how rare and fragile our freedom is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
2,775
5,172
645
And as the means to speak your position gets eroded, those who cheer such erosion double-down on the smears.

That would be bad enough, were it not for the fact that those cheering and smearing are MSM.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,125
691
270
I don't see the issue.

He can ban whoever and whenever he wants.

Don't like it? create your own website.
 
Last edited:

Shaqazooloo

Member
Nov 3, 2018
569
452
205
Canada
I think when you have as much influence as a facebook or Twitter it's important to allow differing views as long as it doesn't incite violence. Either of those two sites becoming an echo chamber like resetera could be very dangerous.
 

Antoon

Banned
Nov 20, 2018
795
931
345
Ah yes, the Empire era is here at last. Disney owning the entertainment industry and Facebook/Patreon/Twitter owning the social media, who is gonna take the other thrones?
 
Last edited:

CurryPanda

Gold Member
Mar 4, 2019
4,491
5,642
595
Ah yes, the Empire era is here at last. Disney owning the entertainment industry and Facebook/Patreon/Twitter owning the social media, who is gonna take the other thrones?
What other thrones are left?