d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Censorship Thread
Prev12122232425124Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 45,874
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 19 2018 01:59pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2018 01:45pm)
>create groundbreaking social media platform
>keep improving so everyone makes one
>lose control because it's so popular the public thinks it belongs to them

at least they have a few billion dollars to wipe their tears.


sounds like a cyclical history of american capitalist/socialist ventures
Member
Posts: 90,646
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Oct 19 2018 02:03pm
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 19 2018 01:54pm)
Makes me think of the "You knew i was a snake" adage Trump used to tout.

I think it wouldn't be an issue at all if there wasn't so much clear silicon collusion. Most normal people respond with well ill just start my own site or go elsewhere, but then you have situations where multiple companies deplatform you simultaneously, including to the level of your domain registrar. Not allowing you to compete or take your service elsewhere. Should be a fun ride.


Live by the sword die by the sword.

If your entire empire is built on click baity sihttier videos that people half jokingly share on facebook and twitter you didnt have a very good business.

but honestly, overall, once we get a case where someone isn't a snake oil salesmen like Alex Jones i'll start caring. While i'm not a fan of anti-free-speech moves, i'll wait until the target isn't a fraud. all of the "just wait", "it could have been anyone", "slipper slope" talk is just talk.

Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 19 2018 01:59pm)
sounds like a cyclical history of american capitalist/socialist ventures



kinda. but people "control" companies like Oreos by buying more or less of the offbrand, not shaking down their congressperson to draw up unprecedented anti-trust laws that will invariably have shitty language that will cause more problems than it addresses.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 19 2018 02:04pm
Member
Posts: 45,874
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 19 2018 02:13pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2018 02:03pm)
kinda. but people "control" companies like Oreos by buying more or less of the offbrand, not shaking down their congressperson to draw up unprecedented anti-trust laws that will invariably have shitty language that will cause more problems than it addresses.


yeah but Oreos don't fulfill a crucial utility role in modern life or act as monopolistic gatekeepers of the public square. Oreos can't get so popular that other foods can't compete and you'll starve to death on a non-oreo diet.
Member
Posts: 90,646
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Oct 19 2018 02:20pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 19 2018 02:13pm)
yeah but Oreos don't fulfill a crucial utility role in modern life or act as monopolistic gatekeepers of the public square. Oreos can't get so popular that other foods can't compete and you'll starve to death on a non-oreo diet.


i'll fully admit that we ARE intertwined with social media, but not that it's a necessity. Myspace fell, facebook could too. will it? probably not. but they've already ceded a massive amount of market share this decade with the emergence of twitter and instagram, even larger big box forums like redit take their share of the market. Facebooks market isn't # of users, it's hours per day internet usage per person. of which they've massively lost time compared to 6-7 years ago when facebook was a one stop shop.

but, as an intellectual, i recognize that attacking social media platforms is like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. they have the ability to code or simply change around regulations in real time while the legislation takes forever. let's also recognize that for the legislation to really be effective it's going to need to be platform specific. you can't make censorship rules in a general sense that will be effective without addressing the process that each platform uses to censor, and they're not exactly all the same. even if they were they could adopt differing policies to skirt the regulations. or you push it to something like a public council or tribunal and then it's open to corruption and moves as fast as molasses.

it's a quagmire, we all know social media and their stranglehold on public speech on their platform are a problem. but combating the problem isn't straight forward, any politician claiming they know what legislation needs to look like is a liar.

edit: oreos is also owned by one of the largest producers of food and household goods in the country, #2 if memory serves. if they closed doors a hell of a lot more people would suffer than if facebook was unplugged.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 19 2018 02:21pm
Member
Posts: 45,874
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 19 2018 02:28pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45918845

The UK media gag-order has been lifted and the trial concluded in the Huddersfield pakistani child rape / grooming case.
20 convictions;

Quote
The convicted men:
Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, of Holly Road, Huddersfield, guilty of 54 counts, including 22 counts of rape, sentenced to life with a minimum term of 18 years
Irfan Ahmed, 34, of Yews Hill Road, Huddersfield, guilty of one count of sexual assault and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to eight years
Zahid Hassan, 29, of Bland Street Huddersfield, guilty of six counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, one count of sexual assault, one count of trafficking for sexual exploitation, two counts of child abduction, two counts of supplying class A drugs sentenced to 18 years
Mohammed Kammer, 34, of West View, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape, sentenced to 16 years
Mohammed Rizwan Aslam, 31, of Huddersfield Road, Dewsbury, guilty of two counts of rape, sentenced to 15 years
Abdul Rehman, 31, of Darnely Drive, Sheffield, guilty of supplying a class C drug, one count of rape, one count of assault and one count of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to 16 years
Raj Singh Barsran, 34, of Caldercliffe Road, Huddersfield, guilty of rape and two counts of sexual assault, sentenced to 17 years
Nahman Mohammed, 32, of West View, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape and one count of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to 15 years
Mansoor Akhtar, 27, of Blackmoorfoot Road, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to eight years
Wiqas Mahmud, 38, of Banks Crescent, Huddersfield, guilty of three counts of rape, sentenced to 15 years
Nasarat Hussain, 30, of Upper Mount Street, Huddersfield, guilty of three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, sentenced to 17 years
Sajid Hussain, of 33, of Grasmere Road, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape, sentenced to 17 years
Mohammed Irfraz, 30, of North Road, Huddersfield, guilty of child abduction and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation, sentenced to six years
Faisal Nadeem, 32, of Carr Green, Huddersfield, guilty of rape and supplying class A drugs, sentenced to 12 years
Mohammed Azeem, 33, of Wrose Road, Bradford, guilty of five counts of rape, sentenced to 18 years
Manzoor Hassan, 38, of Bland Street, Huddersfield, guilty of administering a noxious substance, inciting child prostitution and supplying a class A drug, sentenced to five years
Mohammed Akram, 33, of Springdale Street, Huddersfield, guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of trafficking for sexual exploitation and awaiting sentencing
Niaz Ahmed, 54, of Woodthorpe Terrace, Huddersfield, guilty of sexual assault and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and awaiting sentencing
Asif Bashir, 33, of Thornton Lodge Road, Huddersfield, guilty of, rape and attempted rape and awaiting sentencing
Mohammed Imran Ibrar, 34, of Manchester Road, Huddersfield, guilty of trafficking for sexual exploitation and assault and awaiting sentencing
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
Oct 19 2018 02:40pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 19 2018 03:20pm)
i'll fully admit that we ARE intertwined with social media, but not that it's a necessity. Myspace fell, facebook could too. will it? probably not. but they've already ceded a massive amount of market share this decade with the emergence of twitter and instagram, even larger big box forums like redit take their share of the market. Facebooks market isn't # of users, it's hours per day internet usage per person. of which they've massively lost time compared to 6-7 years ago when facebook was a one stop shop.

but, as an intellectual, i recognize that attacking social media platforms is like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. they have the ability to code or simply change around regulations in real time while the legislation takes forever. let's also recognize that for the legislation to really be effective it's going to need to be platform specific. you can't make censorship rules in a general sense that will be effective without addressing the process that each platform uses to censor, and they're not exactly all the same. even if they were they could adopt differing policies to skirt the regulations. or you push it to something like a public council or tribunal and then it's open to corruption and moves as fast as molasses.

it's a quagmire, we all know social media and their stranglehold on public speech on their platform are a problem. but combating the problem isn't straight forward, any politician claiming they know what legislation needs to look like is a liar.

edit: oreos is also owned by one of the largest producers of food and household goods in the country, #2 if memory serves. if they closed doors a hell of a lot more people would suffer than if facebook was unplugged.


Thats a great point. I could see twitter just making you appear in like 1% of posts instead of outright banning you then arguing that the community essentially shushed you not the company outright removing you or some similar shit to shadowbanning to get around regulation.

Although if the trend stays i could see company specific making sense because its pretty much only 3-5 calling all the shots not 100s.
Member
Posts: 90,646
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Oct 19 2018 03:09pm
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 19 2018 02:40pm)
Thats a great point. I could see twitter just making you appear in like 1% of posts instead of outright banning you then arguing that the community essentially shushed you not the company outright removing you or some similar shit to shadowbanning to get around regulation.

Although if the trend stays i could see company specific making sense because its pretty much only 3-5 calling all the shots not 100s.


i could see targeting companies specifically working, but only until they change just enough to skirt the rules. food companies got around trans fats laws in no time flat, and that was literally ingredients. this is code. and in the meantime u need to argue in senate, then congress, then draft and redraft laws, clear veto, and instruct the DOJ on how to enforce. and it could take them 15 mins to skirt it on a code level. its like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. it really is the unsolvable problem of our time, the issues are largely driven by the users, not the platform itself. we cant police the users, and we cant effectively police the platform. the only glimmer of hope is the myriad of emerging apps and sites that have taken market share off of facebook, for a while it looked like Zuck would rule the world by 2030.
Member
Posts: 45,874
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
Oct 22 2018 03:49pm
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/22/google-shuts-down-advertising-campaign-of-toronto-mayoral-candidate-faith-goldy-before-election/
https://twitter.com/FaithGoldy/status/1053834260640079873/photo/1

Google has completely shut down Toronto mayoral candidate Faith Goldy's campaign advertising online ahead of the election.
Quote
“We’ve confirmed that your account is in violation of our Google Ads policies. Since this decision is final, the account will not be reinstated,” wrote Google to Goldy in an email. “Please avoid creating additional Google Ads accounts, as they will be subjected to the same suspension. Our support team will not be able to give you any more specifics on the suspension.”

“Voting commenced Monday at 10am, we got the notice [of ad suspension] late on Saturday night,” declared Goldy to Breitbart Tech, adding that an appeal was impossible until Google’s offices opened again on Monday, the day of the election.


This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 22 2018 03:49pm
Member
Posts: 38,137
Joined: May 28 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 22 2018 08:05pm
YouTube says EU copyright rules could see people banned from uploading videos and poses ‘threat’ to way site works

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/youtube-eu-copyright-rules-meme-ban-article-13-11-latest-google-a8596366.html
Member
Posts: 90,646
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Oct 25 2018 12:23pm
https://pagesix.com/2018/10/25/megyn-kellys-lawyer-wants-ronan-farrow-on-hand-to-meet-with-nbc-execs/?_ga=2.194266093.1980332894.1540383553-1147555080.1514899378

Somewhat tangentially related but i think directly related, just convoluted.

dial back to the Matt Lauer #metoo accusations, Megyn Kelly (fellow NBC employee) was highly critical of Lauer and how his situation and past misconduct was handled. NBC has had their sights on her ever since.

Flash forward to Kelly (arguably insensitively) asking why blackface is offensive. Now in reality she asked a much more broad question, not specifically about blackface but exploring why its offensive to dress as another person's race. this of course ties in aspects such as cultural appropriation around native american outfits and asian outfits (in the context of Halloween), as well as blackface or even dressing up looking like a black person in clothes but not blackface.

NBC then spotlights her error, brings exposure to it so they can get ratings, forces Kelly to do an entire apology episode, doesn't silence other prominent NBC voices from commenting (see Al Roker, even tho their original grievance is Kelly commenting on another NBC employee, amplifying the situation), makes her take a 3 day vacation, then fires her.

Now Kelly, like the model for strong and powerful yet sexy as all fuck woman that she is, will strike back. I hope this cracks shit for NBC wide open. fuck em.


however, this isn't exactly the reason im posting. people claim that NBC and other mega-media outlets have a "liberal bias". From MSNBC to SNL this network specifically has been drug on that front. This however shows the truth, they're afraid of outrage, and self serving, not SJWs. when Lauer fell it was an institution, Kelly piling on put an X on her head. they dont like #metoo, it's a financial liability. Now, in a reverse trend, they're weaponizing the same outrage against on of their employees that they were upset got weaponized against a different employee. what a cruel twist, let's hope it leads to a few execs getting exposed.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12122232425124Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll