Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why? The theory is that social media giants are using the riots of last week as a way to silence ideologies they disagree with to strengthen their hold over the internet to monitor social discourse which in turn influences politics. The basis for this theory is the multiude of examples and logical hypocrisies that have been observed with regards to these companies. Other than that, not much more is known. That's why people are offering opinions and nuggets here as they try to divine the truth, or to confirm their reality.

If you want this thread to be lads in tinfoil hats howling at the moon im sure you can find other threads for your amusement.

I’d say that social media companies do not wish to be associated with an insurrection that attempted to overthrow a bastion of democracy, and so removed the orchestrator. They may even be complicit as enabling him, and so removed themselves from the equation. That is a fair enough reason to get rid of him and his supporters.

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That's not what happened. The knives were being sharpened for Parler some time ago. Parler afforded its users much higher degrees of privacy and freedom of speech than the SV tech giants. It also prevented monetization of user details to third parties. It was an upstart competitor and was subsequently crushed. Apple gave Parler 24 hours to change its policies and then effectively took the phone off the hook when Parler tried to reply.


Whatever happened at Capitol Hill was for the most part orchestrated via Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. None of those arrested were Parler account holders.

Why were the knives sharpened for Parker? Maybe because they kept breaking the rules they agreed to adhere to?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So you're effectively saying that the internet is the property of Google/Apple/Amazon.

I have no idea of how many companies provide hosting services, infrastructure etc., but It’s probably in the tens of thousands. Everyone knows this.

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No it ISN'T and this has been pointed out time and time again. You just can't seem to get it into your head or you refuse to because your ego won't let you.


Your pub analogy is weak. A better analogy would be that you open your own pub on the street but the handful of owners of the other pubs burn your premises to the ground and run you out of town because they don't look kindly on the fact that their punters are migrating to your establishment and they don't like the competition.

Eh, no.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I’d say that social media companies do not wish to be associated with an insurrection that attempted to overthrow a bastion of democracy, and so removed the orchestrator. They may even be complicit as enabling him, and so removed themselves from the equation. That is a fair enough reason to get rid of him and his supporters.

If you agree with all that, then why have they not gotten rid of the Chinese govt on twitter, which spread disinformation about their practices at ethnic cleansing. Why was Pelosi not sanctioned for declaring the election in 2016 was rigged. Hillary has said the election was stolen from her, again no sanction.

Youd swear I'm a supporter of trump the way I'm being painted into a corner here! I'm saying for a company that want to be a platform not liable for the content they host, porn, violence, snuff etc, they seemed to take a very direct approach to one particular ideology.

I only glanced at trumps tweets, I didn't dissect them. I'm happy to be shown the light here and will do so, but can you point me to where it can be legally demonstrated that he was the "orchestrator of an insurrection". Did he direct a mob to violently attack the Capitol, and did he refuse to try to calm the situation?

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

If you agree with all that, then why have they not gotten rid of the Chinese govt on twitter, which spread disinformation about their practices at ethnic cleansing. Why was Pelosi not sanctioned for declaring the election in 2016 was rigged. Hillary has said the election was stolen from her, again no sanction.

Youd swear I'm a supporter of trump the way I'm being painted into a corner here! I'm saying for a company that want to be a platform not liable for the content they host, porn, violence, snuff etc, they seemed to take a very direct approach to one particular ideology.

I only glanced at trumps tweets, I didn't dissect them. I'm happy to be shown the light here and will do so, but can you point me to where it can be legally demonstrated that he was the "orchestrator of an insurrection". Did he direct a mob to violently attack the Capitol, and did he refuse to try to calm the situation?

Have the Chinese government instigated a coup in the US?

He held a rally beforehand to rile up his followers, and here are just two nuggets. You should watch the speech online if you can.

“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”, and, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

Now in typical Trump fashion, he lied and did not go to the Capitol with them.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Have the Chinese government instigated a coup in the US?

He held a rally beforehand to rile up his followers, and here are just two nuggets. You should watch the speech online if you can.

“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”, and, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

Now in typical Trump fashion, he lied and did not go to the Capitol with them.

The Chinese have broken the tos of twitter is my point.

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there,it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Another theory is that after years of disinformation, Trump overstepped his mark by inciting an attack on a sitting Congress, which subsequently caused social media platforms, companies, banks and organisations (e.g. the PGA) to disassociate or block him.

However, as mentioned, I am asking about an actual conspiracy theory, and nothing coherent has been provided in this thread, only vague "appeal to motive" notions.

We are discussing censorship here and monopoly control of media.


You keep bringing up Trump's incitement of the Capitol incident. Why? Why do you insist on not getting the message of the thread or are you just revelling in being a fly in the ointment?


And AGAIN you ask for a conspiracy, one that has been shown to you and then on top of that you insist on a "timeline".


I'll try, one last time, to get it into your head.


Nobody here is excusing speech that calls for violence, rape, torture, murder. Do you have that so far? Are we on the same page so far?


People are also chiming in that Parler is sh1t and deserved to be destroyed. Funnily they are free to say such things. Are will still on the same page?


My original post was that the events of January 6th will be used as a pretext to shutdown free speech under the guise of it being inciteful. Are you still on board? Have I lost you?


A handful of your fellow travellers seem to have sloped off after their pub analogies and claims of completely irrelevant activity have been exposed as just that..irrelevant.


Nobody except YOU and a few minions are talking about Trump being banned for inflammatory talk. that is not what this discussion is about but you are still playing your game perhaps to exasperate others beyond endurance.


Trump was broadcast on many news outlets such as Fox News, CNN and others AS WELL as online platforms saying things like "I'd like to punch him in the face" or encouraging security guards to rough up protesters at his rallies and that he would pay the legal fees for their defences. Did Fox, CNN, YouTube get pulled of the air for this?



NO.



So the big players are not in the slightest bit interested in the noble belief that inflammatory content must be throttled.



Saudi Arabia has a nice presence on Facebook and Twitter and they are paragons of virtue in your eyes?


I'll endeavour to conclude by explaining that this thread is about a monopoly cracking down on freedom of speech and expression under the guise that it can be construed as troublesome to their interests.

Dohnjoe

Smacruairi wrote: »

The Chinese have broken the tos of twitter is my point.

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there,it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

So according to you, Trump has been completely misunderstood and is the victim here?

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

The Chinese have broken the tos of twitter is my point.

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there,it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

Yes, when you tell armed gangs to stand down and stand by, it shows support. Then during his rally and March on Capitol Hill he was talking to a crowd, of which many were carrying weapons. They were mad enough to travel from all corners of the US to protest valid election results based on Trumps lies, then they are probably quite an unstable crowd. Trump knew what he was saying and who he was saying it to.

jimmycrackcorm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If only there was an official channel for the use president to express himself through such as Whitehouse press conferences. I might patent the process on how they would word.

Instead Trump didn’t want to be held accountable for his words and so used private platforms.

I wonder how many interviews Trump gave to Fox vs how many to CNN where he might have to provide real answers.

More so, isn't the real conspiracy to censor, the act of calling mainstream media "Fake news"?

Smacruairi

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So according to you, Trump has been completely misunderstood and is the victim here?

No, not what I said at all. You have totally misrepresented what I discussed. This is actually ridiculous now.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes, when you tell armed gangs to stand down and stand by, it shows support. Then during his rally and March on Capitol Hill he was talking to a crowd, of which many were carrying weapons. They were mad enough to travel from all corners of the US to protest valid election results based on Trumps lies, then they are probably quite an unstable crowd. Trump knew what he was saying and who he was saying it to.

Well the quote I gave to you there was not from trump, he never said it.
It was said by Hillary after she lost her election against him.

So is it still incitement now for you?

Trump had a tweet saying "go home in peace", doesn't sound like incitement to me on that one.

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

Well the quote I gave to you there was not from trump, he never said it.
It was said by Hillary after she lost her election against him. So is it still incitement?

Was she talking to an armed angry mob that traveled from all corners of the US to try and stop the certification process?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

We are discussing censorship here and monopoly control of media.


You keep bringing up Trump's incitement of the Capitol incident. Why?

It's in the title.

And AGAIN you ask for a conspiracy, one that has been shown to you and then on top of that you insist on a "timeline".


I'll try, one last time, to get it into your head.


Nobody here is excusing speech that calls for violence, rape, torture, murder. Do you have that so far? Are we on the same page so far?


People are also chiming in that Parler is sh1t and deserved to be destroyed. Funnily they are free to say such things. Are will still on the same page?


My original post was that the events of January 6th will be used as a pretext to shutdown free speech under the guise of it being inciteful. Are you still on board? Have I lost you?


A handful of your fellow travellers seem to have sloped off after their pub analogies and claims of completely irrelevant activity have been exposed as just that..irrelevant.


Nobody except YOU and a few minions are talking about Trump being banned for inflammatory talk. that is not what this discussion is about but you are still playing your game perhaps to exasperate others beyond endurance.


Trump was broadcast on many news outlets such as Fox News, CNN and others AS WELL as online platforms saying things like "I'd like to punch him in the face" or encouraging security guards to rough up protesters at his rallies and that he would pay the legal fees for their defences. Did Fox, CNN, YouTube get pulled of the air for this?



NO.



So the big players are not in the slightest bit interested in the noble belief that inflammatory content must be throttled.



Saudi Arabia has a nice presence on Facebook and Twitter and they are paragons of virtue in your eyes?


I'll endeavour to conclude by explaining that this thread is about a monopoly cracking down on freedom of speech and expression under the guise that it can be construed as troublesome to their interests.

You are presenting this (very vague) notion that some companies are "working together" to shut down free speech because it's somehow not in their best interests.

So why is Twitter taking part in this? they are losing users

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Was she talking to an armed angry mob that traveled from all corners of the US to try and stop the certification process?

Ah so you moved the goalposts, grand. So hillary incites violence, grand, not banned, Trump, banned.

That's fine, just be happy with your hypocrisy. "go home in peace".

Dohnjoe

Smacruairi wrote: »

No, not what I said at all. You have totally misrepresented what I discussed. This is actually ridiculous now.

Here it is:

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there, it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

It seems that you are stating that Trump didn't incite the riot. Correct?

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

Ah so you moved the goalposts, grand. So hillary incites violence, grand, not banned, Trump, banned.

That's fine, just be happy with your hypocrisy. "go home in peace".

No goalposts moved. I mentioned the angry armed mob rally in the post that you quoted.

Smacruairi

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here it is:



It seems that you are stating that Trump didn't incite the riot. Correct?

I asked for the tweets that incited an insurrection. I've neither said he did nor didn't incite them.

Your whole point was that he used the platform to incite violence. I'm asking for the evidence of that so I can judge that for myself. I have yet to be produced anything here.

But knowing you you'll look for a definition of a tweet, or some other way to obfuscate.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

No goalposts moved. I mentioned the angry armed mob rally in the post that you quoted.

You also said that hillarys tweet incited violence, particularly on the eve on Trumps inauguration which was heavily protested and required massive security.

I disagree with you however and don't think her tweet incites violence.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I have no idea of how many companies provide hosting services, infrastructure etc., but It’s probably in the tens of thousands. Everyone knows this.

Everyone DOESN'T know this.


There are a handful of physical hosting services and the top of the pyramid is perhaps AWS, Azure and one or two others. Your data sits on these machines and they determine whether or not you get to operate.

arccosh

but, but, but.... that would mean Trump is in on it??? the victim has become the conspirator

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

You also said that hillarys tweet incited violence, particularly on the eve on Trumps inauguration which was heavily protested and required massive security.

I disagree with you however and don't think her tweet incites violence.

Context is everything, so stop trying to say what I think about a particular situation. Maybe if you weren’t trying to sneaky you wouldn’t be trying to put words in my mouth.

Did she say it to an angry mob, of which many were armed and tell them to match on the Capitol to vent their anger? Remember...context!

Dohnjoe

Smacruairi wrote: »

I asked for the tweets that incited an insurrection. I've neither said he did nor didn't incite them.

That's fine.

To repeat my earlier question I asked about this conspiracy theory you mentioned

Do you have any concrete evidence of it? and is it your own personal theory or is it a general one from the internet?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Everyone DOESN'T know this.


There are a handful of physical hosting services and the top of the pyramid is perhaps AWS, Azure and one or two others. Your data sits on these machines and they determine whether or not you get to operate.

Hmm....not very intelligent of Parlers creators then. Surely it wouldn’t take much intelligence to look around for hosts that you don’t have to agree to a set of rules that you have no intention of sticking to.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Have the Chinese government instigated a coup in the US?

He held a rally beforehand to rile up his followers, and here are just two nuggets. You should watch the speech online if you can.

“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”, and, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

Now in typical Trump fashion, he lied and did not go to the Capitol with them.

It's like talking to a brick.


We are talking about censorship here and precedents.

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's like talking to a brick.


We are talking about censorship here and precedents.

Sorry if I am having a discussion with another poster. If you have a problem with it then please report both their and my posts.

Smacruairi

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's fine.

To repeat my earlier question I asked about this conspiracy theory you mentioned

Do you have any concrete evidence of it? and is it your own personal theory or is it a general one from the internet?

I've written enough for you to decipher my thoughts. You won't engage on any level with anything I write so I'm leaving it there talking to you. Enjoy the thread.

Smacruairi

Smacruairi wrote: »

I asked for the tweets that incited an insurrection. I've neither said he did nor didn't incite them.

Your whole point was that he used the platform to incite violence. I'm asking for the evidence of that so I can judge that for myself. I have yet to be produced anything here.

But knowing you you'll look for a definition of a tweet, or some other way to obfuscate.

You'd need to go check out the speech for yourself, but this is from just a few mins ago - one of the few Republican's to vote to impeach Trump today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsfFORhpFkU

The sound quality isn't great, but you'll get the idea.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Context is everything, so stop trying to say what I think about a particular situation. Maybe if you weren’t trying to sneaky you wouldn’t be trying to put words in my mouth.

Did she say it to an angry mob, of which many were armed and tell them to match on the Capitol to vent their anger? Remember...context!

Context is everything, I agree. Hillary lost the election, many many people were upset, and she delivered that. You think it incited violence as you declared. 150 people were arrested on that day for rioting by the way.

I'm not being sneaky, I asked you a question and you answered it. I didn't say "wouldn't you agree with me" or "I think you're trying to say this". If you want to change your opinion now that you know the author of the words, I think that shows the inherent bias you have however.