Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

Cody montana

GPS tracking data from Parler hack 'shows that many users of the app stormed into the US Capitol Building'

conorhal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

QAnon is a very specific conspiracy but because most people don't know that, its become the new way to just deplatform any people or opinions that the left don't like, think of it as the late 2020/2021 version of calling someone a racist.

It really isn't a very specific conspiracy, it's a 4chan larp that posts predictions that are more vague than the Delphic Oracle, which boomers try to make retroactive sense of like they do their horoscopes.
Anybody that takes it seriously shouldn't be.

Silentcorner

Can anyone tell me the gist of Qnon?

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can anyone tell me the gist of Qnon?

In retrospect it really does look like q anon was a psy-op to de-legitimise the Trump support..

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

In retrospect it really does look like q anon was a psy-op to de-legitimise the Trump support..

That sounds mad, but if this place is anything to go by, it always seems to be the same types that bring it up repeatedly, obsessively almost....I've never met a person who knows the first thing about it!!!

Cody montana

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can anyone tell me the gist of Qnon?

Bunch o nutters.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

That sounds mad, but if this place is anything to go by, it always seems to be the same types that bring it up repeatedly, obsessively almost....I've never met a person who knows the first thing about it!!!

Yeah, when Alex Jones is calling you 'out there' it's pretty fncked..

But it did serve to completely de-legitimise his support.. there was some government connection..It was a pied Piper affair by the looks of things..
Anyone who should have had some kind of knowledge of it never really did..it just led the more impressionable MAGA heads astray..led to what happened last week.. and nothing came of it..

(I didn't follow it, and have little knowledge about specific claims and stuff, but just as someone who was kind of aware of it..)

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So parlers contract was terminated with AWS, They were banned from the apple App Store and google play store all within 24 hours and this is a coincidence and nothing to be concerned about ?

I never said it was either a coincidence or nothing to be concerned about. You're inferring things from my post which are simply not there. Maybe try reading it again. I merely pointed out WHY they were banned from AWS servers i.e. their failure to moderate the content being posted which included bombing data centres and killing Bezos.

The fact they were subsequently banned from Apple, Play store etc. should come as no surprise. Every single job application or tenancy requires references from previous employers/landlords. Why would Apple or Google expect things to be any different if they took on an uncooperative 'tenant'?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you can either have publicly accessible forums control what words you can and cannot post at their whim but have to leave space for services with a different view exist , or you have to force free speech rules on those services to allow those opinions be shared.

Every single online community has some form of moderation in place, with certain topics and subjects banned. Every single one, including Parler. You can't insist that you have a right to post child porn on Boards, for example, because "muh freeze peach"........that's not how it works.

Their house, their rules. Exactly the same as Parler themselves operated......"we run the show, so we decide what can or cannot be said". If you want to host your sh1t on AWS servers, then you have to play by AWS rules. They were asked to abide by those rules, and refused (actually they agreed to, but then welched on their agreement).

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there is no space in this world for subverting the ability of people to read or post opinions that most other people disagree with.

But there is. In all walks of life, right across the world, in multiple different scenarios, every goddamned day. You're not allowed stand in the street shouting racist slurs, or denouncing the holocaust, or showing pornographic images, or inciting people to overthrow the Government, or claiming Ginger people are genetically inferior or whatever.

And with good reason. The entire world went to war over this crap and 75 million people died as a result.

"Freedom of speech" does not mean that you are being censored when someone refuses you access to their platform to spout your bolloxology. They owe you nothing. In the case of Parler, the opposite is true......they owed AWS a duty to adhere to the contract conditions to which they signed up to, and ultimately failed.

Do me a favour, pop into Independent House tomorrow and tell them you demand they publish your article on riding farm animals up the jacksie in Friday's Indo; see how quickly you get booted out the front door.

Then hit them with the old "you're subverting the ability of people to post opinions that most other people disagree with" and see how quickly you get booted out the front door by people openly laughing at you.

Junkyard Tom

Akesh wrote: »

Alphabet/Google - $21M. 80% to Dems, 7% to GOP
Microsoft - $17M. 75% to Dems, 14% to GOP
Amazon - $8.9M. 85% to Dems, 14% to GOP
Facebook - $6M. 80% Dems, 10% to GOP
Apple - $5.7M. 80% to Dems, 4% to GOP
Twitter - $.879M. 100% to Dems

And hilariously people think that the Democrats are 'the left'. If the Dems were 'left' they wouldn't be getting a penny.

CtevenSrowder

rossie1977 wrote: »

Those are employee contributions not actual corporate political donations.

Various big corporations donated to pacs are listed here. Google was 50/50 btw. Microsoft donated bit more to Republicans than Dems https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-blue-chip-companies-halt-political-donations-after-capitol-riot-by-trump-supporters-11610395667

If anything that's worse!

nolivesmatter

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

And hilariously people think that the Democrats are 'the left'. If the Dems were 'left' they wouldn't be getting a penny.

Left and right are relative terms, but relative to GOP they are left and that's obviously what people mean when they say the Democrats are left.

Tony EH

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Left and right are relative terms, but relative to GOP they are left and that's obviously what people mean when they say the Democrats are left.

That doesn't mean shit.

That's like calling a right leaning conservative party the "left", because the guys next to them are far right extremists.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

"Freedom of speech" does not mean that you are being censored when someone refuses you access to their platform to spout your bolloxology. They owe you nothing. In the case of Parler, the opposite is true......they owed AWS a duty to adhere to the contract conditions to which they signed up to, and ultimately failed.
.

Actually freedom of speech is chilled here, because these companies are monopolists or acting in collusion in an anti-trust fashion.

The American constitution isn't in fact very strong on free speech because it only protects from government censorship. However it did in previous rulings allow people to pamphlet company towns -- those are towns set up by the railroads, mill owners or other robber Barrons in the 19C -- despite those towns being private property. The Supreme Court decided that these private municipalities acted as public spaces.

The Supreme Court has yet to see these robber Barrons owned part of internet as public spaces, but I think they should logically do so.

Saying that people have free speech, except on the sites of the internet owned by the internet oligarchs, is like as if in the 19C every newspaper, every public street, every house and public building was owned by Hearst, Rockeller and few others; and you couldn't say anything against them or they would ban you from their towns, evict you from their houses, and end your employment.

However you still had free speech as the government didn't stop you from speaking did it, you just needed to own your own newspaper and build your own town.

nolivesmatter

Tony EH wrote: »

That doesn't mean shit.

That's like calling a right leaning conservative party the "left", because the guys next to them are far right extremists.

You got it.

Chris_Heilong

Twitter is a Trash can of people that reinforce their own world view, one involving an obsession with critical Race theory and cancel culture. If they disappeared tomorrow the world would be a more peaceful place.

Tony EH

nolivesmatter wrote: »

You got it.

Silly boy.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually freedom of speech is chilled here, because these companies are monopolists or acting in collusion in an anti-trust fashion.

The American constitution isn't in fact very strong on free speech because it only protects from government censorship. However it did in previous rulings allow people to pamphlet company towns -- those are towns set up by the railroads, mill owners or other robber Barrons in the 19C -- despite those towns being private property. The Supreme Court decided that these private municipalities acted as public spaces.

The Supreme Court has yet to see these robber Barrons owned part of internet as public spaces, but I think they should logically do so.

Saying that people have free speech, except on the sites of the internet owned by the internet oligarchs, is like as if in the 19C every newspaper, every public street, every house and public building was owned by Hearst, Rockeller and few others; but you couldn't say anything against them or they would ban you from their towns and your employment.

However you still had free speech as the government didn't stop you from speaking did it, you just needed to own your own newspaper and build your own town.

The term "Free speech" has been twisted to mean or imply something that it isn't in America.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a general matter, the Supreme Court has said that the Free Speech Clause
applies to “state action, not . . . action by the owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only.” Accordingly, the First Amendment ordinarily would not apply to private conduct
on private sites like Twitter.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it was either a coincidence or nothing to be concerned about. You're inferring things from my post which are simply not there. Maybe try reading it again. I merely pointed out WHY they were banned from AWS servers i.e. their failure to moderate the content being posted which included bombing data centres and killing Bezos.

The fact they were subsequently banned from Apple, Play store etc. should come as no surprise. Every single job application or tenancy requires references from previous employers/landlords. Why would Apple or Google expect things to be any different if they took on an uncooperative 'tenant'?




Every single online community has some form of moderation in place, with certain topics and subjects banned. Every single one, including Parler. You can't insist that you have a right to post child porn on Boards, for example, because "muh freeze peach"........that's not how it works.

Their house, their rules. Exactly the same as Parler themselves operated......"we run the show, so we decide what can or cannot be said". If you want to host your sh1t on AWS servers, then you have to play by AWS rules. They were asked to abide by those rules, and refused (actually they agreed to, but then welched on their agreement).



But there is. In all walks of life, right across the world, in multiple different scenarios, every goddamned day. You're not allowed stand in the street shouting racist slurs, or denouncing the holocaust, or showing pornographic images, or inciting people to overthrow the Government, or claiming Ginger people are genetically inferior or whatever.

And with good reason. The entire world went to war over this crap and 75 million people died as a result.

"Freedom of speech" does not mean that you are being censored when someone refuses you access to their platform to spout your bolloxology. They owe you nothing. In the case of Parler, the opposite is true......they owed AWS a duty to adhere to the contract conditions to which they signed up to, and ultimately failed.

Do me a favour, pop into Independent House tomorrow and tell them you demand they publish your article on riding farm animals up the jacksie in Friday's Indo; see how quickly you get booted out the front door.

Then hit them with the old "you're subverting the ability of people to post opinions that most other people disagree with" and see how quickly you get booted out the front door by people openly laughing at you.

thats the most nonsense comparison of all.

a fairer one would be Indo journalists, Irish times journalists and Examiner Journalists calling the landlord of a small right wing paper and getting them blacklisted from renting any office space, then calling paper suppliers and getting those suppliers to not sell them paper, then harassing shops until they no longer sell the paper, then calling the bank and having them banned from taking payments , then telling the paper 'you're not being censored'

How is a company like parler supposed to function if they have nowhere to put the servers, no app stores to list the app and no payment processor who will accept cards from donors / subscribers ?

Silentcorner

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats the most nonsense comparison of all.

a fairer one would be Indo journalists, Irish times journalists and Examiner Journalists calling the landlord of a small right wing paper and getting them blacklisted from renting any office space, then calling paper suppliers and getting those suppliers to not sell them paper, then harassing shops until they no longer sell the paper, then calling the bank and having them banned from taking payments , then telling the paper 'you're not being censored'

How is a company like parler supposed to function if they have nowhere to put the servers, no app stores to list the app and no payment processor who will accept cards from donors / subscribers ?

The scale of what is happening is unsettling, we should all be unnerved by the amount of companies (many of whom financially supported the BLM riots just a few short months ago) who are engaging in misleading political rhetoric and banning access to political opposition.

They (Tech companies plus banks, tv stations etc) are all fighting what they will have you believe is a fascist politician by shutting down any political opposition to that claim...behaving just like fascists!!!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

But like, in practice they're similar enough..

Please explain how they are similar?

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

Please explain how they are similar?

Both authoritarian, both lead to economic catastrophe, both murder/imprison/'disappear' political opponents. Their 'roots' may be different but both ideologies end up at the same end point...ruination.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Both authoritarian, both lead to economic catastrophe, both murder/imprison/'disappear' political opponents. Their 'roots' may be different but both ideologies end up at the same end point...ruination.

This does not explain how communism and fascism are the same thing.

Fascism is not and cannot be left wing. Fascism is not a synonym for authoritarianism.

Retr0gamer

Silentcorner wrote: »

The scale of what is happening is unsettling, we should all be unnerved by the amount of companies (many of whom financially supported the BLM riots just a few short months ago) who are engaging in misleading political rhetoric and banning access to political opposition.

They (Tech companies plus banks, tv stations etc) are all fighting what they will have you believe is a fascist politician by shutting down any political opposition to that claim...behaving just like fascists!!!

There's only one person trying to over throw a democratically voted decision and it's not big tech.

Dyr

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's only one person trying to over throw a democratically voted decision and it's not big tech.

Are you still banging on about a coup? Even Hitler had the decency not to come out with nonsense like that until the Reichstag was burned down.

Ludicrous nonsense.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats the most nonsense comparison of all.

a fairer one would be Indo journalists, Irish times journalists and Examiner Journalists calling the landlord of a small right wing paper and getting them blacklisted from renting any office space, then calling paper suppliers and getting those suppliers to not sell them paper, then harassing shops until they no longer sell the paper, then calling the bank and having them banned from taking payments , then telling the paper 'you're not being censored'

First of all, it's quite telling you ignored 90% of what I posted and homed in on one sentence. Are we to assume that you agree with the rest of the post, seeing as you've ignored it?

Second of all, you've missed the point being made in that sentence and your comparison is ridiculous. They agreed to do something, and then didn't. They also refused to remove threats to the company they were renting the server space from. "Breach of contract, we don't want you here, GTFO."

The other big players sat up and took notice, then. "why are you booting them out?.....oh, they're threatening to bomb your offices, kill your CEO, and a load of teachers whose names and places of work are being shared, and won't abide by any of the covenants in the contract?.....well we don't want them either". If you took a **** in the kettle, didn't pay the rent, threatened to kill your landlord and brought a load of nazis into your gaff, how good of a reference do you think you deserve?

This is being framed as a silencing of anyone with even remotely right leaning views. It is not. It is a cessation of business with a company who were acting in bad faith and were openly calling for acts of specific violence against named individuals.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How is a company like parler supposed to function if they have nowhere to put the servers, no app stores to list the app and no payment processor who will accept cards from donors / subscribers ?

By abiding by the terms of your contract, not allowing people to talk about bombing your Web service providers and removing all talk of assassinating people. Simples. It's easy as pie. They were asked on 100 different occasions to rein in and moderate some of the extremist stuff that was cropping up and spat in the face of the people with the power to pull the plug. Then the plug gets pulled and all of a sudden "you're silencing us".

Yeah, no **** we're silencing you. You, won't play ball and you're acting in bad faith. Buh-bye

Phil.x

Twitter is definitely on the left/far left.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

This does not explain how communism and fascism are the same thing.

Fascism is not and cannot be left wing. Fascism is not a synonym for authoritarianism.

The OP said 'pretty much the same thing', the poster you quoted said similar. They are pretty much the same thing, read: similar, for the reasons I outlined. As such, the point stands.

Silentcorner

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's only one person trying to over throw a democratically voted decision and it's not big tech.

Hillary?

Was she responsible for the violence after the 2016 election? She was responsible for the Russian Collusion Conspiracy theory.

Imagine what some of ye would have done if Trump had taken Twitter down for inciting violence when Hillary's supporters rioted across the US over the election result!!

That is what a fascist would do!!

Silentcorner

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's only one person trying to over throw a democratically voted decision and it's not big tech.

Or what about the time the feminists tried to break into the Supreme Court after some head banger fabricated a false gang rape accusation?

Did anyone in big tech take action against these extremists objecting to democratically appointed Supreme Court Judge?

MisterAnarchy

I was just watching a newspiece story about Elon Musk criticising the West Coast tech companies and censorship.
So I typed "Elon Musk Twitter" into Google, no recent hits.
I then tried "Elon Musk West Coast", still nothing.

So I said what hits will I get if I try Duck Duck Go ?
Loads and loads

Censorship is alive and well on Google it would seem.