Kimsang wrote: » Why are you personalizing everything? Have I expressed that I have been unfairly treated on platforms online? Youtube changed its T&C in June of 2019 just 2 months ago, so I'm still waiting to see how they implement them. I do not use other platforms.
Blueshoe wrote: » True. There are plenty of threads of just anonymous people talking about all sorts. The majority of threads probably
Kimsang wrote: » How so Dubbie? If you show me evidence, i'll quite happily change my mind. So far all I've been told is...
Kimsang wrote: » Youtube really has been the best social media platform for free speech, and fair treatment for all, at least until the first adpocalypse. I was so shocked just now to find out about that "way of the world" and "iconoclast" channels had been deleted I had to ask 3 times.
hetuzozaho wrote: » Apologies man. I inferred from your post about unfairness on YouTube as you feeling that unfairness. I never had so was wondering why people feel it and the alternatives.
Kimsang wrote: » I just don't like the new policies, and how they are demonetizing everyone with a political opinion(right and left). Now even that seems not enough, they are kicking off right wing types. It only leads to echo chambers. The alternatives to the popular platforms are all echo chambers, breeding hate and conspiracy more than anything that came before it. Pushing these ideas to the fringe I feel is bad for everyone.
Kimsang wrote: » I didn't and you I believe I understand your position now. I was just expanding upon the points you made and explaining more in depth how they lead to echo chambers. But sorry for any offense caused.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » Some ideas of the left and right should be put to the fringe.
john4321 wrote: » No offence caused at all. I was just trying to point out in the part you quoted me I was trying to explain how a platform like boards is much better for discussion. To address your point about YouTube though I usually avoided the comment section as I thought in some cases a cesspit of comments and went beyond free speech and became a free for all.
Kimsang wrote: » Perhaps it is a better platform for discussion, but maybe boards works better because it is 'policed' and has a smaller community than big platforms. Certainly I have seen the cesspits of which you speak, but that's just it - I close it. I don't think those places should be removed, deleted, banned. People should be allowed to say what they want to say as long as it doesn't impede on another person's rights. The most resolute defenders of free speech profess we're not allowed to harm others to get what we want. That's why we're not allowed to use speech for force, fraud, or defamation. No-one is arguing for these to be allowed. So I don't agree with your beyond free speech point. Which Iloveyourvibes also made.
john4321 wrote: » Can you expand on your "policed" comment? I dont get it as I always just try and post by the "don't be a dick" mantra. I haven't asked or requested for places to be removed, banned etc. I just dont think it should be carte blanche in what people say and think you agree with me on that point.
Kimsang wrote: » I mean there are moderators on boards, and not on big platforms, because employing moderators for twitter or youtube would bankrupt those companies. I do disagree with you though, I think people should be allowed to say and think whatever they like. Especially the people I disagree with the most.
john4321 wrote: » I believe moderators on Boards are unpaid volunteers and as part of the community do this in their spare time which is gratefully appreciated by the majority of users otherwise it turns into another YouTube comment section. I'm not sure if you are serious about your second reply though. I genuinely hope not as I dont agree that being able to say anything you want about anyone anonymously. For a very simplistic example I post a video on YouTube of my cat (just an FYI I don't own a cat) of them doing a handstand I dont think its appropriate for someone to comment I want me and my cat to die.
Is a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
hetuzozaho wrote: » And what are the alternatives to the popular platforms then? What's the opposite to youtube say. Thanks for taking the time.
Kimsang wrote: » With your first paragraph I completely agree, I was only noting that boards was 'policed' while the big platforms were not. I am very serious that people should be free to think and say as they wish. The reason is I don't trust anyone else to decide what I am free to think and say, do you? I have seen far too many mistakes committed in the name of censorship. I would prefer people could not offend you or your cat in this way, and if they cross the line into threatening you I would fully support the weight of the law against them. But casting out fringe opinions will only embolden them, without people around to challenge them anymore. Like how Nazism is currently on the rise in Germany, because talk of or political paraphernalia are banned. It's akin to the Streisand effect,
Kimsang wrote: » With your first paragraph I completely agree, I was only noting that boards was 'policed' while the big platforms were not. I am very serious that people should be free to think and say as they wish. The reason is I don't trust anyone else to decide what I am free to think and say, do you? I have seen far too many mistakes committed in the name of censorship. I would prefer people could not offend you or your cat in this way, and if they cross the line into threatening you I would fully support the weight of the law against them.But casting out fringe opinions will only embolden them, without people around to challenge them anymore. Like how Nazism is currently on the rise in Germany, because talk of or political paraphernalia are banned. It's akin to the Streisand effect,
john4321 wrote: » This is the part I was referring to earlier and the ability of users on other platforms to silence these opinions via the block function. I'm not just talking about fringe opinions though it's the ability to reply and challenge them.
john4321 wrote: » Also on the policed part I was under the impression that Boards operates like the larger social media platforms where you have the option to report something and it is subject to review.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » You are free to say and think as you like. Its more the way you say it i have noticed.
Kimsang wrote: » To an extent I agree with both your points. As to your second point I do try... Its not always easy when you have an opposing opinion to a mob that willfully misrepresents you. We are however not free to say quite a few things now on boards that meet the definition of free speech.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110819869&postcount=1229https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109041788&postcount=1
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » But boards never claims to be a platform for free speech in fairness though. Its a privately owned site with mods who have their own ideas of what is right and wrong. Boards has its place online. So do other sites though.
Kimsang wrote: » Yes but they've mostly acted within a well defined charter. No matter what the opinion of the moderator, they would allow the discussion as long as you're playing the ball and not the man. But now you can conflate men with any bad thing you can think of.. toxic masculinity, they are bad, lazy, smelly, they are the oppressors..etc.. But if you conflate lgbt with paedophilia that is not allowed. You can openly express your disgust for christianity, but not so free when it comes to Islam. These kinds of rules only came about recently. You can also now play the man, if the man is on the other side of the argument to the mob around here. (example stephen being called a racist)
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » I think its because some people really pushed the boat out and abused that freedom.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » I think if i conflated men in general with pedophilia the mods wouldn't allow it.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » If i said gay people were lazy and the gay scene was toxic sometimes they might allow it
Kimsang wrote: » Who pushed the boat out and abused that freedom? And what harm did that ultimately cause? I think it's because of the rise in grievance studies on universities in the last few decades. This leads to boards being afraid of a backlash from a small vocal 'woke' community. E.g. "Boards allows racists to rant about their racist stuff" Before this would not have had a reaction. No one would have cared. We would have said people are free to say what they want. You can conflate them with whatever you like. I went on at length for dozens of pages in other threads about it. Try maybe the homophobic attack on london bus thread. They were free to generalize 'men' as the attackers despite the maximum age of the attacker being 17. Men are this, men are this etc.. was all perfectly acceptable. Maybe, but you would be bringing a world of pain on yourself. I think a more sensitive subject might be talking about TERFS, try that one let me know how you get on
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » Some of the things said in the greta thunberg thread were out of line. And the mods had to act. .
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » To be fair I had noticed previously on boards some things went on that were clearly over the line regarding racism. Or even just plain decency.
Walter Bishop wrote: » Hardly a surprise Stephen, as like her, you're a racist.Mod: Please stop reporting this post. Stephen15 has admitted he is a racist.
Kimsang wrote: » Not having been on either of these, but I hear for twitter you could have gab, or youtube something like subscribestar.
Kimsang wrote: » No, the ones that believe it don't have the integrity to say it.................ll
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
