nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

ShatterAlan

Already the MSM are calling for the strangling of freedom of speech n the US.

Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence.

Parler has already been targeted:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55598887

People will of course continue to agree with these measures because they love Big Brother. O'Brien has made sure of that.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dohnjoe

Smacruairi wrote: »

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.

I disagree, you haven't written much on the theory itself. So far, this is pretty much all we have:

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.

Pretty damn vague. But hey maybe it has substance, which is why I was asking straightforward questions about it.

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Thank you for the video. However the representative
A says this started when BLM wasn't condemned for their actions
B says trump didn't do enough to calm the riot.

He didn't say trump incited violence, just he was weak in defending the constitution. I'd agree with that, it seemed he was tokenistic in his response.

Again, everyone declared that trumps twitter account had to be taken down as it has tweets which incited violence. Can someone please show me them, it shouldn't be this hard like!

I'm more than happy to be wrong on this like. This might be proving what we are saying, tech giants deleted the competition and are controlling a narrative that doesn't really exist.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Hmm....not very intelligent of Parlors 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.

And how exactly is your app distributed or made available?

I don't know what kind of device you carry around in your pocket but if it's an Apple device then they determine what you can access and what you can't. It's that simple.

[Deleted User]

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's like talking to a brick.

We are talking about censorship here and precedents.

Yeah, but the thing is - what happened is literally unprecedented in modern U.S. history. There is no precedent for what is adjudged to have happened - a sitting U.S. President inflaming his supporters enough that they attacked the Capitol. And then sitting back and refusing to de-escalate things until others (possibly unconstitutionally) went behind his back to ensure the National Guard were called in.

That's what kicked all this off. All the other stuff about "well, twitter allows this post or that post" is not really relevant.

If Biden is seen to make a similar speech over the next four years, I would imagine he'll get the same treatment from social media companies. And rightly so.

[Deleted User]

Smacruairi wrote: »

Thank you for the video. However the representative
A says this started when BLM wasn't condemned for their actions
B says trump didn't do enough to calm the riot.

He didn't say trump incited violence, just he was weak in defending the constitution. I'd agree with that, it seemed he was tokenistic in his response.

Again, everyone declared that trumps twitter account had to be taken down as it has tweets which incited violence. Can someone please show me them, it shouldn't be this hard like!

I'm more than happy to be wrong on this like. This might be proving what we are saying, tech giants deleted the competition and are controlling a narrative that doesn't really exist.

"Others including myself are responsible for not speaking out sooner before the president misinformed and inflamed a violent mob, who tore down the American flag and brutally beat Capitol Police officers."

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

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.

So I am biased for thinking an armed mob that tries to reverse a democratic election by attacking the Capitol resulting 5 dead is worse than a mob rioting burning cars....yup...I can settle with that.

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And how exactly is your app distributed or made available?

I don't know what kind of device you carry around in your pocket but if it's an Apple device then they determine what you can access and what you can't. It's that simple.

There is a whole world outside of AppStore apps, and another whole world outside of apps altogether. Google is your friend if you want to discover these worlds. There are offline methods too.

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Others including myself are responsible for not speaking out sooner before the president misinformed and inflamed a violent mob, who tore down the American flag and brutally beat Capitol Police officers."

Yeah, that's great, I just want to see the" inflammatory tweets"which were an incitement to violence and insurrection.

Again, believe me when I say I have no love of the sitting president, I have been painted inti this corner by other posters who wouldn't engage on any other front, so here we are.

The thread pertains to tech companies using this incident to silence people further with a hypocritical slant, that's what I agree with.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So I am biased for thinking an armed mob that tries to reverse a democratic election by attacking the Capitol resulting 5 dead is worse than a mob rioting burning cars....yup...I can settle with that.

How did they try to reverse a decision? They rioted, same as 4 years previously. They're both in thr wrong!

Dohnjoe

Smacruairi wrote: »

The thread pertains to tech companies using this incident to silence people further with a hypocritical slant, that's what I agree with.

Are they all acting as one? or they are all doing this individually?

Timberrrrrrrr

Smacruairi wrote: »

Yeah, that's great, I just want to see the" inflammatory tweets"which were an incitement to violence and insurrection.

Again, believe me when I say I have no love of the sitting president, I have been painted inti this corner by other posters who wouldn't engage on any other front, so here we are.

The thread pertains to tech companies using this incident to silence people further with a hypocritical slant, that's what I agree with.

Hard to show you them seeing as his twitter account is banned and people no longer have access to them. I found his LIBERATE (insert state here) texts very inflammatory though.

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

How did they try to reverse a decision? They rioted, same as 4 years previously. They're both in thr wrong!

Did I say they were right? Please don’t put words into my mouth.

2 things can be wrong, but not quality as wrong. Pushing someone is wrong, pushing them in front of a moving vehicle is more wrong.

Smacruairi

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hard to show you them seeing as his twitter account is banned and people no longer have access to them. I found his LIBERATE (insert state here) texts very inflammatory though.

Well thats a pain for all alright, I'm sure some publication has a screengrab of them though right?

Liberate x. Yeah i haven't seen that one, but if that's just the text, I mean again, that doesn't invite violence alone. Yeah inflammatory if you don't agree with him, but it doesn't ask you to go storm the barricades and beat up a cop.

Can you see what I'm trying to say here, timber?

Fighting Tao

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hard to show you them seeing as his twitter account is banned and people no longer have access to them. I found his LIBERATE (insert state here) texts very inflammatory though.

I remember reading about one of his supporters printing a book of all his tweets. She might publish an updated version from just before he was banned.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Did I say they were right? Please don’t put words into my mouth.

2 things can be wrong, but not quality as wrong. Pushing someone is wrong, pushing them in front of a moving vehicle is more wrong.

Degrees of wrong exist, I agree. But in your example they are not the same, one is a physical movement, one is deliberately pushing someone to grievously harm, ie there is intent.

Do you think Trump tweeted to cause death and destruction and can be demonstrably be shown to be the source? If so then the police dept will surely go after him based on the various laws of the state and this of course goes much further than vague concepts as free speech.

Fighting Tao

Smacruairi wrote: »

Well thats a pain for all alright, I'm sure some publication has a screengrab of them though right?

Liberate x. Yeah i haven't seen that one, but if that's just the text, I mean again, that doesn't invite violence alone. Yeah inflammatory if you don't agree with him, but it doesn't ask you to go storm the barricades and beat up a cop.

Can you see what I'm trying to say here, timber?

It’s almost like you have to think of his tweets as if they relate to Northern Ireland, and he is saying to his supporters to liberate The Falls/Shankill (depending on which side of the massive rift you are on during the troubles). Then you’ll get how ‘LIBERATE X’ is inflammatory.

Smacruairi

Actually
On this one, I'm now out for the moment. I came on to express concern about the power and influence of social media and tech companies, and have been pigeonholed into being an advocate for trump. This only polarises the argument which is exactly the type of ****ty discourse twitter etc encourages.

Being an asshat is not the thing to do, but allowing one guy to be an asshat and not allowing another to be is wrong, whichever way you square it.

Smacruairi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It’s almost like you have to think of his tweets as if they relate to Northern Ireland, and he is saying to his supporters to liberate The Falls/Shankill (depending on which side of the massive rift you are on during the troubles). Then you’ll get how ‘LIBERATE X’ is inflammatory.

I wouldn't equate an area with sustained sectarian troubles for over 65 years with states that flip flop red to blue every other election. You are free to however, and I appreciate the engagement. Ironically Sinn Fein and the DUP have posted many bilious things in their time and have not been banned. So yeah.

[Deleted User]

Just for posterity, here's a link to the speech he gave. It starts about 40 mins in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa9sT4efsqY&feature=youtu.be

Smacruairi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just for posterity, here's a link to the speech he gave. It starts about 40 mins in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa9sT4efsqY&feature=youtu.be

To be fair that's an hour still to go and I don't want to hear any more of the man. People also said he was thrown off twitter for his tweets and breaking terms of service there, rather than his speeches. But thanks for thr research anyway, you were debating in good faith at least.

Dohnjoe

Smacruairi wrote: »

Actually
On this one, I'm now out for the moment. I came on to express concern about the power and influence of social media and tech companies, and have been pigeonholed into being an advocate for trump. This only polarises the argument which is exactly the type of ****ty discourse twitter etc encourages.

The questions about that theory still stand.

Ted_YNWA

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The questions about that theory still stand.

Mod

You obviously have no interest. Stop with this constant sniping, or don't post in this thread.

Dohnjoe

On the contrary, I certainly have an interest in exposing a conspiracy that doesn't have any basis. I'm not getting this one at all, but I've made my points and will leave it at that.

silliussoddius

Some of the stuff Amazon doesn’t want to host and the type of people Twitter don’t want.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jaysbookman/status/1349299100286676993

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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.

I have done.

I opened this post. You, au contraire, have in a glib and weasel-worded way attempted to hijack the narrative.

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, but the thing is - what happened is literally unprecedented in modern U.S. history. There is no precedent for what is adjudged to have happened - a sitting U.S. President inflaming his supporters enough that they attacked the Capitol. And then sitting back and refusing to de-escalate things until others (possibly unconstitutionally) went behind his back to ensure the National Guard were called in.

That's what kicked all this off. All the other stuff about "well, twitter allows this post or that post" is not really relevant.

If Biden is seen to make a similar speech over the next four years, I would imagine he'll get the same treatment from social media companies. And rightly so.

The discussion is about censorship.

Why are you dwelling on what Trump or anyone else said?

Are you intentionally trying to have one of us call into question your IQ so that you can have a ban elicited and hence shut down this discussion?

Is that what you are attempting?

Just for fun?

[Deleted User]

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The discussion is about censorship.

Why are you dwelling on what Trump or anyone else said?

Are you intentionally trying to have one of us call into question your IQ so that you can have a ban elicited and hence shut down this discussion?

Is that what you are attempting?

Just for fun?

I'm happy enough with my IQ, thanks very much. But, by all means report my posts on this thread and see if a MOD wants to ban me for trying to shut down any discussion.

I'm not dwelling on Trump, he's the reason the riots started and that's the catalyst for your thread.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The discussion is about censorship.

[B[Why are you dwelling on what Trump or anyone else said?[/b]

Are you intentionally trying to have one of us call into question your IQ so that you can have a ban elicited and hence shut down this discussion?

Is that what you are attempting?

Just for fun?

Well in the op you stated

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Already the MSM are calling for the strangling of freedom of speech n the US.

Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence.

Parler has already been targeted:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55598887

People will of course continue to agree with these measures because they love Big Brother. O'Brien has made sure of that.

Parler has been "targeted" due to Trumps words/actions so surely bringing that up is a pertinent part of the thread.

truth and logic

It is obviously wrong that Amazon have this much control over essential services like internet infrastructure.

Access to the internet for companies is essential. It cannot be left to the whim of Amazon or of others.

We must introduce a Universal Service Mandate for backend internet services.

Legislation is needed in this area.

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

It is obviously wrong that Amazon have this much control over essential services like internet infrastructure.

Access to the internet for companies is essential. It cannot be left to the whim of Amazon or of others.

We must introduce a Universal Service Mandate for backend internet services.

Legislation is needed in this area.

Why must we? So people can post whatever bile they want online?

Anyone can set up these services. Apple, Amazon, Google etc do not own the internet. There are plenty of alternatives already available. It really is not a case of the big bad companies rule the world. People still have choice out there.