Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-02-2021 09:22AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'm not condoning either of these two examples of somebody's posts. In fact I find them quite disgusting. However the first is not exactly a "call to arms" or can it be construed as an incitement to violence. It's merely some clown expressing his opinion that he hopes police officers get killed. A person could say that they hope another person dies screaming after being run over by a bus. While disgusting it can in no way be seen as a call for someone to commandeer a bus and go and run that said person over.

The second quote is most certainly more inflammatory. Did it break Parler's Terms & Conditions? I imagine that it probably did. Were Parler given time to have such examples of this kind of rhetoric removed? From what I understand they weren't. They were simply notified that they were in breach of some kind of terms and were then sanctioned forthwith.
If you post a similar comment on YouTube and someone reports it, the post is taken down and that user is probably banned. YouTube itself isn't taken offline

Youtube is moderated, Parler was not and that's the T&C's that they broke. If you can't understand that then I dont know how else to explain it to you.

IAmTheReign · 04-02-2021 11:31AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'm not condoning either of these two examples of somebody's posts. In fact I find them quite disgusting. However the first is not exactly a "call to arms" or can it be construed as an incitement to violence. It's merely some clown expressing his opinion that he hopes police officers get killed. A person could say that they hope another person dies screaming after being run over by a bus. While disgusting it can in no way be seen as a call for someone to commandeer a bus and go and run that said person over.

The second quote is most certainly more inflammatory. Did it break Parler's Terms & Conditions? I imagine that it probably did. Were Parler given time to have such examples of this kind of rhetoric removed? From what I understand they weren't. They were simply notified that they were in breach of some kind of terms and were then sanctioned forthwith.
If you post a similar comment on YouTube and someone reports it, the post is taken down and that user is probably banned. YouTube itself isn't taken offline.

Yes, Youtube is properly moderated. It removes objectionable posts. Parler was not, hence it was shut down. As Timberrrrrrrr said if you can't see the difference between the two I don't know what to tell you.

I'm confused though. It seem like you are saying you think Parler should have removed these types of posts to avoid getting shut down. If Parler had removed those posts and started censoring people that would be a violation of free speech according to you. Does this mean you are acknowledging that some form of moderation and censorship is acceptable?

EyesClosed · 04-02-2021 11:33AM

Another conspiracy thread with no conspiracy...

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-02-2021 11:50AM

EyesClosed wrote: »

Another conspiracy thread with no conspiracy...

Its as if they don't really exist :shrugs shoulders:

ShatterAlan · 04-02-2021 04:36PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Youtube is moderated, Parler was not and that's the T&C's that they broke. If you can't understand that then I dont know how else to explain it to you.

Parler has/had a team of paid moderators to remove content that violated their T&C. They had a backlog of some 26,000 elements to get through at the time of their censure.

I already stated this a few times already.

IF you think that Apple and co have every right to remove/silence anyone they disagree with under the umbrella of violating their T&C's then technically they are legally entitled to do that. That you are ok with that somehow feels a bit unsettling.

"Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship" - Alexey Navalny [in the aftermath of Trump being removed from the platform].

04-02-2021 04:37PM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Parler has/had a team of paid moderators to remove content that violated their T&C. They had a backlog of some 26,000 elements to get through at the time of their censure.

Why should Parler be allowed to censor people's opinions?

IF you think that Parler and co have every right to remove/silence anyone they disagree with under the umbrella of violating their T&C's then technically they are legally entitled to do that. That you are ok with that somehow feels a bit unsettling.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-02-2021 04:51PM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Parler has/had a team of paid moderators to remove content that violated their T&C. They had a backlog of some 26,000 elements to get through at the time of their censure.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/technology/533519-tech-giants-crack-down-on-parler-for-lack-of-content-mediation%3famp

The platform, which bills itself as an unmoderated alternative to platforms like Twitter,

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/parler-google-play-suspension-for-failure-to-moderate-posts-that-incite-violence/

Parler said that it would initiate a moderation plan "for the time being" and that they would create a temporary "task force."

I already stated this a few times already.

You made a claim, have you any proof?

IF you think that Apple and co have every right to remove/silence anyone they disagree with under the umbrella of violating their T&C's then technically they are legally entitled to do that. That you are ok with that somehow feels a bit unsettling.

Why? I agree to boards T&C's when I signed up, should I be allowed ignore those T&C's?

"Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship" - Alexey Navalny [in the aftermath of Trump being removed from the platform].

If people have issues with companies then they can always set up thier own and make a mint.

ShatterAlan · 04-02-2021 10:18PM

EyesClosed wrote: »

Another conspiracy thread with no conspiracy...

You might want to take that up with Mods. A previous poster was told not to post here again after he couldn't figure out the conspiracy, despite it being illustrated to him multiple times.

EyesClosed · 04-02-2021 11:56PM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You might want to take that up with Mods. A previous poster was told not to post here again after he couldn't figure out the conspiracy, despite it being illustrated to him multiple times.

There's no conspiracy in private companies having terms and conditions.... Everything else is fantasy

ShatterAlan · 05-02-2021 12:01AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/technology/533519-tech-giants-crack-down-on-parler-for-lack-of-content-mediation%3famp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/parler-google-play-suspension-for-failure-to-moderate-posts-that-incite-violence/

You made a claim, have you any proof?

Why? I agree to boards T&C's when I signed up, should I be allowed ignore those T&C's?

If people have issues with companies then they can always set up thier own and make a mint.

That's exactly what Parler did and they were railroaded. But I get it. You are going to consistently say that Parler violated hosting terms and conditions and refused to abide by them after warnings. You're going to say that, even though it isn't true. You're going tp say that Parler wasn't moderated, even though it is and that they flatly refused to abide by not only their own terms and condition, which explicitly bans content that calls for violence, but by partners and hosts.

None of this is true. There are people on here whose angle is "Well Parler was a wasteland of nutjobs, so good riddance." Maybe you feel the same. This discussion is about censorship not about your opinion on what people say.

Now maybe you benefit financially from this throttling. And if you do, good luck to you. But I can't imagine you benefit other than that.

We can shelve the whole Parler and Twitter [Trump] thing since no argument will make you change your mind regarding the validity, justification and bona fides of that maneuvre.

Youtube recently pulled down lectures that contained content critical of tech giants:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/

Again, you will most likely counter, saying "set up your own mini-internet" ... except that isn't possible.

It was tried pre-internet with "pirate" radio stations. You probably listened in yourself or perhaps your parents did as they broadcast news, music, debates from boats out in international waters or from locations with mobile vans.

The thing is ... I don't like the message that many radio stations are spewing out. "Gospel this, Jesus that, KKK the other" But I have no problem turning the dial on the radio.

If you want to talk about incitement to violence and even murder, paedophilia and genocide then why not ban any outlet who espouses any mention of the Old Testament? After all, that book preaches it all.

So, in conclusion, moving back to the tech giants. They are now becoming so influential that they compete with states. And they determine broadcasts and censorships.

05-02-2021 01:43AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That's exactly what Parler did and they were railroaded.

But they didn't.
They were using other people's infrastructure.
Nothing stopping them from making and using their own or finding other providers.

You keep jumping around on what the issue is.
You originally claimed that they were banned because all tech companies are working together.
You claimed that Parler was a competitor against Amazon and Apple.

Now it seems you're just whinging that it's unfair that a private company gets to decide it's terms.
At the same time you say that Parler is free to do this for its users.

Again you're just looking for a conspiracy when the issue is that you're upset that a for profit service that caters to far right views and extreme conspiracy theories is not being given access the premade infrastructure and a wide reaching audience.

ShatterAlan · 09-02-2021 04:42AM

YouTube are now taking down photographs of cows and the England cricket team in a huddle for being of an overtly sexual nature.

:pac:

09-02-2021 06:44AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

YouTube are now taking down photographs of cows and the England cricket team in a huddle for being of an overtly sexual nature.

:pac:

No source or context?
Completely off topic random claim to distract from the dozens of points you're already running away from and are too afraid to address?

Must be true...

Ted_YNWA · 09-02-2021 06:55AM

It was Facebook & they have been re-instated.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55981602

ShatterAlan · 09-02-2021 01:12PM

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

It was Facebook & they have been re-instated.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55981602

I stand corrected.

Fighting Tao · 09-02-2021 02:01PM

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

It was Facebook & they have been re-instated.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55981602

Wow. That is a huge conspiracy!!!!! It sounds more like some staff home working like Homer Simpson with the drinking bird.

IAmTheReign · 10-02-2021 09:16AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Parler has/had a team of paid moderators to remove content that violated their T&C. They had a backlog of some 26,000 elements to get through at the time of their censure.

I already stated this a few times already.

IF you think that Apple and co have every right to remove/silence anyone they disagree with under the umbrella of violating their T&C's then technically they are legally entitled to do that. That you are ok with that somehow feels a bit unsettling.

"Of course, Twitter is a private company, but we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship" - Alexey Navalny [in the aftermath of Trump being removed from the platform].

I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant example of cognitive dissonance in one post. So Parler censoring people is totally fine and above board but anyone else doing the same thing is an internet censorship conspiracy?

https://imgflip.com/i/4xfvyq

IAmTheReign · 10-02-2021 09:21AM

King Mob wrote: »

Why should Parler be allowed to censor people's opinions?

IF you think that Parler and co have every right to remove/silence anyone they disagree with under the umbrella of violating their T&C's then technically they are legally entitled to do that. That you are ok with that somehow feels a bit unsettling.

It's only censorship when the people you like get banned obviously. If you don't like them it's just effective moderation.:pac:

ShatterAlan · 11-02-2021 01:08AM

IAmTheReign wrote: »

It's only censorship when the people you like get banned obviously. If you don't like them it's just effective moderation.:pac:

We have already discussed people being banned (as opposed to the platform being taken down).

Now why isn't Facebook being taken down as a result of the massive amounts of racist messages against black sportspeople?

Facebook's response was "we're looking into it"

Surely FB are hosted on some kind of DC or cloud platform and if they are in violation of the hosting site then ought they not be shutdown?....like Parler?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12214210/racism-in-football-bigger-than-abusive-messages-seen-on-social-media-says-facebook-content-policy-manager

Trigger · 11-02-2021 01:23AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

We have already discussed people being banned (as opposed to the platform being taken down).

Now why isn't Facebook being taken down as a result of the massive amounts of racist messages against black sportspeople?

Facebook's response was "we're looking into it"

Surely FB are hosted on some kind of DC or cloud platform and if they are in violation of the hosting site then ought they not be shutdown?....like Parler?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12214210/racism-in-football-bigger-than-abusive-messages-seen-on-social-media-says-facebook-content-policy-manager

Facebook run their own servers from a data centre in Oregan.

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-02-2021 02:11AM

Trigger wrote: »

Facebook run their own servers from a data centre in Oregan.

And they also actively take down posts that breach thier T&C's

Also,equating FB with Parler :pac:

IAmTheReign · 11-02-2021 11:41AM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

We have already discussed people being banned (as opposed to the platform being taken down).

Now why isn't Facebook being taken down as a result of the massive amounts of racist messages against black sportspeople?

Facebook's response was "we're looking into it"

Surely FB are hosted on some kind of DC or cloud platform and if they are in violation of the hosting site then ought they not be shutdown?....like Parler?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12214210/racism-in-football-bigger-than-abusive-messages-seen-on-social-media-says-facebook-content-policy-manager

Facebook have a team of over 15,000 people solely for the task of content moderation, and they review over 3 million flagged posts every day. Are they perfect, no, put to imply they aren't actively trying to moderate their content just isn't true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/09/300000-facebook-content-moderation-mistakes-daily-report-says/#:~:text=Facebook%20employs%20about%2015%2C000%20content,meets%20or%20violates%20community%20standards.

I'm confused though. Your conspiracy theory was supposed to be that social media site like Facebook are censoring people too much. Now your argument seems to be that they're not censoring people enough.

You've been flip flopping between content moderation = good and content moderation = bad depending on the point your trying to make.

It's the same with Parler. First you were unhappy they got taken down because it was the 'Speakers Corner' of the internet, now you're unhappy that they got taken down even though they claim they were trying to moderate their content.

So which is it?

Do you think content moderation is wrong? If it is why then do you continue to support Parler? If they're removing content then surely they're implicated in your internet censorship conspiracy.

Or do you think content moderation is okay? If it is then what exactly are you unhappy about?

Please answer this very simple yes or no question. Do you think content moderation on internet platforms is acceptable?

ShatterAlan · 12-02-2021 01:14AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And they also actively take down posts that breach thier T&C's

Also,equating FB with Parler :pac:

Who equated anything with anything?

Nice cutesy emoji, by the way.

ShatterAlan · 12-02-2021 01:57AM

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Facebook have a team of over 15,000 people solely for the task of content moderation, and they review over 3 million flagged posts every day. Are they perfect, no, put to imply they aren't actively trying to moderate their content just isn't true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/09/300000-facebook-content-moderation-mistakes-daily-report-says/#:~:text=Facebook%20employs%20about%2015%2C000%20content,meets%20or%20violates%20community%20standards.

I'm confused though. Your conspiracy theory was supposed to be that social media site like Facebook are censoring people too much. Now your argument seems to be that they're not censoring people enough.

You've been flip flopping between content moderation = good and content moderation = bad depending on the point your trying to make.

It's the same with Parler. First you were unhappy they got taken down because it was the 'Speakers Corner' of the internet, now you're unhappy that they got taken down even though they claim they were trying to moderate their content.

So which is it?

Do you think content moderation is wrong? If it is why then do you continue to support Parler? If they're removing content then surely they're implicated in your internet censorship conspiracy.

Or do you think content moderation is okay? If it is then what exactly are you unhappy about?

Please answer this very simple yes or no question. Do you think content moderation on internet platforms is acceptable?

Please don't ask that childish yes or no question. If you want to discuss things then discuss them rather than having your speak and then attempting to reduce the person to a level whereby they aren't permitted to respond other than on your terms.

I think I have made this quite clear. And without wanting to sound condescending I'll reiterate.

I have zero interest in Parler. I never had an account. What I have a problem with is the manner in which the platform was "railroaded".

It was mentioned that FB have this massive squadron of mods dealing with "questionable" content. I'll take your word for it. But then if FB isn't "perfect" then why should any other platform not be allowed to be "imperfect"? (Your words). Parler had a lesser team. Parler also, as I have mentioned, had Terms and Conditions prohibiting inciteful (specifically violent) rhetoric.

Parler were delivered a cease and desist declaration within 24 hours or their platform would be pulled. When attempting to respond to this C&D notification they were ignored and the ban was enforced.

Throughout this thread we have heard talk of "if you don't pay your gas bill, you'll be cut off, because you are in breach of contract".

Except you won't. You will be contacted and asked to make good on the contract. 99 times out of 100 a negotiation is forthcoming and the transgression can be rectified.

Parler NEVER once refused to adhere to Apple's terms nor did Apple once attempt to solve the problem outside of their decided measures.

As for who is hosting who. Facebook have been in IBM's cloud for years. Youtube on AWS and Azure. Since when have Microsoft, IBM, Amazon or any other hosting service delivered a 24 hour C&D order to FB, YT, Twitter, LiveLeak or any other platform to adhere to their conditions as a result of violent, inciteful or racist/sectarian content?

FB didn't seem to have a problem with this kind of talk, nor did the hosts of FaceBook's content:

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/8/27/facebook-executive-who-shared-anti-muslim-post-apologises-report

In fact they ignored it.

Maybe FaceBook should double up on that 15,000 mods or just stop being hypocritical ****.

ShatterAlan · 18-02-2021 07:32PM

I'll re-contribute to this thread by stating that a tissue of lies was told about this Capitol "Armed insurrection".

Even about the officer supposedly killed by the mob.

Timberrrrrrrr · 18-02-2021 07:38PM

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'll re-contribute to this thread by stating that a tissue of lies was told about this Capitol "Armed insurrection".

Even about the officer supposedly killed by the mob.

Yeah but you would say that so.....

ShatterAlan · 18-02-2021 07:45PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah but you would say that so.....

You were pretty quick to chime in.

So the Capitol is one of the most heavily surveilled buldings in the US. Couple that with hundreds of filming and not a single shred of footage of Sicknick geting his head smashed in with a fire-extinguisher.

Yeah, I suppose I WOULD say that. What would you say?

ShatterAlan · 18-02-2021 08:08PM

Actually no autopsy report yet, either.

ShatterAlan · 18-02-2021 08:27PM

Didn't Sicknick's family state that he was grand and suffering from pepper spray exposure after an encounter yet the boy was taken away comatose at the same time?

Would you like to wade in on that? Or maintain radio silence?

And they can't even build a case:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html

namloc1980 · 18-02-2021 09:19PM

The only person talking about Officer Sicknick in this thread is you. You're literally arguing with yourself.

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Comments