Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 9:38pm

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 · 13-01-2021 9:43pm

[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 · 13-01-2021 9:44pm

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.

13-01-2021 9:46pm

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.

13-01-2021 9:53pm

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 · 13-01-2021 9:54pm

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 · 13-01-2021 9:56pm

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 · 13-01-2021 9:57pm

[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 · 13-01-2021 9:59pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:01pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:01pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:03pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:05pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:06pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:12pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:16pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:17pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:19pm

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.

13-01-2021 10:20pm

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 · 13-01-2021 10:23pm

[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 · 13-01-2021 10:43pm

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 · 13-01-2021 11:00pm

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 · 13-01-2021 11:41pm

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 · 14-01-2021 12:00am

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 · 14-01-2021 2:50am

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 · 14-01-2021 3:12am

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?

14-01-2021 3:28am

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 · 14-01-2021 7:27am

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 · 14-01-2021 10:12am

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 · 14-01-2021 10:23am

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.

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 10:26am

We must, (introduce a Universal Service Mandate), for reasons of fairness.

If companies break the law then they can be dealt with, by the police and by the courts. We don't need a second de facto legal system run by Amazon and by others.

Parler was shut down unfairly by Amazon. There will be a backlash in terms of politics.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-01-2021 10:29am

truth and logic wrote: »

We must, (introduce a Universal Service Mandate), for reasons of fairness.

If companies break the law then they can be dealt with, by the police and by the courts. We don't need a second de facto legal system run by Amazon and by others.

Parler was shut down unfairly by Amazon. There will be a backlash in terms of politics.

Parler wasn't "shut down" parler can go to any number of other companies and be hosted there. Amazon chose to discontinue doing business with Parler as is thier right.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 10:29am

truth and logic wrote: »

We must, (introduce a Universal Service Mandate), for reasons of fairness.

If companies break the law then they can be dealt with, by the police and by the courts. We don't need a second de facto legal system run by Amazon and by others.

Parler was shut down unfairly by Amazon. There will be a backlash in terms of politics.

Parler was removed from using services for continuous breaches of agreements they signed up to. Simple as that.

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 10:32am

My point is simple. Amazon shouldn't have the power to impose conditions on their customers about content.

The electricity supply companies cannot impose conditions on content on companies that use electricity. There would be chaos if they could. The postal service cannot black list companies for idealogical reasons.

Amazon need to provide services fairly, without interference, and without imposing conditions which are more onerous than the law, if they want to stay in the business.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 10:40am

truth and logic wrote: »

My point is simple. Amazon shouldn't have the power to impose conditions on their customers about content.

The electricity supply companies cannot impose conditions on content on companies that use electricity. There would be chaos if they could. The postal service cannot black list companies for idealogical reasons.

Amazon need to provide services fairly, without interference, and without imposing conditions which are more onerous than the law, if they want to stay in the business.

Electrical companies do enforce conditions. You cannot tamper with the meter, and you must pay your bills. I’m sure there are loads more if I read the terms and conditions I signed up to. If you breach their conditions they can cut you off. This has occurred many times.

King Mob · 14-01-2021 10:45am

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.

But amazon hosting servers for a private business for profit is not an essential service in the same way that electricity is.

There's nothing essential about a version of Twitter that lets you be racist.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-01-2021 10:48am

truth and logic wrote: »

My point is simple. Amazon shouldn't have the power to impose conditions on their customers about content.

They are a private company and you agree to their T&C's when you sign up to use their service.

The electricity supply companies cannot impose conditions on content on companies that use electricity.
There would be chaos if they could.

Yes they can

The postal service cannot black list companies for idealogical reasons.

Yes they can, try sending a load of unsolicited blatantly racist post cards through the post and see how quickly they blacklist them.

Amazon need to provide services fairly, without interference, and without imposing conditions which are more onerous than the law, if they want to stay in the business.

AGAIN, You agree to their conditions when you sign up to use the service, if the conditions don't suit you then you are free to use a different company.

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 11:04am

Internet Services are essential services in the modern world.

If a company wants to offer internet services they must do so fairly, without conditions on content, other than not allowing illegal content, which should be dealt with by the police and by the courts.

We don't need private police and private rules and laws.

The only issue is deciding what content is legal and which is not. That's quite difficult, but no-one is suggesting that Parler allows illegal content. They remove content which is illegal, and therefore Amazon should have no problem with them.

King Mob · 14-01-2021 11:09am

truth and logic wrote: »

Internet Services are essential services in the modern world.

Yes, access to the internet is.
No one who used or worked with Parler has had their access to the internet affected.

Hosting servers for a for profit company is not essential.

Not sure why you believe that people should be forced to host racist and offensive content against their will.

And again, you're not really explaining what's preventing Parler from finding hosting elsewhere or providing their own.

This all just seems like childish whining on their part honestly.

Do you agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 11:14am

Amazon can choose not to host any content at all, so they're not being forced to do anything.

If Amazon choose to offer web services they must do so without discrimination.

It is a question of politics as to whether or not internet services will be considered essential services or not. I hope politicians do introduce a universal service mandate. We don't need Amazon telling us what we can and cannot do, we have an elected government for that.

Amazon are amassing too much power. They can challenge governments now, and that's not a good thing.

King Mob · 14-01-2021 11:20am

truth and logic wrote: »

If Amazon choose to offer web services they must do so without discrimination.

They don't though.

truth and logic wrote: »

It is a question of politics as to whether or not internet services will be considered essential services or not.

Hosting servers for a for profit business is not an essential service by any measure or definition.
Racist twitter is not essential.

You've dodged the question:
Do you agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?
Yes or no?

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 11:26am

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.

Is racist content illegal?
I don't think that it is, and therefore it should remain up.

If racist content is illegal then it should be dealt with by the law.

Racism is a real problem in our society but it is not going anywhere. It is natural in humans, even if it is undesirable and unwanted.

King Mob · 14-01-2021 11:28am

truth and logic wrote: »

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.

Lol, question dodged entirely.

Parler was hosting horrible racist crap.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-01-2021 11:34am

truth and logic wrote: »

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.

Is racist content illegal?
I don't think that it is, and therefore it should remain up.

If racist content is illegal then it should be dealt with by the law.

Racism is a real problem in our society but it is not going anywhere. It is natural in humans, even if it is undesirable and unwanted.

Speak for yourself!

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 11:38am

truth and logic wrote: »

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.

Is racist content illegal?
I don't think that it is, and therefore it should remain up.

If racist content is illegal then it should be dealt with by the law.

Racism is a real problem in our society but it is not going anywhere. It is natural in humans, even if it is undesirable and unwanted.

Racism is learned, and not natural in humans. Look at toddlers playing. They don’t see skin colour. They only see another child no different to them.

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 12:17pm

Evolutionary psychologists, like Bill von Hipple, basically say that racism is natural.

It's like this.
There was a time when humans were prey animals. Then humans learnt to group together and to fight as a group. In particular, humans learnt to throw stones. A group of humans throwing stones is a formidable force and nothing in nature could stand against us.

Of course, an individual human could still be killed in a hunt by a mastodon or by a sabre toothed tiger. But those animals couldn't systematically hunt down and kill humans in the way that we could hunt them down and kill them.

Humans were top of the pile at that stage. Individual humans depended entirely on their group to survive. If left alone it was a death sentence for that individual human.

Humans became very secure in their own group.

The only thing that could challenge your group of humans, on the entire planet, was...
other groups of humans.
This situation persisted for tens of thousands of years, and we evolved in that environment.

That's why people stick together with people like them, and that's why people are fearful or distrustful of outsiders. The only thing that could challenge early groups of humans was other groups of humans, and that's why racism evolved. Racism is an evolved trait, and is not learnt. This is science, even if the conclusions are unpopular.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 12:23pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Evolutionary psychologists, like Bill von Hipple, basically say that racism is natural.

It's like this.
There was a time when humans were prey animals. Then humans learnt to group together and to fight as a group. In particular, humans learnt to throw stones. A group of humans throwing stones is a formidable force and nothing in nature could stand against us.

Of course, an individual human could still be killed in a hunt by a mastodon or by a sabre toothed tiger. But those animals couldn't systematically hunt down and kill humans in the way that we could hunt them down and kill them.

Humans were top of the pile at that stage. Individual humans depended entirely on their group to survive. If left alone it was a death sentence for that individual human.

Humans became very secure in their own group.

The only thing that could challenge your group of humans, on the entire planet, was...
other groups of humans.
This situation persisted for tens of thousands of years, and we evolved in that environment.

That's why people stick together with people like them, and that's why people are fearful or distrustful of outsiders. The only thing that could challenge early groups of humans was other groups of humans, and that's why racism evolved. Racism is an evolved trait, and is not learnt. This is science, even if the conclusions are unpopular.

So why part of that is a direct quote from the source and what did you add?

truth and logic · 14-01-2021 12:29pm

What do you mean?

The entire post is my own words.

Why are you quoting my post like that?

King Mob · 14-01-2021 12:30pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Evolutionary psychologists, like Bill von Hipple, basically say that racism is natural.

It's like this.
There was a time ...

Ok. You agree that there was stuff on Parler that was racist, you just don't have an issue with it because you've jumped to the conclusion it's natural to be racist.

Not sure why you dodged my yes or no question about it.

Regardless, for most people, they don't subscribe to these silly beliefs and find racism repugnant.
Some people would not like to do business where they would be associated with, and profit from, such repugnant ideas.
Not sure why they should be forced to do that.

Fighting Tao · 14-01-2021 12:32pm

truth and logic wrote: »

What do you mean?

The entire post is my own words.

Why are you quoting my post like that?

So you are saying what you think he said, not what he actually said. I could say that he said the sky is green in that case and I’d be right in your mind.

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Comments