Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

12467…13

Comments

  • #92
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    It isn't, you're still not recognising the difference I have made several posts back. Please engage with me on the difference between a platform and a publisher if you wish to try to make that facile argument.

    If local shops, which are private entities, refused to serve Donald as they disagreed with him, would you support them? If bakeries refused to bake him a cake in support of twitter, would you support that too?

    It does not matter what they are. Newspapers have refused stories for centuries because it went against their beliefs.

    Just because a company provide somewhere that anyone can post, doesn’t mean a person can post against the rules they signed up to adhere to.


  • #93
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Great, which post number? this one? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115900400&postcount=36

    That isn't a conspiracy, it's just a rambling world view of yours.


    Why don't you read back to where you accepted the conspiracy theory but then reverted back to saying that you don't see the conspiracy.


  • #94
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Just because a company provide somewhere that anyone can post, doesn’t mean a person can post against the rules they signed up to adhere to.

    I agree with you. The point we are STILL at pains making is that this is selectively done, see all the examples I provided. They break the rules too, but they weren't enforced. They weren't enforced because they leaned to one ideology. That's the point!!!!


  • #95
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »


    Whatever happened at Capitol Hill was for the most part orchestrated via Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. None of those arrested were Parler account holders.

    It was also orchestrated on Parler.

    One of the reasons Amazon stopped hosting Parler is because of extreme content that threatened public safety "such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens,"
    https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/13/956362434/amazon-says-parler-systematically-unwilling-to-remove-violent-content


  • #96
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    No it ISN'T and this has been pointed out time and time again. You just can't seem to get it into your head or you refuse to because your ego won't let you.


    Your pub analogy is weak. A better analogy would be that you open your own pub on the street but the handful of owners of the other pubs burn your premises to the ground and run you out of town because they don't look kindly on the fact that their punters are migrating to your establishment and they don't like the competition.
    Well no, that's not a very good analogy either.
    As it wasn't really Parler's premises in the first place. They were renting it from Amazon. And nothing was "burned down" and no one was "run out of town."

    You also ignore the obvious problems with parler and the hate speech and violence promoted on it and you are pretending that they were completely innocent.

    So a more apt analogy is the owner of a building cancelling the lease on a bar because the barman kept breaking the rules and advertising to a crowd of racists and cranks who spend all night shouting about how the landlord is part of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Why don't you read back to where you accepted the conspiracy theory but then reverted back to saying that you don't see the conspiracy.

    You haven't presented any conspiracy theory. That was another poster who presented a vague conspiracy notion that they walked back with "I'm not actually a conspiracy advocate" in the next post, ergo it was dropped.


  • #98
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    They piggybacked on other companies infrastructure. That is their mistake. Apple own iOS, Google own Android etc. They said that they would abide by the rules set by those companies, but they did not. The companies were very lenient allowing them flaunt the rules for so long.


    Parler didn't "piggyback" on anything.


    You have to PAY to have Amazon host you on AWS and in case you are unaware Parler's Terms Of Service includes a ban on the advocacy of violence. They also employ a team of paid mods to delete such content.


  • #99
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Parler didn't "piggyback" on anything.


    You have to PAY to have Amazon host you on AWS and in case you are unaware Parler's Terms Of Service includes a ban on the advocacy of violence. They also employ a team of paid mods to delete such content.

    They didn't delete a lot of the stuff. Far-right nuts flocked to it for that reason.


  • #100
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    silliussoddius wrote: »
    And you know this because?


    According to a Parler Executive who informed Glenn Greenwald.


  • #101
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    It does not matter what they are. Newspapers have refused stories for centuries because it went against their beliefs.

    Just because a company provide somewhere that anyone can post, doesn’t mean a person can post against the rules they signed up to adhere to.


    This isn't about newspaper refusing to run a story.


    It's about a newspaper being shut down because powerful forces don't like some of the stories they DO run.


    You STILL can't grasp it?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    truth and logic
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭truth and logic


    Amazon Web Services shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on their customers about content.

    If content breaks the law it could be taken down and the police could be called. Otherwise, all content is fine and should be left up.

    Providers of web services should be like electricity providers, with a universal service mandate.

    Web Services shouldn't be allowed impose conditions on content which are more restrictive than the law allows.

    There are still problems with my proposed system but far fewer problems. Parler shouldn't have been banned. Referred to the police perhaps, (and perhaps temporarily banned), but not permo banned.


  • #103
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You haven't presented any conspiracy theory. That was another poster who presented a vague conspiracy notion that they walked back with "I'm not actually a conspiracy advocate" in the next post, ergo it was dropped.

    Eh I didn't drop anything. You simply read my post and said "that's one way of looking at it" and then gave one line glib remark."well I don't think so.."

    Do u care to refute any of the examples I gave. If there's no conspiracy then why are rules selectively enforced?


  • #104
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    truth and logic wrote: »
    Amazon Web Services shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on their customers about content.

    If content breaks the law it could be taken down and the police could be called. Otherwise, all content is fine and should be left up.

    Providers of web services should be like electricity providers, with a universal service mandate.

    Web Services shouldn't be allowed impose conditions on content which are more restrictive than the law allows.

    There are still problems with my proposed system but far fewer problems. Parler shouldn't have been banned. Referred to the police perhaps, (and perhaps temporarily banned), but not permo banned.

    Parler was suspended.

    Amazon had been contacting Parler for many weeks prior to the event over the violent threats on the site, which Parler refused to remove. Since these were a violation of Amazon's T&C, Parler was suspended.

    It's disgusting stuff. Have a read.
    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf


  • #105
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    Eh I didn't drop anything. You simply read my post and said "that's one way of looking at it" and then gave one line glib remark."well I don't think so.."

    Do u care to refute any of the examples I gave. If there's no conspiracy then why are rules selectively enforced?

    Right. I read your points which were just your general views related to the issue. You didn't provide any specific detailed conspiracy.

    If you believe a conspiracy took place, then what are the details/timeline of that conspiracy?


  • #106
    silliussoddius
    Registered Users Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    According to a Parler Executive who informed Glenn Greenwald.

    You expect me to trust a big tech CEO?


  • #107
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Right. I read your points which were just your general views related to the issue. You didn't provide any specific detailed conspiracy.

    If you believe a conspiracy took place, then what are the details/timeline of that conspiracy?

    What's the actual point? I wrote out a very specific set of examples with which you could engage. You didn't. Now u don't want a theory, you want me to waste my time writing a PhD on a chat board that you're going to hand waive away anyway.

    As an aside, do you think the bakery was right or wrong to refuse to bake the cake. Do you think twitter should be pulled from Internet servers when I could easily load up several tweets of hate right now from both sides?


  • #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    It's still not "censorship" though, to my mind. It's a bunch of companies walking back their services when it comes to Donald Trump or the Trump Organisation.

    It's an open secret that Twitter were going to start treating Trump like any other user once he was no longer the U.S. President. Jack Dorsey has stated this in the past. Then, Jan 6th happened and everything changed.

    Since then a bunch of other companies / organisations have also distanced themselves from Trump;
    Shopify
    Stripe
    Paypal
    GoFundMe
    Deutsche Bank
    New York City
    The U.S. P.G.A

    That list is going to get longer and longer. I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm not aware of.

    Re the publisher / platform issue, I don't know enough about it to argue one way or another but my limited understanding is that Trump issued an executive order to enforce his interpretation that Twitter and FB could now be considered publishers, not platforms. You could argue this was more to suit himself, than others. A conspiracy theory in itself, perhaps.


  • #109
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    nudain wrote: »
    It's still not "censorship" though, to my mind. It's a bunch of companies walking back their services when it comes to Donald Trump or the Trump Organisation.

    It's an open secret that Twitter were going to start treating Trump like any other user once he was no longer the U.S. President. Jack Dorsey has stated this in the past. Then, Jan 6th happened and everything changed.

    Re the publisher / platform issue, I don't know enough about it to argue one way or another but my limited understanding is that Trump issued an executive order to enforce his interpretation that Twitter and FB could now be considered publishers, not platforms. You could argue this was more to suit himself, than others. A conspiracy theory in itself, perhaps.

    Just to muddy the water again, and I don't even know who this helps, but I remember last year that the supreme Court made it illegal for Trump to block other users or to limit those who can reply to him as he was carrying out govt business. This is clearly more than a "private company, our rules" scenario.


  • #110
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    What's the actual point? I wrote out a very specific set of examples with which you could engage. You didn't.

    Appears to be a case of crossed wires so. I read your points but they seem related to a normal current affairs/politics discussion of the topic at hand.

    However I was asking for details of a specific conspiracy.


  • #111
    truth and logic
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭truth and logic


    Twitter deleted Trump's previous tweets. Why was that necessary?

    Historicans need access to that stuff. Apparently it's gone.

    In many ways it's surprising that Trump didn't move from Twitter years ago. He never owned his tweets, and he never had a list of his 80 million followers. Twitter owns those things.

    Trump is famous for using legal agreements to screw people over. Now, Twitter have done the same to him.

    Trump could have moved to a nascent social media network two years ago or so, and demanded part ownership, and he'd have brought 50 million people with him immediately.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You haven't presented any conspiracy theory. That was another poster who presented a vague conspiracy notion that they walked back with "I'm not actually a conspiracy advocate" in the next post, ergo it was dropped.


    I have.
    so has smacruari and the mod has even tried to explain it to you.


    If what we are discussing here doesn't fall within the parameters of what you personally would classify as a conspiracy then you are perfectly free to not waste your time by engaging in the discussion.



    If it doesn't satisfy your criteria or that you just don't understand then why are you even participating?


    You've already tried to derail the thread by deflecting to irrelevant issues. The crux of the debate has been laid out for you in very simple terms. You don't want to take it on board so now you are just being obtuse.


  • #113
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    However I was asking for details of a specific conspiracy.

    Why? 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.

    If you want this thread to be lads in tinfoil hats howling at the moon im sure you can find other threads for your amusement.


  • #114
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It was also orchestrated on Parler.

    One of the reasons Amazon stopped hosting Parler is because of extreme content that threatened public safety "such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens,"
    https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/13/956362434/amazon-says-parler-systematically-unwilling-to-remove-violent-content


    And within your link:


    "During one of the calls, according to Amazon's filing, Parler's CEO reported a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violated its community standards but remained posted."


    Parler has Terms Of Service that ban incitement to violence.



    If their moderators are working around the clock to remove content that breaches these terms and that's not good enough for Amazon/Google/Apple then it's hardly Parler's fault.


    Amazon explicity stated that Parler was unwilling to remove such content. Parler says otherwise.


    But leaving aside the entire Parler imbroglio, I originally posited that the Capitol events will be used to crack down on speech whether it is inciteful or otherwise.


  • #115
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They didn't delete a lot of the stuff. Far-right nuts flocked to it for that reason.




    Are you trying to say that Parler allowed content which violated their Terms Of Service to remain online?


  • #116
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    silliussoddius wrote: »
    You expect me to trust a big tech CEO?


    Well I suppose that's up to you.


    You asked me a question and I answered it.


  • #117
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    nudain wrote: »
    It's still not "censorship" though, to my mind. It's a bunch of companies walking back their services when it comes to Donald Trump or the Trump Organisation.

    It's an open secret that Twitter were going to start treating Trump like any other user once he was no longer the U.S. President. Jack Dorsey has stated this in the past. Then, Jan 6th happened and everything changed.

    Since then a bunch of other companies / organisations have also distanced themselves from Trump;
    Shopify
    Stripe
    Paypal
    GoFundMe
    Deutsche Bank
    New York City
    The U.S. P.G.A

    That list is going to get longer and longer. I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm not aware of.

    Re the publisher / platform issue, I don't know enough about it to argue one way or another but my limited understanding is that Trump issued an executive order to enforce his interpretation that Twitter and FB could now be considered publishers, not platforms. You could argue this was more to suit himself, than others. A conspiracy theory in itself, perhaps.


    And since then, World politicians, including Angel Merkel, French legislators, Obrador of Mexico and a plethora of others have voiced their dismay and shock at such a flagrant display of media authoritarianism.


  • #118
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    Why? 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.

    If you want this thread to be lads in tinfoil hats howling at the moon im sure you can find other threads for your amusement.

    Another theory is that after years of disinformation, Trump overstepped his mark by inciting an attack on a sitting Congress, which subsequently caused social media platforms, companies, banks and organisations (e.g. the PGA) to disassociate or block him.

    However, as mentioned, I am asking about an actual conspiracy theory, and nothing coherent has been provided in this thread, only vague "appeal to motive" notions.


  • #119
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Are you trying to say that Parler allowed content which violated their Terms Of Service to remain online?

    Violated Amazon's ToS


  • #120
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    However, as mentioned, I am asking about an actual conspiracy theory, and nothing coherent has been provided in this thread, only vague "appeal to motive" notions.

    You know what a conspiracy theory is, right? You know what those words mean?

    A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[6]


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    You know what a conspiracy theory is, right? You know what those words mean?

    A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[6]

    Right, so this theory..

    Is it an idea based on concrete evidence, if yes, what's that evidence?


Advertisement