Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

Robert ninja

conorhal wrote: »

At this point I think that the best revenge would be to let the left have Twitter and for all conservatives to depart.
Given what a vitriolic sewer of torch wielding hashtag mobs it has becom and the left's propensity to eat itself in a never ending spiral of purity testing, we can just put on the popcorn and enjoy the laughs

If only it was that simple. As Eric said

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its very clear that the agenda is to silence

You can't just say "I disagree with twitter I'll use something else". They'll come for that, too. Hosting, DDos, payments - they'll shut it all down. They don't care about obeying by rules they just want you to never have a voice which makes them as dangerous as the nazis they're always yapping about.

Nermal wrote: »

Anyway, move to Gab, explicitly run to First Amendment standards.

It's not though? Last I checked they're ban heavy too. Let me make this very clear. The only reason some alt tech platforms haven't been removed yet is because

1. It doesn't have a critical mass of users
Hasn't reached enough eyes yet like Parler recently did
2. They haven't yet figured out a way to take it down
Such as hosting providers in countries who don't have to listen to Israeli/US demands
3. It's controlled opposition

zom

Seems like GAB got banned same way as Parler few days ago (Apple, Google, Amazon etc.).
Global corporations got so much power that it is impossible to grow any independent media now.
We missed the point to was a chance to fight them, now "resistance is futile we will be assimilated"

Kraftwerk

zom wrote: »

Seems like GAB got banned same way as Parler few days ago (Apple, Google, Amazon etc.).
Global corporations got so much power that it is impossible to grow any independent media now.
We missed the point to was a chance to fight them, now "resistance is futile we will be assimilated"

Yep. These huge platforms were allowed grow their user base to a size they are by allowing people to do whatever they like. They all grew and profited from filth. Now once they're massive, can afford to drop users and keep a hold on society enough to keep the share price up they're cracking down on the crap. While new platforms who have slim chance of competing anyway are being nuked left right and center for not operating in line with what billion dollar companies have only recently decided is OK.

section4

Robert ninja wrote: »

If only it was that simple. As Eric said

You can't just say "I disagree with twitter I'll use something else". They'll come for that, too. Hosting, DDos, payments - they'll shut it all down. They don't care about obeying by rules they just want you to never have a voice which makes them as dangerous as the nazis they're always yapping about.


It's not though? Last I checked they're ban heavy too. Let me make this very clear. The only reason some alt tech platforms haven't been removed yet is because

1. It doesn't have a critical mass of users
Hasn't reached enough eyes yet like Parler recently did
2. They haven't yet figured out a way to take it down
Such as hosting providers in countries who don't have to listen to Israeli/US demands
3. It's controlled opposition

Twitter ezpouses leftist views ostensibly
While being cheered on by fake leftists
Who supposedly rail against wall st etc
While Twitter shares are owned by some
Of the biggest investment companies in the world

biko

The left

Private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as what they are doing is what I want them to do.

Stolen from here

Robert ninja

section4 wrote: »

Twitter ezpouses leftist views ostensibly
While being cheered on by fake leftists
Who supposedly rail against wall st etc
While Twitter shares are owned by some
Of the biggest investment companies in the world

Big tech may yap about leftist ideals but they do not believe them. It's all for show to get useful idiots on their side. It's why they push LGBTQ stuff so hard because the gender-identity types are very easily montetised by marketing when their whole identities have been crafted by said marketing. They like Apple and McDonalds because they had rainbow colors in their logos for that month on twitter, they're totally on their side right? Surely not trying to sell you overpriced hardware or fill your arteries with crumb coated shyte.

It's leftism for thee, not for me. Big tech elites are quite cosy in their capitalist-gained mansions protected by guns, far away from any diversity projects or BLM protests.

biko

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1348157388965117954?s=20

There is some weird poetry that this was posted on Twitter

Necro

Mod:

We already have a thread on the US election - keep the discussion there please. Off topic posts deleted. If you're threadbanned from there and can't discuss it, tough - don't come in here derailing another thread as a result though.

Kraftwerk

biko wrote: »

Mozilla (that created Firefox browser)

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/

"Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken:

Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.

Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things."


Seems reasonable enough. If these platforms are going to have such an impact (in this case destructive impact) on society we need clear insight into how they're operating and better understanding of what the impacts will be.

biko

I removed my post as it's not connected to Twitter per se.
Mozilla is a good organisation and I understand her views although I wonder who these "independent" helpers will be.

Nermal

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Seems reasonable enough. If these platforms are going to have such an impact (in this case destructive impact) on society we need clear insight into how they're operating and better understanding of what the impacts will be.

'Reasonable' behaviour for a browser begins and ends at the rendering of webpages.

Kraftwerk

Nermal wrote: »

'Reasonable' behaviour for a browser begins and ends at the rendering of webpages.

Twitter isn't a browser...

Kraftwerk

biko wrote: »

I removed my post as it's not connected to Twitter per se.
Mozilla is a good organisation and I understand her views although I wonder who these "independent" helpers will be.

Its referencing "social media platforms" so it is connected to twitter as much as any of them.

And it doesn't say independent helpers. It says companies should work with independent researchers. I'd read that as allow access to data for researchers to conduct in depth studies on the impact of social media impact on society.

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Conservatives were removed from twitter and the left rejoiced, they moved to parler and the left were horrified, parler banned and the left rejoiced.

That would make sense if hanging Mike Pence or shooting Nancy Pelosi were conservative political positions like banning abortion. Those aren't positions that any reasonable person would want to touch with a barge pole. Most large businesses don't want to be associated with that stuff either for the same reason that Subway didn't want to be associated with Jared anymore.


The guy who tweets about how the government should be more efficient and spend less isn't getting banned. It's the guy who says that fags should burn in hell. Plenty get unfairly banned, sure, but to pretend that this is primarily about political positions is way off. Being a dick isn't a conservative position, nor should it be.

biko

Poland tries to ensure freedom of speech for their users.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro announced a legal initiative in December aimed at enabling internet users to file complaints against the removal of online posts as well as the creation of a special court for freedom of speech.

He said the aim of the bill was to give internet users the feeling that their rights are protected and that their posts cannot be arbitrarily removed from online platforms.

Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law.

https://polandin.com/51388314/justice-minister-announces-online-freedom-of-speech-bill

mcmoustache

biko wrote: »

Poland tries to ensure freedom of speech for their users.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro announced a legal initiative in December aimed at enabling internet users to file complaints against the removal of online posts as well as the creation of a special court for freedom of speech.

He said the aim of the bill was to give internet users the feeling that their rights are protected and that their posts cannot be arbitrarily removed from online platforms.

Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law.

https://polandin.com/51388314/justice-minister-announces-online-freedom-of-speech-bill

It will be interesting to see whether this initiative is more than just virtue signalling with no chance of being made into law. Let's imagine for a moment that this law applied to Boards.


They would have to allow spam. They'd have to allow rereg trolls to continue stinking the place up. I would be allowed to call people stupid cúnts to my heart's content. I could clog up the Galway forum with 100 threads a day with the same title of "Where in Cork can I buy paper bags?".


That's just a minute's worth of brainstorming on a Sunday after a drunken night's gaming so I'm sure that I've missed a lot but this kind of law just doesn't seem practical.


Like I said, it looks more like virtue signalling than a serious proposal.

jimmycrackcorm

It's funny to have a thread about this when twitter banned Trump after he literally sent a mob to take over Congress.

Twitter actually are partly to blame for this because they allowed Trump to ferment this insurgency over the last four years. But that's free speech. Free speech isn't unlimited.

completedit

Is Boards acting up or is Dorsey involved with Boards.ie? A few posts about this don't appear to be showing up.

Edit: Saw the Mod post.

Eric Cartman

mcmoustache wrote: »

That would make sense if hanging Mike Pence or shooting Nancy Pelosi were conservative political positions like banning abortion. Those aren't positions that any reasonable person would want to touch with a barge pole. Most large businesses don't want to be associated with that stuff either for the same reason that Subway didn't want to be associated with Jared anymore.


The guy who tweets about how the government should be more efficient and spend less isn't getting banned. It's the guy who says that fags should burn in hell. Plenty get unfairly banned, sure, but to pretend that this is primarily about political positions is way off. Being a dick isn't a conservative position, nor should it be.

But the guy who tweets concerns about migrants, about migrant crime or impacts on his local area is getting banned.

Nobody is getting banned for market conservatism, however social conservatism or anything to do with non EU migration puts you pretty high up the list.

Id also accept if the same was true on the other end, hashtags about killing white people, being sick of white people or the dehumanising phrase 'yt ppl' is fully accepted, praising Stalin for gulags etc.. is welcomed openly . Anything pro hitler - almost instant ban.

If all extremism was banned id get it, but its only right-white extremism that suffers the wrath, and as above even white moderate social conservatism.

Sir Oxman

One of the biggest 'fixes' to social media would be the abandonment of the 'like' or 'heart' buttons.
But that will never happen.
Their whole business model is based on it to feed their customers with opportunities of targeted advertising and profiling (and to sell on) yet also creates the echo chamber bubbles and antagonism/polarisation we see.
It also triples up as a major dopamine hit for the more addictive user - high profile or ordinary.

Google Search even creates echo chamber bubbles by default when using what should be a simple search engine.
Their browser is used by approx 80% of internet users.

PintOfView

Sir Oxman wrote: »

One of the biggest 'fixes' to social media would be the abandonment of the 'like' or 'heart' buttons.
But that will never happen.
Their whole business model is based on it to feed their customers with opportunities of targeted advertising and profiling (and to sell on) yet also creates the echo chamber bubbles and antagonism/polarisation we see.
It also triples up as a major dopamine hit for the more addictive user - high profile or ordinary.

Google Search even creates echo chamber bubbles by default when using what should be a simple search engine.
Their browser is used by approx 80% of internet users.

Exactly.

Google / youtube / etc feed people more of the same, as it is in their commercial interest to keep the user engaged, maximising screen time, and thus maximising number of ads that can be displayed (it's just good business management, if that's your business).

So they help keep people bound in orbit around whatever thing people get sucked into.

Expecting these companies to police themselves is not really workable, as their interests are not necessarily aligned with those of a healthy society.

Also, depending on the social media companies to set the boundaries of free speech feels a bit dangerous.
It's tempting to support Twitter, FB, etc., freezing certain accounts, but should it be at the discretion of those companies?
Surely there should be some other mechanism, independent of social media companies, to make people accountable for peddling misinformation and untruths on social media, (which are then fed unverified to the captive audience).

Regulation is the only thing I can think of!

Polar101

mcmoustache wrote: »

Let's imagine for a moment that this law applied to Boards.


They would have to allow spam. They'd have to allow rereg trolls to continue stinking the place up. I would be allowed to call people stupid cúnts to my heart's content. I could clog up the Galway forum with 100 threads a day with the same title of "Where in Cork can I buy paper bags?".

Yeah, and after a few days of that fun, Boards would just blanket ban all Polish IP's - wouldn't really make a difference what a Polish law on that would be. I guess that's why it wouldn't really work at all.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

It's always interesting to see people who fancy themselves as left wing and anti-authoritian rushing to defend enormous corporations that are shutting down elected politicians on their public platforms.

Orwell had their number, as always:

" Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history, etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.”

George Orwell so far ahead of his time it's unnerving. His analogies, metaphors etc. were genius.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

George Orwell so far ahead of his time it's unnerving. His analogies, metaphors etc. were genius.

The only criticism might be that he saw the state as the primary threat. Whereas its actually corporate interests. The state is the only protection people have and a lot of effort is being put into how to circumvent whatever laws or rights remain. Freedom of speech for example is being discredited as a concept.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

The only criticism might be that he saw the state as the primary threat. Whereas its actually corporate interests. The state is the only protection people have and a lot of effort is being put into how to circumvent whatever laws or rights remain. Freedom of speech for example is being discredited as a concept.

The ideal society is one in which there is a balance of power between state and corporations. Free markets are great but there does need to be regulation to protect individual rights.

riffmongous

biko wrote: »

Poland tries to ensure freedom of speech for their users.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro announced a legal initiative in December aimed at enabling internet users to file complaints against the removal of online posts as well as the creation of a special court for freedom of speech.

He said the aim of the bill was to give internet users the feeling that their rights are protected and that their posts cannot be arbitrarily removed from online platforms.

Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law.

https://polandin.com/51388314/justice-minister-announces-online-freedom-of-speech-bill

I was surprised at this until I saw the last line and looked into it. So it's not Poland trying to ensure freedom of speech, it's Poland trying to ensure freedom of *legal speech*, which means you still can't say that certain Polish people were involved in the Holocaust, anything against the ruling party or anything that might offend the Catholic Church. They are just making sure that their own particular form of mass censorship has priority for their citizens

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The ideal society is one in which there is a balance of power between state and corporations. Free markets are great but there does need to be regulation to protect individual rights.

Statements like this were often labelled as communism only a few years ago by the libertarians who used to frequent this site. That sort of thinking has, until very recently been the primary right wing ideology in the UK and the US.

Junkyard Tom

Gruffalux wrote: »

Have those in favour of mass censorship not got the intellectual capacity to win the arguments?

This is itself a bullshit 'argument'.

The type of people who are amenable to nutbag conspiracies are not going to be reasoned out of a position then didn't reason themselves into.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This is itself a bullshit 'argument'.

The type of people who are amenable to nutbag conspiracies are not going to be reasoned out of a position then didn't reason themselves into.

I suppose this type of authoritarianism relies to an extent on people defending it..

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose this type of authoritarianism relies to an extent on people defending it..

I don't think headbangers getting banned from Facebook is authoritarianism. In China you get a knock on the door by a pack of goons if you write the wrong thing on their social media platforms. That's authoritarianism.

Anyway after ye've had a good cry about Trump being banned from twitter, what's your solution to people using their platforms to incite violence and whatnot?