Killington is Woke

[buckethead]

^^^well hatter. it's refreshing to see your words and not and endless repost of same nested quotes.

not sure why you think anyone who disagrees with you is part of some agenda from above. i for one trust that your opinions, however far they may differ from mine (or not) are your own. not a result of some mass brainwashing operation by those who control the dominant public narratives.

you could give others the benefit of the doubt if the point is to debate these issues. i doubt anyone here would like to live in a world where people are unable or unwilling to talk to those they may disagree with. countries that have gone that route have not fared so well.

fwiw by biggest gripe with the democratic party (the leadership at very least) is that they never seem willing or able to challenge their opponents on issues of substance. they were silent for instance on kavanaugh's well-known opinions on mass surveillance instead a hail mary on a me-too case with minutes to play.
ditto for the whole russia thing which turned the liberal half of the country into spectators waiting for mueller to save them. a russia thing started by hillary and used to 'explain'
why she didn't get elected when a little honesty and self-reflection would have done the trick (ie. she was a truly awful candidate and ran an even more awful campaign; she ridiculed trump for wanting *better* relations with russia - i agreed with trump on that!) i won't even get into the impeachment farce!

i only post links to material i trust and share opinions that are mine and mine alone. not sure what false information you're talking about but not gonna worry about it.

it's too nice a day and i plan to ride in a few hours...

ps : i don't do twitter and i'm not on facebook. i saw the latter for what it was waay back when myspace started dying out. so no skin in that game.

[XtremeJibber2001]

so now enforcing the law is "abusive behavior"?

Many would argue using federal forces to attack American citizens peacefully assembling to exercise their freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment, to be abusive and illegal.

Other might argue Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants with speech on its platform.

[madhatter]

^^^well hatter. it's refreshing to see your words and not and endless repost of same nested quotes.

not sure why you think anyone who disagrees with you is part of some agenda from above. i for one trust that your opinions, however far they may differ from mine (or not) are your own. not a result of some mass brainwashing operation by those who control the dominant public narratives.

you could give others the benefit of the doubt if the point is to debate these issues. i doubt anyone here would like to live in a world where people are unable or unwilling to talk to those they may disagree with. countries that have gone that route have not fared so well.

fwiw by biggest gripe with the democratic party (the leadership at very least) is that they never seem willing or able to challenge their opponents on issues of substance. they were silent for instance on kavanaugh's well-known opinions on mass surveillance instead a hail mary on a me-too case with minutes to play.
ditto for the whole russia thing which turned the liberal half of the country into spectators waiting for mueller to save them. a russia thing started by hillary and used to 'explain'
why she didn't get elected when a little honesty and self-reflection would have done the trick (ie. she was a truly awful candidate and ran an even more awful campaign; she ridiculed trump for wanting *better* relations with russia - i agreed with trump on that!) i won't even get into the impeachment farce!

i only post links to material i trust and share opinions that are mine and mine alone. not sure what false information you're talking about but not gonna worry about it.

it's too nice a day and i plan to ride in a few hours...

ps : i don't do twitter and i'm not on facebook. i saw the latter for what it was waay back when myspace started dying out. so no skin in that game.

that's why I quoted it when you posted it...something in regards to brooks DUI...but like you said no need to worry about it now..

twitter and FB are massive platforms ( I don't do twitter, it gets posted online often enough...)

but both of those "platforms" have moved towards becoming editors and publishers...

and that crap w labeling that trump tweet as abusive is ridiculous...combined with the rest of the left wing narrative's that turn out to be fabrication I have to question why fabricate if any of it is an "existential crisis"? and the answer is because it's an "existential crisis" for the D party...

as far as "different opinions" all I heard from anyone on the FB censoring was project veritas bla bla bla, planned parenthood bla bla bla...nothing as to whether or not this occurs ... and you can bet if the state dept is willing to falsify records, you can bet that if NBC was willing to alter the zimmermann 911 call, (which they both got caught s doing) that FB employees are willing to flag a conservative as a terrorist for wearing a maga hat or any other reason)

first it was the MSM ( and still is), then the IRS, then the FBI, now big tech is in the game too...

[madhatter]

so now enforcing the law is "abusive behavior"?

Many would argue using federal forces to attack American citizens peacefully assembling to exercise their freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment, to be abusive and illegal. FYI , federal forces have jurisdiction in DC, not that trump ever said federal forces...

Other might argue Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants with speech on its platform.

only a ( barely) useful idiot like you would argue either... ( or make the ridiculous noose argument you made)

if it dings the right or the orange man yer all for it...and will shout if from the roof tops... you've proven this hundreds of times...

first establishing an " autonomous zone" is not a 1st amendment right it's a hostile takeover public and/or private property...destruction of either is also a crime...

second twitter can do whatever they want but they become a publisher in doing so...

that you stand up for either is despicable...

[XtremeJibber2001]

so now enforcing the law is "abusive behavior"?

Many would argue using federal forces to attack American citizens peacefully assembling to exercise their freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment, to be abusive and illegal. FYI , federal forces have jurisdiction in DC, not that trump ever said federal forces...

Other might argue Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants with speech on its platform.

only a ( barely) useful idiot like you would argue either... ( or make the ridiculous noose argument you made)

if it dings the right or the orange man yer all for it...and will shout if from the roof tops... you've proven this hundreds of times...

first establishing an " autonomous zone" is not a 1st amendment right it's a hostile takeover public and/or private property...destruction of either is also a crime...

second twitter can do whatever they want but they become a publisher in doing so...

that you stand up for either is despicable...

You're right, Trump never said federal forces ... he just staged active US Military personnel outside the city in preparation to be deployed on US citizens.

Your name calling notwithstanding, Twitter can do as they please.

Despicable is a powerful word. Admitting you foster hatred for me because my views are different than yours reveals more about you than me. Blaze on.

[buckethead]

^ the major tech platforms all seem to engage in AI-driven censorship. of non-dominant viewpoints left and right.
there's been much on this about google/youtube, facebook...i'll see if i can find something i read a while back. as for the veritas, i thought you wanted more on them. i was just tuning in. wasn't piling on...

there was also a recent story on amazon's zoom equivalent, that was set up to block out any mention of unionizing. in real time. that one just broke...

^^XTJ : disagree. at a certain point these 'private' companies become *de facto* public utilities. what if they were harnessed to spread a massive lie that put many people or even the entire country in danger. like a false story of an imminent nuclear attack for instance - would that simply be a private concern?

here's one on NYT
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/02/n ... lgorithms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and on huff post
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/29/h ... ensorship/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

looking for facebook...

[XtremeJibber2001]

there was also a recent story on amazon's zoom equivalent, that was set up to block out any mention of unionizing. in real time. that one just broke...

This? https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/fac ... e-unionize

If this is the same thing then I think it's within an employers right to monitor/control what's allowed on their intranet. I used to do consulting for a company that would monitor e-mail content for unacceptable words (this was over a decade ago). Unacceptable words would be counted and reported. At some point you'd have a discussion with HR. Not pretty, but within the employers right since you're using their technology, network, etc.

XTJ : disagree. at a certain point these 'private' companies become public utilities. what if they were harnessed to spread a massive lie that put many people or even the entire country in danger. like a false story of an imminent nuclear attack for instance - would that simply be a private concern?

We can both disagree with how social media is moderated ... it's a whole can of worms and not something that can be done easily as bias among humans is inherent in our nature. Meanwhile, legally Facebook/Twitter et al can do as they please. There's no law or framework that forcing Twitter or Facebook as a type of public utility. It's already being harnessed to spread lies by people from all walks of life.

As a country, we're way behind on updating laws to be commensurate with advances of technology. Unfortunately, I don't see either party doing anything about it anytime soon.

[madhatter]

so now enforcing the law is "abusive behavior"?

Many would argue using federal forces to attack American citizens peacefully assembling to exercise their freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment, to be abusive and illegal. FYI , federal forces have jurisdiction in DC, not that trump ever said federal forces...

Other might argue Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants with speech on its platform.

only a ( barely) useful idiot like you would argue either... ( or make the ridiculous noose argument you made)

if it dings the right or the orange man yer all for it...and will shout if from the roof tops... you've proven this hundreds of times...

first establishing an " autonomous zone" is not a 1st amendment right it's a hostile takeover public and/or private property...destruction of either is also a crime...

second twitter can do whatever they want but they become a publisher in doing so...

that you stand up for either is despicable...

You're right, Trump never said federal forces ... he just staged active US Military personnel outside the city in preparation to be deployed on US citizens. yep at a militray base, nothing illegal or "abusive" about that or his tweet...

Your name calling notwithstanding, Twitter can do as they please.

Despicable is a powerful word. Admitting you foster hatred for me because my views are different than yours reveals more about you than me. Blaze on.

it's your absolute lack of integrity that's despicable...your ignorance to is also astounding...

yer an absolute hypocrite, you nitpick to the thousandth degree when it suits you yet paint with abroad brush everywhere else...

you giddily cheer abuses against trump by the IRS, DOJ, FBI, big tech etc...while marveling at hunter's watch and defending the obvious pay to play racketeering by the biden family... you don't give two fvcks about free speech or any exploitation of anything that can be used against the the bad orange man is fair game...

as far as twitter yes twitter can do what they want they just need to relinquish protections a platform gets that publisher doesn't...

so yeah I got no use for you or anyone like you...you wholeheartedly support any and all abuses and exploitation of the law as well as any BS narrative no matter how ridiculous as long as you get to remove the president you don't want...yer too stupid to understand that the same tactics will be used against the next "trump" that threatens the power structure. and your actions are a personal attack on me and every other person who stands for fair and free elections and the equal application of law and order as set forth in the constitution...


you have refused to accept the results of the 2016 election have made it clear you support any all means of removing the duly elected president... so yeah I mostly consider you an enemy of the country at this point...

not treasonous like the many collaborators and perpetrators of this attempt to remove trump, but as a ( barely) useful idiot, never to be trusted, never to be believed...

and yes bucket XJ knows the truth about twitter, he doesn't care...and that's the problem I have with XJ...

[madhatter]

there was also a recent story on amazon's zoom equivalent, that was set up to block out any mention of unionizing. in real time. that one just broke...

This? https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/fac ... e-unionize

If this is the same thing then I think it's within an employers right to monitor/control what's allowed on their intranet. I used to do consulting for a company that would monitor e-mail content for unacceptable words (this was over a decade ago). Unacceptable words would be counted and reported. At some point you'd have a discussion with HR. Not pretty, but within the employers right since you're using their technology, network, etc.

XTJ : disagree. at a certain point these 'private' companies become public utilities. what if they were harnessed to spread a massive lie that put many people or even the entire country in danger. like a false story of an imminent nuclear attack for instance - would that simply be a private concern?

We can both disagree with how social media is moderated ... it's a whole can of worms and not something that can be done easily as bias among humans is inherent in our nature. Meanwhile, legally Facebook/Twitter et al can do as they please. There's no law or framework that forcing Twitter or Facebook as a type of public utility. It's already being harnessed to spread lies by people from all walks of life.

As a country, we're way behind on updating laws to be commensurate with advances of technology. Unfortunately, I don't see either party doing anything about it anytime soon.

actually there kinda is...and by claiming those protections while not exactly meeting the definition they should no longer be treated as such...

for all intents and purposes, social media is a public space. This is because of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act which is what they operate under.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230#:~:te ... 2%A7%20230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

[madhatter]

the oblivious hypocrisy is almost of XJ caliber...

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had a bizarre encounter yesterday when a man dressed only in a bra and panties rushed then near Black Lives Matter Square and the area claimed earlier as the “Black House Autonomous Zone.”

Mitchell immediately asked “where’s the police” and Norton added “where’s the police when you need them?” It is a question that many of us have been asking D.C. officials for weeks as police have stood by and watched statues destroyed and defaced around the city.

I mean holy crap if they were "woke" like they pretend to be they should have embraced that woman's transgender status, welcomed her to share her view and heralded her as a brave champion of human rights, not had a body guard attack him then react in horror and disgust while complaining there were no police "when ya need em"...

everything about the left is BS propaganda....

[XtremeJibber2001]

actually there kinda is...and by claiming those protections while not exactly meeting the definition they should no longer be treated as such...

for all intents and purposes, social media is a public space. This is because of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act which is what they operate under.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230#:~:te ... 2%A7%20230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

I agree with you. They can do as they please, but that doesn't mean their reality won't change. My church can campaign for a political campaign if they so chose, but doesn't mean they'll get to keep their 501c3 status.

[buckethead]

talking about tech:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ ... rveillance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hatter: this bit on facebook acts of censorship in 2017 appears in the piece on NYT above

[easyrider16]

I think repealing the CDA would be a huge mistake. It would open companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook to civil lawsuits from anyone over what any random user posts. It would effectively destroy these companies, as we all know our society is highly litigious. These companies also need the ability to remove content that is egregious. If not, their web sites could be flooded with pornography and illicit material.

If Trump is upset about how Twitter handles his posts, he can use another medium. He can very easily start his own web site and publish whatever he wants there. And since he's the President, people would certainly go there and read it. So I'm not sure modifying the CDA makes sense. It seems to me like an attempt to censor content that he doesn't like (i.e. fact checking and criticism of his tweets).

As to the actual "censorship" by these companies, I have read as Bucket references above that their search and/or display algorithms tend to filter out non-mainstream views. My understanding is that these algorithms are designed to highlight the most popular content, the stuff more people are more likely to read or click on, and push it to the top of the stack. So, by operation of these algorithms, the mainstream views, being the most popular, get the most promotion, and you have a self-reinforcing mechanism that sort of filters out other viewpoints. I agree that this is a problem, but I'm not sure how to fix it or even if we should. If you altered those algorithms somehow, you can't really alter human behavior, and much of the popularity of certain content comes from the viral behavior of individual people sharing it with other individuals. Yet we have a growing issue with misinformation going viral and spreading faster than it has ever done in the past.

[madhatter]

I think repealing the CDA would be a huge mistake. It would open companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook to civil lawsuits from anyone over what any random user posts. It would effectively destroy these companies, as we all know our society is highly litigious. These companies also need the ability to remove content that is egregious. If not, their web sites could be flooded with pornography and illicit material.

If Trump is upset about how Twitter handles his posts, he can use another medium. He can very easily start his own web site and publish whatever he wants there. And since he's the President, people would certainly go there and read it. So I'm not sure modifying the CDA makes sense. It seems to me like an attempt to censor content that he doesn't like (i.e. fact checking and criticism of his tweets).yeah he's trying to censor censorship... and of course he's not censoring anything...he's saying if you want to control content you are a publisher and sb treated as such...it's not "modifying" the CDA its enforcing it's rules...

As to the actual "censorship" by these companies, I have read as Bucket references above that their search and/or display algorithms tend to filter out non-mainstream views. My understanding is that these algorithms are designed to highlight the most popular content, the stuff more people are more likely to read or click on, and push it to the top of the stack. So, by operation of these algorithms, the mainstream views, being the most popular, get the most promotion, and you have a self-reinforcing mechanism that sort of filters out other viewpoints. I agree that this is a problem, but I'm not sure how to fix it or even if we should. If you altered those algorithms somehow, you can't really alter human behavior, and much of the popularity of certain content comes from the viral behavior of individual people sharing it with other individuals. Yet we have a growing issue with misinformation going viral and spreading faster than it has ever done in the past.

[easyrider16]

If twitter flags a tweet as potentially misinformation, and provides supporting links, that is speech. The President wants to restrict their ability to offer that speech. That is censorship. Ego, the President is trying to censor Twitter. How is it anything else?

It's interesting how some conservatives are all about free speech until they hear speech they don't like. Such as flag burning. Or kneeling during the anthem. Or twitter posting fact checks.

As to Twitter's alleged censorship, they are not preventing his tweets from being published, are they? It's one thing to acknowledge that search and display algorithms boost certain types of speech. It's another to say that they are actually preventing publication of speech. While I think the former happens routinely, I don't think the latter happens at all, other than to restrict pornography, violent material, etc.