Reply With Quote
Yeah, he corrected the information. Thanks for highlighting a credible source.
Yeah, he corrected the information. Thanks for highlighting a credible source.
Twitter bias is clear as day tbh.
"then you get verified tweets making the claim of poisoning"
yeah that was a gem
One reason the amoral, self-regarding head Zuck is sucking so hard on Trash's apocryphal is that Zuck knows that Warren, etc want break up BigTech.
I bet the most powerful man in the country is going to be just fine regardless of whether a social media site used by 10% of the country chooses to include a disclaimer on a few of his tweets. The tweets that do get flagged end up getting much more reach and awareness than they otherwise would.
But by all means do continue to help do his PR for free. He really needs you and cares about you.
michael brooks from the majority report died unexpectedly today
Is this for real? Damn. May he RIP. Michael Brooks was a cool guy
Assholes who have established a pattern of breaking the rules and harassing/doxxing other users run the risk of getting kicked off Twitter regardless of political orientation. Sometimes it happens because of a misunderstanding or something really stupid.
Surprised that this thread got bumped and it didn’t include more whining by Gaythan89.
Give it a bit.
It is totally false information. Neither HIPAA nor the 4th amendment have nothing to do with any of that.
Cherp hates the Cons ution.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Hurrah for that business!
It simply doesn't apply here and that infuriates you somehow.
Trump and Biden Attack Social Media - By Running Ads on Social Media
In 100 days the U.S. will vote on whether Donald Trump, Joe Biden or somebody else should be America's president. But both candidates are also running political ads attacking social media — on social media.
"They're shooting the messenger while giving it lots of money," reports the Associated Press: Biden has focused on Facebook, with a #MoveFastFixIt campaign that admonishes Facebook for not doing enough to protect users from foreign meddling or being duped by falsehoods, particularly those spread by Trump about mail-in voting. His campaign just last month spent nearly $10,000 to run ads scolding the company on its own platform. "We could lie to you, but we won't," says one of Biden's ads.... Despite criticizing Facebook, Biden's campaign said it's still purchasing millions of dollars in Facebook ads because it's one of the few ways to counter Trump's false posts — since Facebook won't fact check him. The ads are also a cheap and effective way for the campaigns to rally supporters who are unhappy with the platforms, said Kathleen Searles, a Louisiana State University political communications professor. "We do know that anger can be very motivating — it motivates them to get their name on an email list, or donate $20," Searles said...
While Biden has focused on Facebook, Trump has honed in on Twitter, and occasionally Snapchat, with his campaign running online ads that accuse both companies of "interfering" in the election. Twitter became a Trump campaign target after the company rolled out its first fact check of his inaccurate tweet about voting in late May. Twitter has since applied similar labels to five other Trump tweets, including two that called mail-in ballots "fraudulent" and predicted that "mail boxes will be robbed" if voting doesn't take place in person... Republican leaders have since joined in railing against Twitter. This month, Rep. Jim Jordan, a firebrand conservative from Ohio, demanded Twitter hand over a full accounting, including emails, of how it decided to fact check the president...
Facebook could be next for a face-off with the president and his allies now that the company has vowed to label any posts — Trump's included — that violate its rules against voting misinformation or hate speech. Facebook has yet to take such action, though.
"Social media censorship is going to be a very potent campaign issue," Brooking said. "And there's going to be incentive from a number of folks running for office in 2020 to push the envelope still further, to try to invite more and more social media moderation because they see it as a potent political stunt."
Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter Censor Viral Video of Doctors' Capitol Hill Coronavirus Press Conference
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/...ss-conference/
5 of my friends on Facebook sent me the video on messenger. I was like "wtf is this?" Gonna go watch now. Apparently all the big tech companies have taken it down.
Chumpettes, I DARE YOU ALL TO WATCH.
ducks koriwhat Nathan89 Chris CosmicCowboy DMC DarrinS Millennial_Messiah FrostKing SnakeBoy thispego TSA phxspurfan Spurtacular Thread
"Not one do ented case of a student passing COVID to a teacher in the world"
Pretty good article by Cory Doctorow on big tech, economic consolidation and free speech.
https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-do...orm-of-action/It’s tempting to simply laugh off these “free market” fetishists as they get their comeuppance when Alex Jones and the Daily Stormer get kicked off the internet, but that is to miss the wider point: we are now in a speech environment where power is so concentrated that the whims of a half-dozen tech execs determine – for all intents and purposes – who may speak and what they may say. If you think that power will only be wielded against Alex Jones, there’s a bunch of trans activists, indigenous activists, anti-pipeline activists, #BlackLivesMatter activists, and others who’d like to have a word with you.
What’s more, this situation is a form of government regulation of speech – even if it doesn’t violate the First Amendment. When the government declines to enforce an rust laws so the market for speech forums is cornered by a handful of companies, when it creates compliance rules that only these companies can afford, when it fails to build publicly owned alternatives bound by the First Amendment, it is making speech policy. Failing to use your legal powers to prevent Big Tech from gaining a monopoly on speech is a form of action. It’s a policy. It’s a regulation of speech.
When the city council let the No Politics Diner take over your town, even though it’s in their power to stop the takeover, it has the same effect as making an ordinance that says, “No one is permitted to talk politics within a dining establishment” – but without opening the town up to a First Amendment lawsuit.
The world’s governments probably didn’t set out to create a shadow form of speech regulation. Instead, they swallowed a fly (“let’s stop enforcing an rust law”) and then they swallowed a spider to catch it (“let’s shame and pressure the giant tech companies into policing their users’ speech”) and then a bird to catch the spider (“Automated filters will solve this!”) and now, in the EU, they’re considering swallowing a cat to catch the bird (“What about a tribunal to oversee the filters?”).
It’s time to stop trying to fix the platforms and time to start working on fixing the internet. Even if the “group of five websites, each consisting of screenshots of text from the other four” is made more civil and less toxic (it won’t!), we should still demand a better internet. Relying on the noblesse oblige of the perpetual Lords of the internet to manage the digital nervous system of the 21st century would be a bad bet even if these guys weren’t completely ordinary mediocrities who are no more suited to managing the online lives of billions of people than you or I are.
A restored internet is one that values pluralism (power diffused into many hands) and self-determination (you get choose which tech you use and how you use it). Achieving a pluralistic internet of technological self-determination will be a long process, but the tools to attain it are well understood:
* Compe ion law. Ban “mergers to monopoly,” prohibiting dominant firms from merging with their rivals. Ban acquisition of nascent compe ors. Prohibit market-cornering (companies can be platforms or they can sell services on those platforms, but not both).
* Pro-compe ive rules. Ban binding arbitration in terms of service, so that internet users don’t lose the rights Congress gave them just by visiting a website. Ban non-compete agreements so tech workers can leave their employers when those employers do objectionable things. Require transparency in algorithmic decision-making, including transparency about training data, model tuning, and any special cases the company has added. Reinstate Net Neutrality.
* Pro-user rules. Make it legal to jailbreak the locks on your own devices so you can choose who repairs it, how it’s configured, which apps it runs and which data it shares and with whom. Make it legal to violate terms of service so that you can extract your data, or use a tool that interacts with a service on your behalf (say, a bot that logs into Facebook and fetches your waiting messages and puts them into the inbox on a rival service, from which you can reply to them).
* Undo the damage. Break up the Big Tech companies (and other big companies). Close tax-laws that allow profit-shifting.
* Create a public sphere. Fund municipal fiber networks, nationwide broadband backbones, and public digital spaces that are owned by the public (while you’re at it, ban the state from conducting warrantless online surveillance, including on these services).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
