• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

they went after definitely more than Alex Jones, who and what will be next? . . .

Hans said:
When I go on vacation I enjoy being completely away from all electronic communication devices. Other than an emergency phone and a not turned on crank powered radio it's nature only.

I liked the 60-90's in pre-computer era (but did get my first Apple IIGS in 86 and IBM 486 in 91)
Click to expand...

I enjoy that too but many of my vacations, it would not occur to me to take if it weren't for the internet.
 
Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al let the Atlantic Council determine what is or isn't so-called "Fake News" to be removed. The Atlantic Council is a far-right think tank linked to NATO, so of course it's not just Alex Jones who gets removed. Just a small sample of examples:

Facebook events organizing the counter-protests to the "Unite the Right 2" rally held a couple of days ago in Washington get removed. The events organizing the rally itself are of course untouched. Not that it worked, counter-protests still vastly outnumbered the rally.

Left-wing facebook meme pages get removed for posting material opposing (neo-)nazism.

If you're in any way involved in "Leftbook" (the name given to the loose network of left-wing pages, groups, events, etc on facebook) you can see this in action almost daily. It's pure McCarthyism on a global social media scale.
 
dudalb said:
The Equal Time Rule might have made some sense in an age when you had a limited number of channels and standard broadcasting was the only game in town, but in an age of social media and satellite broadcasting with limitless channels it does not make sense. Fox News is balanced by MSNBC,
Click to expand...

So who balances Sinclair?
 
rlopez2, when you reply the way you do, taking sentence fragments and replying to them without the quote function, you are leaving out the context of the quote, a link back to the post you're replying to so we can see that context, and the identity of who you're replying to. It's rude.
 
BStrong said:
Everything done by the city and county of San Francisco.
Click to expand...

The city and county of San Fran owns local TV news stations all across the nation parroting liberal propaganda passing as the local trusted news anchor's own reporting?
 
caveman1917 said:
Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al let the Atlantic Council determine what is or isn't so-called "Fake News" to be removed. The Atlantic Council is a far-right think tank linked to NATO, so of course it's not just Alex Jones who gets removed. Just a small sample of examples:

Facebook events organizing the counter-protests to the "Unite the Right 2" rally held a couple of days ago in Washington get removed. The events organizing the rally itself are of course untouched. Not that it worked, counter-protests still vastly outnumbered the rally.

Left-wing facebook meme pages get removed for posting material opposing (neo-)nazism.

If you're in any way involved in "Leftbook" (the name given to the loose network of left-wing pages, groups, events, etc on facebook) you can see this in action almost daily. It's pure McCarthyism on a global social media scale.
Click to expand...

This is ,of course, Even more Conspiracy Theory B.S.

And NATO is a evil organization?

But them, this poster has spent a great deal of time in other forums here defending Stalin and proclaiming what a wonderful thing the Soviet Union was....
 
Earthborn said:
I think it can be reasonable argued that if a private company becomes so ubiquitous that it effectively starts to act as a public space, it should be forbidden for them to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, religious belief, sexual orientation, etc... and should be compelled to allow a large diversity of opinion.
Click to expand...

Sure, and then it would be reasonable for the company to ask in return for immunity from certain kinds of liability. The more it is expected to act like a common carrier or a public accommodation, the more it can be expected to not be sued when it fails to police content that affect the other rights of its customers. And the more transparent it will be expected to be about who those customers are. These social media companies arose out of a desire to shape a certain kind of experience, and their terms of service reflect that. They undertake the expense of creating and supporting the experience, and therefore have a right to profit from it. That creates conflicts of interest we're only now turning the right attention to.

Then there's also the degree to which the government and necessary services are starting to rely on social media. It's common, for example, for police departments to tweet urgent bulletins. If Twitter's terms of service prevent some people from using the service, have those people been disenfranchised in some way? Consider that Facebook does not allow sex offenders to use their service. That's a reasonable policy, given the nature of the experience they wish to create and among whom they wish to create it. But Facebook also provides an easy and inexpensive platform for creating an online presence. If a county employment agency uses Facebook as its online presence for budget reasons, and requires all those seeking a job to interact with them electronically only via Facebook's communications, have they now just prevented all convicted sex offenders (and all others precluded in Facebook's terms of service) in their county from engaging with their government in an important way?

This is a larger problem I see with the privatization of government services. The mix of obligation to shareholders, obligation to constitutional fairness, the right of free enterprise, and issues of liability haven't been talked about enough. When private interests -- especially profit interests -- have more control over our behavior as citizens than governments bound to constitutions and charters, I want to focus more scrutiny on that.
 
JayUtah said:
It's common, for example, for police departments to tweet urgent bulletins.
Click to expand...
I hope that they are simply including twitter when they send their alerts via the Wireless Emergency Alerts system the Federal government set up. I know my local & state police/fire emergency alerts come to me via the system as well as NWS storm alerts. (had my first "TORNADO TAKE SHELTER NOW! message on my phone a couple weeks ago)

JayUtah said:
If a county employment agency uses Facebook as its online presence for budget reasons, and requires all those seeking a job to interact with them electronically only via Facebook's communications, have they now just prevented all convicted sex offenders (and all others precluded in Facebook's terms of service) in their county from engaging with their government in an important way?
Click to expand...
That should be banned by law, period. Forced surrender of your privacy rights to a corporation to get government services is just plain wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom