Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bandwagon]

Requested by the DNC you mean? Perhaps, but it certainly isn't the only censorship that was done in favour of the left. So I don't know why you'd want to reduce the scope to that unless you want to minimise the whole story.

There is all kinds of censorship happening on Twitter, but if we're talking about the "twitter files" and how it links to requests from outside entities, well yeah, we're talking about actual evidence of actual events, not generalisations based on feels or "the vibe".

So thanks, we can avoid the hyperbole around what all this actually says, which at this point means it lends no more credence to laptop allegations, contrary to the narrative you were offering.

 

[Chipmunk]

Can someone elaborate on the difference now between the "Non Footy Chat Thread II" and the "OT: Current Affairs and Politics" thread.

I can't really work out the difference and what I should be posting where.

Can we get some terms of reference of the like for these threads?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

There is all kinds of censorship happening on Twitter, but if we're talking about the "twitter files" and how it links to requests from outside entities, well yeah, we're talking about actual evidence of actual events, not generalisations based on feels or "the vibe".

So thanks, we can avoid the hyperbole around what all this actually says, which at this point means it lends no more credence to laptop allegations, contrary to the narrative you were offering.

Not quite. We know that they suppressed the NYP story and had been constantly briefed by the FBI. And although this is not specific does it mean it's irrelevant? No.


And that the censorship was one sided.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Welcome to 2023. Do you want digital village discourse to be an unfiltered free-for-all or should there be boundaries? We have seen many times across multiple sectors what happens when industry self regulation fails. It’s a conundrum because there are private digital businesses like Microsoft OS, Android OS, MacOS, IOS, Google search engine, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook, Twitter etc that are used by billions on a daily basis. What comes with that is an expectation that the virtual village performs similarly to the physical village. Primarily with a protection of privacy of data, but also the social norms. This has got nothing to do with the left and right of politics, it’s when industry self regulation fails and legislative regulation is required to step in.

Meanwhile, twitter is clearly repositioning itself and that’s fine. How this pans out might be a raft of legislative changes designed to protect users OR perhaps the marketplace will open the door to a competitor to take its place. There are certainly opportunities for Alphabet or Amazon to do this and provide a platform that meets general expectations.

It’s fine to talk about matching norms but when it’s social media driving norms then that argument becomes a self licking ice cream.

 

[Gronk]

It’s fine to talk about matching norms but when it’s social media driving norms then that argument becomes a self licking ice cream.

You’re not giving much away here.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ok so what does an ideal social media platform look like in your view ? You are obviously inferring that the previous owners moderation model was leaning to the left and I am not disagreeing with that and never have. Should there be zero moderation in twitter whatsoever? Can anyone join and be free to post unfiltered and consequences free ? Where do you draw the line, if at all ?

If they’re going to have policies against “upsetting, offensive content” they need to be less selective about enforcing it. Otherwise they look like they’re giving one set of interest groups carte blanche to attack another.

If it’s hateful to say that one ethnocultural group is overrepresented in media and entertainment surely it’s hateful to say another group is overrepresented in politics or the boardroom, or that they get paid more.

Respectability politics simply means if you act like a merkin you should expect others to act like merkins in response. Justice isn’t allowing some people to act like merkins while banning their detractors.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You’re not giving much away here.

Norms have changed dramatically since Twitter became a thing.

 

[Bandwagon]

Not quite. We know that they suppressed the NYP story and had been constantly briefed by the FBI. And although this is not specific does it mean it's irrelevant? No.


And that the censorship was one sided.

Nice, you posted the links to the dick picks, any ways.....

"Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored."

So no, it wasn't "one sided", the claim is that Biden and Co had better access. It says right there in your source that the Trump White House had shit removed, now I know you'd really like to ignore that, but allow me to explain what should be obvious.

One of those parties ( Trump or Biden ) were " the government" there at that time, so one was a political party asking for censure, and the other was the government. Do you know which is which.

And do you know who the 1st amendment is protecting from who and what?

Yet the red-pilled morons ( you know, your mates ) are calling for Biden to be impeached over 1st amendment rights violations.

It's really funny shit mate.

 

[Bandwagon]

If they’re going to have policies against “upsetting, offensive content” they need to be less selective about enforcing it. Otherwise they look like they’re giving one set of interest groups carte blanche to attack another.

If it’s hateful to say that one ethnocultural group is overrepresented in media and entertainment surely it’s hateful to say another group is overrepresented in politics or the boardroom, or that they get paid more.

Respectability politics simply means if you act like a merkin you should expect others to act like merkins in response. Justice isn’t allowing some people to act like merkins while banning their detractors.

Plenty of actual left wing folk have been banned from the bird.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So here is a very detailed article about the backgroud of the laptop repair saga and the analysis of the reliability of the data. After the real laptop was handed over to the FBI, the multiple copies kept by the Mac repairer have been handled so poorly that they have become tainted with nefarious files created after 2019.

If merkins could be bothered, they should read it from cover to cover.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

Does your source have any biases that should be taken into account?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So far the only specific files the Twitter Files have documented as having been requested for deletion by the Biden campaign are Hunters dick pics.

So yeah, this is the big one, the Biden campaign colluded with Twitter to deny the 1st amendment rights of a bunch of rightards to share and disseminate Hunters dick pics. Obviously this is very upsetting as every merkin has the right to look at Hunter's massive schlong.

Ignoring of course that the first amendment specifically protects the people from the government of the day making laws or acting in a manner that restricts the peoples right to freedom of speech, and that at that time, Trump was the the president, not Biden.

Tech giants now have the power to restrict freedom of speech. When they do it on behalf of a political party it definitely crosses into first amendment territory. Democrat Ro Khanna admitted as much in his keep-this-to-yourself emails to Twitter execs.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Nice, you posted the links to the dick picks, any ways.....

"Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored."

So no, it wasn't "one sided", the claim is that Biden and Co had better access. It says right there in your source that the Trump White House had shit removed, now I know you'd really like to ignore that, but allow me to explain what should be obvious.

One of those parties ( Trump or Biden ) were " the government" there at that time, so one was a political party asking for censure, and the other was the government. Do you know which is which.

And do you know who the 1st amendment is protecting from who and what?

Yet the red-pilled morons ( you know, your mates ) are calling for Biden to be impeached over 1st amendment rights violations.

It's really funny shit mate.

Whaaaa? I really want to ignore that Trump's side had something removed? Why would I give a f**k? The point is it was heavily weighted to one side, thus the term 'one-sided' is fair. I'm sorry your nitpicking doesn't cut it. It also doesn't matter who was in government.
And who exactly are my red pilled moron mates?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mate, it is what it is.

At this point in time, that is literally the only posts the "twitter files" have specifically pointed out as being requested to be taken down

This is fact yes or no?

A convenient way to get entire archives deleted.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Can someone elaborate on the difference now between the "Non Footy Chat Thread II" and the "OT: Current Affairs and Politics" thread.

I can't really work out the difference and what I should be posting where.

Can we get some terms of reference of the like for these threads?

I don’t post in the politics thread because you merkins are all stupid and dishonest. What kind of merkin would deny that Twitter has spent the past six years acting on behalf of the Democrat party?

 

[Bandwagon]

Tech giants now have the power to restrict freedom of speech. When they do it on behalf of a political party it definitely crosses into first amendment territory. Democrat Ro Khanna admitted as much in his keep-this-to-yourself emails to Twitter execs.

Well that's an opinion, not a fact. A political party isn't the government, nor a branch of government.

 

[Bandwagon]

A convenient way to get entire archives deleted.

At this point supposition.

 

[Bandwagon]

Whaaaa? I really want to ignore that Trump's side had something removed? Why would I give a f**k? The point is it was heavily weighted to one side, thus the term 'one-sided' is fair. I'm sorry your nitpicking doesn't cut it. It also doesn't matter who was in government.
And who exactly are my red pilled moron mates?

I use the term "mates" loosely, so not exactly good friends, but you know, all them folk that happen to share the same views as you on a variety of subjects.

As for nit picking, well no, that's straight from your source. And yeah, of course it matters who's in government when you are talking about government over reach, because for it to be government over reach, it actually has to come from the government.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I don’t post in the politics thread because you merkins are all stupid and dishonest. What kind of merkin would deny that Twitter has spent the past six years acting on behalf of the Democrat party?

Anyone who feels that it puts their argument or side of politics in a bad light and doesn't care about what's real.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I use the term "mates" loosely, so not exactly good friends, but you know, all them folk that happen to share the same views as you on a variety of subjects.

As for nit picking, well no, that's straight from your source. And yeah, of course it matters who's in government when you are talking about government over reach, because for it to be government over reach, it actually has to come from the government.

I don't know what views you imagine I share with some of the people I've posted other than on this topic.
And I didn't mention government over reach. In fact I don't know anyone here who did so is that just a strawman? Anyway, there was clearly a very good chance that the democrats would soon be in government.

 

[Bandwagon]

I don’t post in the politics thread because you merkins are all stupid and dishonest. What kind of merkin would deny that Twitter has spent the past six years acting on behalf of the Democrat party?

Anyone who feels that it puts their argument or side of politics in a bad light and doesn't care about what's real.

They can do whatever the f**k they like within the law, just as they can now. No-one has to like it, but if no folk like it, they'll disappear up their own arseholes.

So far they haven't.