Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bandwagon]

Well if you really want to take it to absolutes you can't actually know anything at all, and I might just be a brain in a jar in some lab being poked and prodded and fed hallucinatory drugs. But it's not very likely. And neither are the things you propose here.

This is true, however why is any other given permutation of the truth about that video, or any given video "not very likely"

I haven't watched it, I don't seek to judge whether or not it is valid, what I'm suggesting though is that your belief as to it's validity is likely more subjective than objective. Again, you first have to believe that Musk is being completely truthful, you can back that up with evidence you also believe to be truthful, but in the end it could all be little more than a house of cards.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

This is true, however why is any other given permutation of the truth about that video, or any given video "not very likely"

I haven't watched it, I don't seek to judge whether or not it is valid, what I'm suggesting though is that your belief as to it's validity is likely more subjective than objective. Again, you first have to believe that Musk is being completely truthful, you can back that up with evidence you also believe to be truthful, but in the end it could all be little more than a house of cards.

What's the motivation behind making up something out of thin air, telling people where they can read about it on twitter, and talking to the owner of Twitter about the thing they made up? It would be idiotic and they'd be exposed and lose all credibility and for what? The most plausible possibility by far is that it is a real thing. I'm not bound to one side of politics like you so don't mistake your own biases for mine.

 

[Bandwagon]

Yet you’re implying that Twitter leadership’s goals didn’t align with the US Government’s. It might’ve been a happy coincidence for the Biden regime but it’s no coincidence that they are now freaking out over the new ownership.

Um, where did I imply that? And are they really freaking out, or is that just a bit of wishful thinking?

This argument is all about whether it should be able to.

As Musk said in ialb’s linked YouTube video, where the law is unjust and not in the interest of ‘the people’ he will advocate changing it.

If you can’t discuss the justness of laws on social media, where the f**k can you in 2022? Where can citizens advocate for greater regulation of tech giants if they can’t do it on those tech giants’ platforms? I don’t believe you haven’t grasped how much political power they have. Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover has at least made many progressives (not you, obviously) finally admit it’s more than just a private company that should be free to do ‘whatever the f**k it wants’.

Corporations have always been subject to regulation, and there’s a fair argument that they now need to be regulated to not silence political discourse.

The fact is it is able to, that's the law of the land. It's a privately owned platform, and they can do what they like with it.

As for Musk and the "interests of the people", f**king spare me the idolatry, Musk is about Musk, and the interests of Musk.

FWIW I'm not at all convinced regulation of how large corporations work is an answer, it's a worthy discussion, but for mine the problem is their size, and the answer is far more difficult given the horse has bolted.

I agree. I just think protections from harmful speech should be applied equally.

Well the proposal is that there is a bias towards liberals, and against conservatives, I have no issue with that as a fair representation, however what if that is a consequence of how they perceive "harmful speech". I'd posit that 100% that is the case, so in that scenario what you have is that they've judged what conservatives have been saying to be on balance more harmful than what liberals have been saying, and so conservatives have suffered far more censorship. ( remembering that we are talking about the US version of these here )

So in that case, if they are correct, then they have applied those protections exactly as you would have them applied, equally. Except of course that it isn't applied equally on the measure that I'm sure you're suggesting here.

In fact you might well see it from an entirely opposite perspective, and judge that what they see as harmful, is right and proper, and visa versa, therefore the application is completely out of whack.

So how the f**k do you fix that without imposing your ideals upon folk who don't share them, or having someone else impose their ideals upon you?

The answer is you can't.

 

[Bandwagon]

What's the motivation behind making up something out of thin air, telling people where they can read about it on twitter, and talking to the owner of Twitter about the thing they made up? It would be idiotic and they'd be exposed and lose all credibility and for what? The most plausible possibility by far is that it is a real thing. I'm not bound to one side of politics like you so don't mistake your own biases for mine.

Hmmph

You are bound to your own bias, it need not be political.

To pretend otherwise is foolish and futile.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Hmmph

You are bound to your own bias, it need not be political.

To pretend otherwise is foolish and futile.

And yet bias is a spectrum and usually associated with how passionate someone is about something.
Why don't you put forward what you think is a more plausible scenario than that the Trusted Twitter Partnership exists as claimed and explain why it's more likely?

 

[Bandwagon]

And yet bias is a spectrum and usually associated with how passionate someone is about something.

Do tell..........

Why don't you put forward what you think is a more plausible scenario than that the Trusted Twitter Partnership exists as claimed and explain why it's more likely?

Well, there's this.

I haven't watched it, I don't seek to judge whether or not it is valid

Which renders your request meaningless in the context of what I've said. If you'd like to discuss how the concept I presented is in error I'm all ears. Or if you simply don't quite understand, I could perhaps dumb it down a bit for you?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Do tell..........



Well, there's this.



Which renders your request meaningless in the context of what I've said. If you'd like to discuss how the concept I presented is in error I'm all ears. Or if you simply don't quite understand, I could perhaps dumb it down a bit for you?

Are you bi polar by any chance?

 

[Bandwagon]

Are you bi polar by any chance?

Are you a psychiatrist as well as a virologist and a dietician?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Are you a psychiatrist as well as a virologist and a dietician?

I guess I just missed the opportunity to imply you're too dumb to read when you claimed I'd suggested government over reach then. Unless you've now got that quote?
But if you haven't been diagnosed maybe you should look into it. It seems like your mood swings wildly and almost every conversation with you has that sort of nonsense. And it's not just with me.

 

[Bandwagon]

I guess I just missed the opportunity to imply you're too dumb to read when you claimed I'd suggested government over reach then. Unless you've now got that quote?
But if you haven't been diagnosed maybe you should look into it. It seems like your mood swings wildly and almost every conversation with you has that sort of nonsense. And it's not just with me.

Thanks for your insightful analysis.

I'll ensure to give it the level of consideration it deserves.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Thanks for your insightful analysis.

I'll ensure to give it the level of consideration it deserves.

Given that the pattern of your behaviour would be obvious even to you by now I very much doubt that you will.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Um, where did I imply that? And are they really freaking out, or is that just a bit of wishful thinking?

Well there was no public messaging when Mudge exposed Twitter's poor security practices under the platform's old regime, but as soon as Musk took over the US Government felt the need to make public statements.

The fact is it is able to, that's the law of the land. It's a privately owned platform, and they can do what they like with it.

They really can't. They are bound by regulation in every country in which they operate. Messaging from the US and EU governments around Musk's ownership of the platform proves that. Messaging from the CCP to every woke corporation proved it years ago.

As for Musk and the "interests of the people", f**king spare me the idolatry, Musk is about Musk, and the interests of Musk.

That's true but also irrelevant. It's in Musk's interests to champion those silenced by tech giants, much as it was in Trump's interests to champion those marginalised by the political process.

FWIW I'm not at all convinced regulation of how large corporations work is an answer, it's a worthy discussion, but for mine the problem is their size, and the answer is far more difficult given the horse has bolted.

Well it's working for China. Why wouldn't it work for America?

Well the proposal is that there is a bias towards liberals, and against conservatives, I have no issue with that as a fair representation, however what if that is a consequence of how they perceive "harmful speech". I'd posit that 100% that is the case, so in that scenario what you have is that they've judged what conservatives have been saying to be on balance more harmful than what liberals have been saying, and so conservatives have suffered far more censorship. ( remembering that we are talking about the US version of these here )

So in that case, if they are correct, then they have applied those protections exactly as you would have them applied, equally. Except of course that it isn't applied equally on the measure that I'm sure you're suggesting here.

In fact you might well see it from an entirely opposite perspective, and judge that what they see as harmful, is right and proper, and visa versa, therefore the application is completely out of whack.

So how the f**k do you fix that without imposing your ideals upon folk who don't share them, or having someone else impose their ideals upon you?

The answer is you can't.

The answer begins with recognising that massive tech corporations have the power to control social discourse but not the moral authority to do so. Until we can agree on that there will obviously be no solution, but I think Musk's takeover of Twitter has brought the conversation out into the open where it was once the purview of conspiracy theorists. I personally hope he burns the platform down, as long as it leads to a change in the way governments control this space. If they can regulate legacy media they can regulate the Twitters, Apples and Googles of the world.

 

[Bandwagon]

The answer begins with recognising that massive tech corporations have the power to control social discourse but not the moral authority to do so. Until we can agree on that there will obviously be no solution, but I think Musk's takeover of Twitter has brought the conversation out into the open where it was once the purview of conspiracy theorists. I personally hope he burns the platform down, as long as it leads to a change in the way governments control this space. If they can regulate legacy media they can regulate the Twitters, Apples and Googles of the world.

Just on this, seems they're doing a bang up job regulating legacy media.

It's become about as partisan or self serving as you'd imagine it could be

Why on earth would you believe regulating new media would achieve a different result?

 

[Bandwagon]

Given that the pattern of your behaviour would be obvious even to you by now I very much doubt that you will.

Lolz.

You idiot,

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Just on this, seems they're doing a bang up job regulating legacy media.

It's become about as partisan or self serving as you'd imagine it could be

Why on earth would you believe regulating new media would achieve a different result?

It's not about whether they are partisan; they are providing a service to an audience, so of course they are partisan. The question is whether they are causing 'harm'. They are accountable to regulators for what they publish in a way that tech giants are not. They are only accountable to shareholders and customers, which are often other corporations.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Lolz.

You idiot,

So you've got the quote about where I mentioned government over reach? Or are you too dumb to read? See where this gets us?
Or you could stop being lazy and abusive but habits can be hard to break.

 

[Bandwagon]

It's not about whether they are partisan; they are providing a service to an audience, so of course they are partisan. The question is whether they are causing 'harm'. They are accountable to regulators for what they publish in a way that tech giants are not. They are only accountable to shareholders and customers, which are often other corporations.

Yeah the accountability is different, but honestly, legacy media still sets the conversation, and more importantly the mood of the conversation, and honestly if you wanna measure harm, that's where I'd start.

 

[Bandwagon]

So you've got the quote about where I mentioned government over reach? Or are you too dumb to read? See where this gets us?
Or you could stop being lazy and abusive but habits can be hard to break.

Or you could stop taking shit personally every time any merkin questions one of your shit takes, and relax a little.

Are you that insecure in your real life?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Or you could stop taking shit personally every time any merkin questions one of your shit takes, and relax a little.

Are you that insecure in your real life?

Oh my shit take on the thing you didn't watch? Lolz. Did I spell that right? Calling someone dumb and telling them to not take it personally? Bizarre shit.
The alternative would be that you act like a grown up but yeah.

 

[Bandwagon]

Oh my shit take on the thing you didn't watch? Lolz. Did I spell that right? Calling someone dumb and telling them to not take it personally? Bizarre shit.
The alternative would be that you act like a grown up but yeah.

See now you're doing that rambling thing you do when called out.

Do you do that in real life, or do you normally just break down and cry like a little bitch?