Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bandwagon]

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.

If "the government" is seeking to censor views it doesn't like, which it appears is something you're reeing about here, that is by it's nature over reach, you don't need to use that actual term to be discussing that actual thing mate.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

If "the government" is seeking to censor views it doesn't like, which it appears is something you're reeing about here, that is by it's nature over reach, you don't need to use that actual term to be discussing that actual thing mate.

When did I say that the government is seeking to censor views they don't like?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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.

Obvious to anyone who’s been using Twitter.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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

Name one.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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

Semantic f**kery. Government bodies don’t need to suppress free speech when their supporters are able to do it for them. But more importantly, free speech is a bigger concept than the US Constitution. It is a human right.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

At this point supposition.

And not yet invalid

 

[the phantom menace]

Name one.

Ye...? Some people try and argue Hitler was a leftie.

(Or was that only had a leftie?)

 

[Poupou Escobar]

When did I say that the government is seeking to censor views they don't like?

The US Government is free to remain hands off. Why pass laws restricting speech when you can rely on private firms arbitrarily enforcing terms of service? Of course that is until enforcement changes under new ownership. Then it’s a problem.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ye...?

He wasn’t banned under the old regime.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

The US Government is free to remain hands off. Why pass laws restricting speech when you can rely on private firms arbitrarily enforcing terms of service? Of course that is until enforcement changes under new ownership. Then it’s a problem.

Back when they were pretty new in power and Jen Psaki was the spokesperson she was pretty open on the government 'working with' tech giants to achieve their desired outcomes.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I wonder if this was established while Trump was in power or afterwards.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'll be honest man, YouTube is great for entertainment, but a very poor source for facts or the truth. I think it is less trustworthy than partisan media corporations.

I'll believe a player threw a great pass if I see it on YouTube. I'll even believe a talking head said something they were claimed to have said (although deep fakes are coming for all of us), but I won't believe the content of anything said on YouTube just because it came out of someone's face on video. I'm more likely to believe something written in print by a journo, and we know how ethical they've turned out to be. YouTube is journalist-style editorialising dialed up to 11.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I'll be honest man, YouTube is great for entertainment, but a very poor source for facts or the truth. I think it is less trustworthy than partisan media corporations.

I'll believe a player threw a great pass if I see it on YouTube. I'll even believe a talking head said something they were claimed to have said (although deep fakes are coming for all of us), but I won't believe the content of anything said on YouTube just because it came out of someone's face on video. I'm more likely to believe something written in print by a journo, and we know how ethical they've turned out to be. YouTube is journalist-style editorialising dialed up to 11.

YouTube is deeply flawed in many of the same ways that Twitter is or was but it's not useless. And when you've got someone talking to Elon Musk in an interview I think you can believe that it's real and evidence that the portal between government and Twitter exists.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well I just watched your video and it doesn’t match the outrageous headline.

 

[Bandwagon]

He wasn’t banned under the old regime.

And the new.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Well I just watched your video and it doesn’t match the outrageous headline.

Maybe not but I think it's a safe bet that the Trusted Twitter Partnership is a thing, and that it likely came into being in the last few years.

 

[Bandwagon]

Semantic f**kery. Government bodies don’t need to suppress free speech when their supporters are able to do it for them. But more importantly, free speech is a bigger concept than the US Constitution. It is a human right.

It's not semantics at all, it's an entirely different argument between Twitter choosing to ban or censure whomever the f**k it likes, and Twitter banning or censuring whomever the f**k the government wants them to ban or censure.

If you can't see the difference you're a f**king moron.

Like I said, Twitter can do whatever the f**k it likes with it's platform provided it adheres to the law, if you don't like it, simple, you don't be a customer and you don't allow them to monetize your patronage. Twitter itself does not owe you or your views a platform.

Name one.

f**k really, you need to be childish?

And not yet invalid

There is no god.

See how this works.

Semantic f**kery. Government bodies don’t need to suppress free speech when their supporters are able to do it for them. But more importantly, free speech is a bigger concept than the US Constitution. It is a human right.

Is it?

Seriously, we curtail speech in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons, can you think of a jurisdiction anywhere in the world where you can say what ever the f**k you wanna say without consequence?

So we accept it's not a universal or absolute human right, there are degrees and we protect certain forms of speech, yet punish others in various ways. So it is inarguable that freedom of speech is only a right by degrees, meaning that quite literally there is wrong-speak that can come with some pretty serious consequences.

So accepting that as fact, the only viable positions are that either that is wrong, and the right should be absolute, or, where is it reasonable to draw the lines, who is entitled to make those decisions and in what circumstances can they be made.

 

[Bandwagon]

YouTube is deeply flawed in many of the same ways that Twitter is or was but it's not useless. And when you've got someone talking to Elon Musk in an interview I think you can believe that it's real and evidence that the portal between government and Twitter exists.

You can also believe that Musk is lying, or a complete f**king moron, or the video was edited in such a way as to misrepresent what was said, or any number of other permutations of alternate realities to the one presented.

Fact is the key word there is believe, you cannot know.

Obviously you can make value judgements based on all kinds of other information, and ascertain that on the balance of probability you can take it on face value, but then you've made value judgements on that information as well, so where does / did personal bias kick in that leads you to what might well be an erroneous conclusion, based upon a series of erroneous conclusions.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

You can also believe that Musk is lying, or a complete f**king moron, or the video was edited in such a way as to misrepresent what was said, or any number of other permutations of alternate realities to the one presented.

Fact is the key word there is believe, you cannot know.

Obviously you can make value judgements based on all kinds of other information, and ascertain that on the balance of probability you can take it on face value, but then you've made value judgements on that information as well, so where does / did personal bias kick in that leads you to what might well be an erroneous conclusion, based upon a series of erroneous conclusions.

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.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's not semantics at all, it's an entirely different argument between Twitter choosing to ban or censure whomever the f**k it likes, and Twitter banning or censuring whomever the f**k the government wants them to ban or censure.

If you can't see the difference you're a f**king moron.

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.

Like I said, Twitter can do whatever the f**k it likes

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

with it's platform provided it adheres to the law, if you don't like it, simple, you don't be a customer and you don't allow them to monetize your patronage. Twitter itself does not owe you or your views a platform.

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 likes’.

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.

f**k really, you need to be childish?

Don’t project your motivations onto me.

There is no god.

See how this works.

It’s a reasonable position. That’s why there’s so many atheists. I’ll accept it’s a valid argument until it’s disproven.

Is it?

Seriously, we curtail speech in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons, can you think of a jurisdiction anywhere in the world where you can say what ever the f**k you wanna say without consequence?

So we accept it's not a universal or absolute human right, there are degrees and we protect certain forms of speech, yet punish others in various ways. So it is inarguable that freedom of speech is only a right by degrees, meaning that quite literally there is wrong-speak that can come with some pretty serious consequences.

So accepting that as fact, the only viable positions are that either that is wrong, and the right should be absolute, or, where is it reasonable to draw the lines, who is entitled to make those decisions and in what circumstances can they be made.

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