Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | Next > | Last >
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #28129950 - 01/07/23 10:28 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

The decision mentioned criminal obscenity trials within the context of including procedural safeguards - not within the context of "the gov't can't censor unless they show content is illegal". Here's the relevant paragraph:

Quote:

(d) The Commission's practice provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene and constitutionally protected matter, and it is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon criminal sanctions, which may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process.



See - I can quote from the decision directly because I'm not just making shit up. Now your turn - want to show your interpretation is correct? Quote the relevant parts of the decision.

--- --- ---


Aggressive can have multiple literal definitions, ranging from hostile to rapid - but 'coerced' is not one of those literal meanings in any context. You've now moved into the realm of conspiracy theory in stating that you know Twitter employees felt coerced without any of them saying such theirselves; and rationalizing the lack of such direct statements by handwaving about the hazards of opposing the intelligence community.

It's not your role to put words in other people's mouth by claiming they felt coerced.

--- --- ---


So much for always sourcing your own claims... Either quote the relevant parts of the Supreme Court decision, and Twitter employees claiming coercion - or drop the made up bullshit, and make a new argument grounded in reality.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: ballsalsa]
    #28129952 - 01/07/23 10:30 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Some people can't handle free speech, so they call it "compelled speech", even though Twitter is unsilencing them voluntarily.



That is a disgusting mischaracterization.  Either quote the person(s) you're referring to or admit that you just made that up.



Here's one of many examples:

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

koods said:
We had endless discussions about compelled speech being the opposite of free speech, but he really thinks that the government should step in and make sure that Nazis have access to mainstream social media sites



Exactly.  I'm against Nazis, but I'm for their right to speak up.  That's exactly what free speech is all about.




--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKwyjibo
Stranger

Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,276
Loc: California
Last seen: 37 minutes, 23 seconds
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28129958 - 01/07/23 10:35 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
So, just to be clear, if Facebook decides that they want to delete a post it's ok for them to do it and it's not censorship?



It is ok for Facebook to delete a post today, but I think that is censorship.



So you're against censorship while being ok with what you consider to be censorship. Makes sense.:nodofunderstanding:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28129961 - 01/07/23 10:38 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Koods explicitly states "the government should step in and make sure", while you claim "even though Twitter is unsilencing them voluntarily."

The distinction of forced vs voluntary is what makes it compelled speech or not.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #28129963 - 01/07/23 10:43 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
The decision mentioned criminal obscenity trials within the context of including procedural safeguards - not within the context of "the gov't can't censor unless they show content is illegal". Here's the relevant paragraph:

Quote:

(d) The Commission's practice provides no safeguards whatever against the suppression of nonobscene and constitutionally protected matter, and it is a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon criminal sanctions, which may be applied only after a determination of obscenity has been made in a criminal trial hedged about with the procedural safeguards of the criminal process.



See - I can quote from the decision directly because I'm not just making shit up. Now your turn - want to show your interpretation is correct? Quote the relevant parts of the decision.



You just quoted it for me.  The decision clearly states safeguards are needed against the suppression of constitutionally protected matter.  Meaning you can't censor constitutionally protected matter.  Meaning you can only censor non-protected criminal matter.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Aggressive can have multiple literal definitions, ranging from hostile to rapid - but 'coerced' is not one of those literal meanings in any context. You've now moved into the realm of conspiracy theory in stating that you know Twitter employees felt coerced without any of them saying such theirselves; and rationalizing the lack of such direct statements by handwaving about the hazards of opposing the intelligence community.

It's not your role to put words in other people's mouth by claiming they felt coerced.



Here is the stated reason for Twitter censorship:

"...government partners are becoming more aggressive on attribution and reporting on it.  I'm going to go ahead with suspension and marking the domain as UNSAFE."

He just blamed the government for his decision to censor.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Kwyjibo] * 1
    #28129964 - 01/07/23 10:46 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
So, just to be clear, if Facebook decides that they want to delete a post it's ok for them to do it and it's not censorship?



It is ok for Facebook to delete a post today, but I think that is censorship.



So you're against censorship while being ok with what you consider to be censorship. Makes sense.:nodofunderstanding:



No, I'm not ok with censorship.  I'm saying it's ok (legal) under the current laws.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #28129974 - 01/07/23 10:57 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Koods explicitly states "the government should step in and make sure", while you claim "even though Twitter is unsilencing them voluntarily."

The distinction of forced vs voluntary is what makes it compelled speech or not.



Exactly.  Koods favors mandatory censorship, and is angry with Twitter for voluntarily uncensoring content, because he feels Nazi speech should stay censored.

So I'm saying Koods can't handle free speech, and if the government were to require freedom of speech, he would call that compelled speech to make free speech sound bad.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28129980 - 01/07/23 11:03 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You just quoted it for me.  The decision clearly states safeguards are needed against the suppression of constitutionally protected matter.  Meaning you can't censor constitutionally protected matter.  Meaning you can only censor non-protected criminal matter.




Your interpreted meaning that "you can only censor non-protected criminal matter" isn't reflected in the decision itself, nor in how censorship laws present themselves currently.

Not all censorship is a criminal matter - the important part is the 'procedural safeguards' aspect. For example, free speech zones significantly curtail freedom of expression. They don't require a criminal trial before establishment; but they are subject to judicial review, which satisfies the procedural safeguards provision according to the courts.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #28129986 - 01/07/23 11:08 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Exactly.  Government can't censor non-criminal matter.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKwyjibo
Stranger

Registered: 07/31/18
Posts: 1,276
Loc: California
Last seen: 37 minutes, 23 seconds
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28129991 - 01/07/23 11:11 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
So, just to be clear, if Facebook decides that they want to delete a post it's ok for them to do it and it's not censorship?



It is ok for Facebook to delete a post today, but I think that is censorship.



So you're against censorship while being ok with what you consider to be censorship. Makes sense.:nodofunderstanding:



No, I'm not ok with censorship. 




That's not what you say here....
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

If I start a website to discuss cute pets, I should probably have a right to censor content that isn't about cute pets.




Quote:

I'm saying it's ok (legal) under the current laws.



So your belief is based solely on what is/isn't currently legal?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Kwyjibo]
    #28129999 - 01/07/23 11:21 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kwyjibo said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
No, I'm not ok with censorship.




That's not what you say here....




Falcon91Wolvrn03 believes whatever is most convenient at the time, without any care for internal consistency. The following exchange is from earlier in this very thread:

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
First of all, I don't believe in censorship at all, other than complying with current law, so you saying I like the current censorship model IS most certainly make believe.



Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
He bans them for what I consider good reasons such as doxing, creating puppet accounts, calling on the killing of Russian civilians, etc.






You're right about the contradiction and I'll stand by my second statement.  Twitter is a business and should use common sense to prevent it from turning into 4chan (as people like Enlil have argued).




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28130064 - 01/08/23 01:03 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kizzle said:
What threat did the government make against Twitter if it didn't suspend the account?



I don't know what threat the government made that caused Twitter to feel compelled to censor InfoBRICS, but clearly it scared them enough to violate their 'town square' vision.



You don't know? Well you could turn off your confirmation bias for a moment and read the rest of the message where it says they suspended InfoBRICS because they believed it was controlled by the Russian government. I know you'd rather assume some kind of threat was made and the Twitter Files somehow forgot to include it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,490
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28130073 - 01/08/23 01:24 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

That isn't an example.
Try again


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 18,032
Last seen: 5 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28130199 - 01/08/23 06:35 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
The people largely determine what works for a company. Especially one dependent on ad revenue. No people, no revenue, no company.



Twitter has plenty of users since Elon took over.  He's gotten a ton of bad press for unsilencing conservative voices.  Some people can't handle free speech, so they call it "compelled speech", even though Twitter is unsilencing them voluntarily.




We'll see. December numbers had Twitter way down in advertising revenue. Something like 70 of the top 100 advertisers still not interested.

"People" here are not just users, but users that make a company money. Advertisers are looking for specific things to ensure they see a return on investment.

This isn't an ego thing, or even a press thing. This is a business thing.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 5 hours, 5 minutes
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28130369 - 01/08/23 09:36 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kizzle said:
What threat did the government make against Twitter if it didn't suspend the account?



I don't know what threat the government made that caused Twitter to feel compelled to censor InfoBRICS, but clearly it scared them enough to violate their 'town square' vision.



So you've no proof that they were threatened....you just make shit up and spin people's words left and right, heh? King of newspeak!


--------------------


Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinestarfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 10 months, 19 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28130695 - 01/08/23 12:38 PM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Also, they should investigate the goose-stepping morons at the FBI

:crazybeard:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
    #28136177 - 01/12/23 02:15 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sulfurshelfsean said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kizzle said:
What threat did the government make against Twitter if it didn't suspend the account?



I don't know what threat the government made that caused Twitter to feel compelled to censor InfoBRICS, but clearly it scared them enough to violate their 'town square' vision.



So you've no proof that they were threatened....you just make shit up and spin people's words left and right, heh? King of newspeak!



We do have proof.  A Twitter employee literally said he censored content as a result of government aggression:

"...government partners are becoming more aggressive on attribution and reporting on it.  I'm going to go ahead with suspension and marking the domain as UNSAFE."



If you still don't believe it, there's more in the Twitter files here (don't worry, Jimmy Dore has Aaron Mate sitting in for him):



For those who want me to summarize, the Twitter files showed that Twitter had significant disagreements with the government about censorship of content, and got a huge amount of censorship requests from them, many of which they complied with.

For example, it talks about how the US government told Twitter they wanted any information about a book by the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin censored that talked about how Biden had him fired to stop his ongoing investigating into Burisma. 

The reasons they wanted Twitter to censor it is because they told Twitter the book may have been Russian disinformation.

:facepalm:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28136197 - 01/12/23 03:33 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Quote:

We do have proof.  A Twitter employee literally said he censored content as a result of government aggression:

"...government partners are becoming more aggressive on attribution and reporting on it.  I'm going to go ahead with suspension and marking the domain as UNSAFE."




Aggressive on attribution and reporting not aggressive against Twitter :facepalm:
That means the government has been sending them more information showing the account is controlled by Russia.

I'm surprsied you would even bring this message up because it completely destroys your argument that the government is telling them what to censor. It shows us the government is only providing information and that Twitter is making the decisions on what to do about it all on its own.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Kizzle]
    #28136207 - 01/12/23 04:20 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

What if Russia was indeed a BRICS country and had influence in the InfoBRICS account?  Does that mean Twitter has to censor InfoBRICS?  Does free speech no longer exist in this country?

BRICS is a competitor to the G20, and Western governments don't always care for their message, just like they don't care for messages that aren't for the Ukraine war, etc.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKizzle
Misanthrope
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/30/11
Posts: 9,866
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: Turns out DHS IS working with private companies to censor speech! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #28136226 - 01/12/23 05:22 AM (1 year, 4 months ago)

Foreign entities have never had rights in this country. That's how we get away with sanctioning them.

Apparently Twitter decided people might be turned off by Russian propaganda and chose to platform US propaganda exclusively.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Do republicans understand how taxes work? whole9 883 18 05/22/03 02:00 PM
by mntlfngrs
* U.S. Army Launches Bids for Iraq Energy Work wingnutx 660 7 09/14/03 08:22 AM
by yogaflame
* Top 10 censored media stories of the year... JonnyOnTheSpot 1,225 7 09/22/03 05:11 AM
by GazzBut
* Privatisation and Tax Cuts at work...USA
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 2,589 39 02/13/03 04:59 AM
by Prisoner#1
* Saving Private Lynch foghorn 496 1 05/04/03 01:10 PM
by Anonymous
* Welfare just doesnt work.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
CultyVader 5,501 133 05/07/03 12:05 AM
by Xlea321
* A system for turning just about anything into oil
( 1 2 all )
wingnutx 1,415 25 04/24/03 05:17 PM
by Learyfan
* Ontario to deregulate/privatize electricity carbonhoots 643 3 02/27/02 11:09 PM
by Agent Cooper

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
24,164 topic views. 2 members, 7 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.