Place to put my Nonsense Thread.
- Thread starter lurkeraspect84
- Start date
Hey guy, what's the chance of us pinning this and nonsense thread. I hate bumping the nonsense thread due to some radical view of titties. good either way. Just curious with the off season.
Was taught at an early age Jesus loves watching us jerk off.
Merged (since they are both essentially nonsense threads) and pinned.
I don’t see any villains in this story.
Let me guess, you see Twitter’s board members as the villains in this story?
I meant the Facebook origin story.
It’s obvious what’s going on with Twitter. Vanguard stepping in to become the largest Twitter stockholder was the least shocking news ever.
Just curious. What do you think of taking away someone's right to speak even though you don't like what they have to say? We love mods who allow ppl to speak on here and is not banhammer happy?
Does that tell on the ppl who are so weak minded they can't handle differing opinions? I'll never be a fan of anytype of censorship. I consider my semi intelligent, and thick skinned enough to remember the childhood say of "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". We have a ignore feature on here to just mute the ppl, but to ban them is weak sauce. Why can't people just ignore others, why feel the need to completely shut them up?
Twitter is cutting off it's nose. Real world ppl will lose potential earnings due to a right to bare arms of censorship. Sorry for the awful metaphors.
True hate speech is one thing. Stalking, threats, etc. needs to be curbed. Yelling fire in a crowded building, out right threatening is the same, but when accounts like Babylon Bee and libs of Tictoc, and probably definalant L's soon enough, is not even in the same ballpark. It's outright censorship because they don't like what they're saying.
*I just got up and could probably worded this better with some thought, but have a super busy next few days. My bad for not articulating better. I hope you get my point.
Last edited:
I don’t have a problem with a company limiting speech intended to misinform and do harm. We’ve discovered that people are more gullible than we all probably realized, and there’s a decent argument that misinformation on social media websites did tip the scales of an election. People have a harder time distinguishing objective truth from BS than they should. So, doing nothing and letting whoever post whatever they want would be worse than companies taking responsibility for what is said on their platforms, imo. Newspapers have gotten to decide what they print since the dawn of newspapers. Nobody takes issue with that. How is this different than a newspaper deciding what they will and will not publish?
If I put a giant chalkboard next to the sidewalk in front of my home and let people write on it, I get to decide what gets erased and what doesn’t. It’s my chalkboard. Same for Twitter and Facebook. If that bothers people, somebody can go put a chalkboard on their yard and let people write whatever they want.
I’m pretty sure Zuckerberg is the villain of the Facebook story. Guy seems like a douche.
As for Vanguard, there aren’t special privileges that come with being the marginally largest shareholder. They were already among the largest shareholders of Twitter and decided to up their percentage a little. That’s not nefarious or whatever you’re implying. That’s business. Vanguard doesn’t make moves unless they expect them to be profitable. When Elon Musk gets involved, there’s a decent chance the share price will increase, at least short term, especially when he posts tweets intended to manipulate the share price. I mean, the guy got Tesla to a point where it’s valued at probably 3x the actual value of the company.
Last edited:
They also get to decide what is misinformation. And people are gullible enough to take them at their word. Look at Hunter's laptop. It was misinformation until it wasn't. Russia collusion, quid pro quo, Kavanagh hearings. Many more topics where Twitter allowed "misinformation" because it didn't conflict with their political leanings. It's not just that they censor what they decide is misinformation, it's their motivations for labeling something misinformation. It's who they allow to use their platform (the taliban and racist black shooter) and who the don't. (Former POTUS and a satire site) Look at covid. Twitter decided it was going to ban misinformation concerning covid and the vaccine. So anyone who said that the vaccinated could still get covid was banned for misinformation. Even though it was very clear that the vaccinated could still get covid. So let's not pretend that their censorship was simply an effort to curb misinformation. It was/is most definitely politically motivated and they are nothing more than an extension of the democratic party. The true collusion.
The news is controlled by the Libs. Twitter is controlled by the Libs. The Libs run the deep state. The Libs are the ‘elites.’
Damn. For being so powerful, you’d think the Libs would dominate the political sphere. Are the Conservatives the greatest underdog story in history?
Damn. For being so powerful, you’d think the Libs would dominate the political sphere. Are the Conservatives the greatest underdog story in history?
There are plenty of gullible people and always have been. Why stoop to supporting Nazi-level censorship now?
It's also incredibly gullible to believe that there’s an unbiased effort to censor only misinformation and ALL misinformation, or that the people in a position to do this are qualified to. Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Do you know how many fact-checks have been debunked? It’s hilarious and sad that so many people accept every AP/Reuters/Facebook "fact-check" with no questions asked.
Someone posted an obituary for a 37-yr-old who died from "Covid-19 vaccine-induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia" and, shocker, Twitter immediately labeled it "misleading." There was nothing inaccurate or misleading about it. Do you support censoring obituaries too?
Where were the all-knowing, omniscient fact-checkers when Rolling Stone released a blatantly false propaganda article about Ivermectin (which any average joe could have sniffed out just by glancing at the photo)?
The Nazi’s were a political party. That kind of censorship is different than a company’s censorship. The internet is free. People can post somewhere else. If the complaint is that the other options aren’t as popular… oh well, I guess?
So you really believe that establishment power structures have no influence/control of social media platforms, huh?
You argue that alleged misinformation on social media tipped the scales of an election, yet you don't think that Zuckerberg's interference, along with rampant censorship of Republican voices, had any influence on the last election? 😆 As long as your "team" received the desired outcome, I guess...
Btw, do you have some examples of speech "intended to misinform and do harm?"
For someone who fancies himself the rational voice in the room, you're not really showing it by accusing legions of citizens of conspiring to spread lies intended to harm fellow citizens.
Last edited:
It is unlikely that Twitter gives a shit what Democrats or Republicans want their company to do. It wouldn’t make sense for Twitter to care.
Facebook started censoring outright false political ads because there are compelling indications that such ads helped Trump win the first time around. So, no, I’m not going to find issue with false and misleading ads being dealt with.
btw, I’m staring at a tweet about Jessica Berg’s death being related to COVID that was posted only a few weeks after her death and never taken down. That was after 10 seconds of searching. You might be right that a tweet about it was removed, but there were tweets about it that stayed up.
For starters, there's only so much control you can exert over a force that big with information moving that fast. It's pretty damn silly to try to use one single tweet as proof that such censorship doesn't exist.
But as for that specific situation, Twitter removed the warning after a huge backlash from users.
Similar threads
