Big Tech Assault on Free Speech
-
Only there is little to no evidence to back up this claim. It's a conspiracy theory in truth. Even Nunes' and his followers on Twitter admit his content is fully accessible at his home page 24/7 and his tweets are visible to any and all of his followers.
So to make clear - No Censorship and this is about slander.
Now you move to - "Shadow banning"... or more accurately, a conspiracy theory term Nunes' heard and even his followers admit doesn't restrict ANY access to his tweets provided you follow him.
Are we about done here?
Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite.
"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."
Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:
Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof
https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03
Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite.
"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."
Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:
Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof
https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03
i feel as if u lack a certain amt of core "tech" knowledge so what Tia is trying to convey to u may not be taking. So either read what Tia is saying to u and go verify it urself......or stfu.
-
Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite.
"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."
Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:
Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof
https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03
i feel as if u lack a certain amt of core "tech" knowledge so what Tia is trying to convey to u may not be taking. So either read what Tia is saying to u and go verify it urself......or stfu.
i feel as if u lack a certain amt of core "tech" knowledge so what Tia is trying to convey to u may not be taking. So either read what Tia is saying to u and go verify it urself......or stfu.
I never claimed to be a tech genius and I don't figure you for one either but Nunes said people could not see his tweets...I put it in parenthesis..and you can take your stfu and put it where the sun don't shine.
-
i feel as if u lack a certain amt of core "tech" knowledge so what Tia is trying to convey to u may not be taking. So either read what Tia is saying to u and go verify it urself......or stfu.
I never claimed to be a tech genius and I don't figure you for one either but Nunes said people could not see his tweets...I put it in parenthesis..and you can take your stfu and put it where the sun don't shine.
I never claimed to be a tech genius and I don't figure you for one either but Nunes said people could not see his tweets...I put it in parenthesis..and you can take your stfu and put it where the sun don't shine.
Nunes' seems to claim a lot of things. This one he had now back tracked on and clings to the phrase "shadow banning".
Despite tweets responding to his own actually showing that the guy has limited knowledge of his own feed settings thus believing Twitter has "X" a user.
So he clings to phrases he himself can't begin to fully explain without half contrived third party "help".
Example a -
https://mobile.twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1126260968894472192
In short, the guy is a functional idiot with little technical saavy.
-
Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite.
"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."
Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:
Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof
https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03
Yes and his followers confirmed all content on his page (as he later did) is and has been completely visible.
You're welcomed to go start a Twitter, follow the man and report back. If he tweets something and it randomly goes missing (while being within the ToS) then you have an argument. But if I go there right now, you can see all of his posts with zero restriction.
So.... What exactly has been banned? The term is almost a contradiction in and of itself.
Yes and his followers confirmed all content on his page (as he later did) is and has been completely visible.
You're welcomed to go start a Twitter, follow the man and report back. If he tweets something and it randomly goes missing (while being within the ToS) then you have an argument. But if I go there right now, you can see all of his posts with zero restriction.
So.... What exactly has been banned? The term is almost a contradiction in and of itself.
A couple things. I get these big tech companies are private enterprises. The simple answer to big tech companies discriminating against conservative voices is for conservatives to start their own Google, Twitter and Facebook. That is not so simple. I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral. It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way.
-
I never claimed to be a tech genius and I don't figure you for one either but Nunes said people could not see his tweets...I put it in parenthesis..and you can take your stfu and put it where the sun don't shine.
Nunes' seems to claim a lot of things. This one he had now back tracked on and clings to the phrase "shadow banning".
Despite tweets responding to his own actually showing that the guy has limited knowledge of his own feed settings thus believing Twitter has "X" a user.
So he clings to phrases he himself can't begin to fully explain without half contrived third party "help".
Example a -
https://mobile.twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1126260968894472192
In short, the guy is a functional idiot with little technical saavy.
Nunes' seems to claim a lot of things. This one he had now back tracked on and clings to the phrase "shadow banning".
Despite tweets responding to his own actually showing that the guy has limited knowledge of his own feed settings thus believing Twitter has "X" a user.
So he clings to phrases he himself can't begin to fully explain without half contrived third party "help".
Example a -
https://mobile.twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1126260968894472192
In short, the guy is a functional idiot with little technical saavy.
if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?
do i have this down?
-
Yes and his followers confirmed all content on his page (as he later did) is and has been completely visible.
You're welcomed to go start a Twitter, follow the man and report back. If he tweets something and it randomly goes missing (while being within the ToS) then you have an argument. But if I go there right now, you can see all of his posts with zero restriction.
So.... What exactly has been banned? The term is almost a contradiction in and of itself.
A couple things. I get these big tech companies are private enterprises. The simple answer to big tech companies discriminating against conservative voices is for conservatives to start their own Google, Twitter and Facebook. That is not so simple. I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral. It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way.
The simple answer
That is not so simple.
which is it? Simple or not so simple?
Is starting the company "simple"? No, hardly ever is. But at least you have a vision of an idea.
I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral.
They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way.
Again, they don't have to. But this is based mostly in perception.
For example: I'm lead to believe by the tone of this forum many democrats are skill-less freeloaders. It would appear that if Twitter, it's founders and Devs are bias vs Republican view points- it would stand to reason they are democrats showing that they're playing a high level game with a pretty solid corner on the market... While Not being skill-less freeloaders.
In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".
Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.
Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories.
Good night, Cleveland!
-
Nunes' seems to claim a lot of things. This one he had now back tracked on and clings to the phrase "shadow banning".
Despite tweets responding to his own actually showing that the guy has limited knowledge of his own feed settings thus believing Twitter has "X" a user.
So he clings to phrases he himself can't begin to fully explain without half contrived third party "help".
Example a -
https://mobile.twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1126260968894472192
In short, the guy is a functional idiot with little technical saavy.
if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?
do i have this down?
if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?
do i have this down?
No.
I don't have Twitter and his very public profile I can see (with responses) clear as day.
-
The simple answer
That is not so simple.
which is it? Simple or not so simple?
Is starting the company "simple"? No, hardly ever is. But at least you have a vision of an idea.
I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral.
They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way.
Again, they don't have to. But this is based mostly in perception.
For example: I'm lead to believe by the tone of this forum many democrats are skill-less freeloaders. It would appear that if Twitter, it's founders and Devs are bias vs Republican view points- it would stand to reason they are democrats showing that they're playing a high level game with a pretty solid corner on the market... While Not being skill-less freeloaders.
In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".
Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.
Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories.
Good night, Cleveland!
I have no doubt and there is enough evidence out there to show big tech discriminating against conservative voices.
In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".
Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.
Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories.
Good night, Cleveland!
In short simple fairness would suffice.
-
That's pathetic
Now you've got conservatives calling for regulation because people are mean to them?
You've got people agreeing with suing internet trolls... and those same people support Trump... The biggest troll there is. The guy that literally insults everyone he doesn't like. The guy that gained the support of internet trolls during the election.
But now you're soft and don't like the meanies online?
Oh fuck off...
-
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Facebook censorship fast becoming an enemy of free expression for conservatives
-
if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?
do i have this down?
No.
I don't have Twitter and his very public profile I can see (with responses) clear as day.
-
"They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less."
Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to be seen as neutral..
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/the-false-dream-of-a-neutral-facebook/541404/
-
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
-
-
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
-
"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"
"All Muslims are terrorists!"
"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Tweets / accounts removed
"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"
Bunch of dumb snowflakes
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
sigh
I'm always amazed how there is just a continued misunderstanding of what Free Speech actually is...
As myself, and many others have said on here many other times, in regards to situations like this (and what retailers can and can't do, etc) a private company has their own terms of service and can do as they please. Facebook could ban all Michigan fans from making accounts and it wouldn't be an attach on Free Speech.
Don't talk to me about "ideals" when the thing you base your life around, the bible, was thrown in the garbage when you voted for Trump.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
Yes but has that always been the case? The problem with Nunes lawsuit is even if shadow banning were proven it is still not illegal but I am glad to see him file the suit if nothing else but to have tech companies like Twitter coming under scrutiny for their discriminatory practices against conservatives. I have no doubt conservative voices are being discriminated against by FB, Google and Twitter by censoring conservative voices. Some voices on the left are being censored too but the evidence is clear much more of the censoring is against conservative voices.
-
"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'
Let's take that one statement. Because of that statement I personally never go to Infowars or even want to listen to Alex Jones. I self censor him but that doesn't mean I think he should be censored on FB. I am surprised so many liberals who used to believe in protection of speech they didn't like but on principle defended it have so easily given up their ideals. More speech is better. Let people like Jones speak and let those who oppose him speak. Banning of speech should not be done so easily.
sigh
I'm always amazed how there is just a continued misunderstanding of what Free Speech actually is...
As myself, and many others have said on here many other times, in regards to situations like this (and what retailers can and can't do, etc) a private company has their own terms of service and can do as they please. Facebook could ban all Michigan fans from making accounts and it wouldn't be an attach on Free Speech.
Don't talk to me about "ideals" when the thing you base your life around, the bible, was thrown in the garbage when you voted for Trump.
sigh
I'm always amazed how there is just a continued misunderstanding of what Free Speech actually is...
As myself, and many others have said on here many other times, in regards to situations like this (and what retailers can and can't do, etc) a private company has their own terms of service and can do as they please. Facebook could ban all Michigan fans from making accounts and it wouldn't be an attach on Free Speech.
Don't talk to me about "ideals" when the thing you base your life around, the bible, was thrown in the garbage when you voted for Trump.
I got my lesson on free speech many years ago when I wrote a letter to the editor and the editor edited half my letter to the point I felt like it was no longer my letter but the editors. I complained to the newspaper about free speech and learned that as a private company they set the rules however they liked. The only consolation I got was they agreed they at least should put a disclaimer on an edited letter that it had been edited by the editor. So I know these big tech companies are private and can set their own rules but if they are discriminating against conservative voices that needs to be brought to light.
I voted for president and not a pastor. When I felt I had a better choice with Cruz I voted for Cruz in the primary. In the general election Trump was the better candidate than Clinton and I have never regretted my decision to vote for Trump as he has been a great friend to Israel as well as being the most pro life president since Roe and defending religious liberties.
-
obf can u right now go to nunes's twitter feed and see everything? yes or no
Yes but has that always been the case? The problem with Nunes lawsuit is even if shadow banning were proven it is still not illegal but I am glad to see him file the suit if nothing else but to have tech companies like Twitter coming under scrutiny for their discriminatory practices against conservatives. I have no doubt conservative voices are being discriminated against by FB, Google and Twitter by censoring conservative voices. Some voices on the left are being censored too but the evidence is clear much more of the censoring is against conservative voices.
Yes but.....
stop right there, thread topic over. No "buts".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login