1984 is here.

[CarreraLightweightRacing]

This does appear to be somewhat of an overspill from the Trump thread. I may slightly stray off topic here OP so please forgive me, I'll to try remain loosely on track.

I think this whole Trump/Biden Scheiße-show is completely missing the underlying point. Everyone ends up arguing about how their terrible choice is better than the other terrible choice ad infinitum. This is a deliberate ploy to detract from the underlying politics behind the smokescreen.


In one corner you have a contender who wishes to protect the national interests of his country (nationalistic), small government, lower taxes, to remove the years of educational indoctrination, question/reverse the Climate change act...

On the other side you have a group who wish to embrace a more global outlook, more socialist leaning generally, big government and control, pushes Green agenda to high priority...

I think this is the reason Trump appears to have the support he does. It has absolutely nothing to do with him, they do not care one iota for him, however they truly do not want what the other party represents. It is as simple as that. Trump and Biden are pretty much irrelevant. The election result will reflect the underlying political beliefs of the nation, not how less of a muppet thier representative is vs the other.

Sadly hundreds of pages wasted in Trump threads and across the world arguing about racism, sexism, questioning intelligence and myriad of other pointless b0ll0x, creating division and hatred across society which does nothing to help the people. The political elite care only for retaining power and control. You lot crying about irrelevant nonsense all day long are truly wasting your energy.

[anonymous-user]

If people believe the democrats are leftist or socialist, or even that moving away from fossil fuels is in some way indicative of the evils of socialism, they need their f-cking heads checked.

As for power and corruption, less of the “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe” please

[captain_cynic]

Sam.M said:

If people believe the democrats are leftist or socialist, or even that moving away from fossil fuels is in some way indicative of the evils of socialism, they need their f-cking heads checked.

As for power and corruption, less of the “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe” please

This.

If you're having trouble seeing the one conviction on the Democrat side due to the thumbsnap logo, that was Bill Clinton... Who was convicted of lying to congress.

Amazing how Bill Clinton was pilloried for doing once, what Trump does on a daily basis.

But we're the ones with "double standards".

[Byker28i]

Hunter Biden was Chairman of the World Food Program USA from 2013 – 2019 thats just won a Nobel Prize, whilst trumps children looted a charity, trump looted his foundation

[williamp]

Noise starting to come from the US that the FBI dont see this as a Russian disinformation, and that the emails are real.

Not seen anything concrete yet, mind

[anonymous-user]

williamp said:

Noise starting to come from the US that the FBI dont see this as a Russian disinformation, and that the emails are real.

Not seen anything concrete yet, mind

So probably like the Clinton/Podesta email drop just before 2016, less Russian disinformation and more Russian dissemination of illegally obtained material?

[williamp]

I think shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is what this thread is about, no??

[anonymous-user]

I think that depends on just how far down the "both sides are the same" rabbit hole someone has gone.

[dasigty]

CarreraLightweightRacing said:

This does appear to be somewhat of an overspill from the Trump thread. I may slightly stray off topic here OP so please forgive me, I'll to try remain loosely on track.

I think this whole Trump/Biden Scheiße-show is completely missing the underlying point. Everyone ends up arguing about how their terrible choice is better than the other terrible choice ad infinitum. This is a deliberate ploy to detract from the underlying politics behind the smokescreen.


In one corner you have a contender who wishes to protect the national interests of his country (nationalistic), small government, lower taxes, to remove the years of educational indoctrination, question/reverse the Climate change act...

On the other side you have a group who wish to embrace a more global outlook, more socialist leaning generally, big government and control, pushes Green agenda to high priority...

I think this is the reason Trump appears to have the support he does. It has absolutely nothing to do with him, they do not care one iota for him, however they truly do not want what the other party represents. It is as simple as that. Trump and Biden are pretty much irrelevant. The election result will reflect the underlying political beliefs of the nation, not how less of a muppet thier representative is vs the other.

Sadly hundreds of pages wasted in Trump threads and across the world arguing about racism, sexism, questioning intelligence and myriad of other pointless b0ll0x, creating division and hatred across society which does nothing to help the people. The political elite care only for retaining power and control. You lot crying about irrelevant nonsense all day long are truly wasting your energy.

This thread has been turned into an overflow of the Trump thread by the usual subjects. The subject of mass censorship has been lost in the hatred of Trump as they rush to defend the object of the story.

The fact is a simple one, social media companies are now deciding what you can or can not view on political grounds. This was a story ran in the oldest newspaper in the US, the publishing of it carries the legal liability of it`s credibility.

Even the Orange man bad brigade know full well if this had been about Trump it would have been pushed and not censored, maybe they are just to dumb to understand if one side loses it`s voice the other will not be far behind.

[paulguitar]

dasigty said:

maybe they are just to dumb to understand if one side loses it`s voice the other will not be far behind.

It would be a good idea when accusing others of stupidity to make sure you can spell and correctly use an apostrophe.

[DanL]

dasigty said:

The fact is a simple one, social media companies are now deciding what you can or can not view on political grounds. This was a story ran in the oldest newspaper in the US, the publishing of it carries the legal liability of it`s credibility.

Examples please - they have prevented disinformation from spreading, particularly where it can be harmful (Covid in particular).

I’ve not been paying attention so perhaps there is something here. What news stories have you been prevented from reading due to Twitter et al?

[Wrathalanche]

dasigty said:

This was a story ran in the oldest newspaper in the US, the publishing of it carries the legal liability of it`s credibility.

The author of which wouldn't even put his name on it, since the chain of custody of the source material is so dubious.

In essence I agree that there's an element of shooting the messenger here, but that's because the messenger smells of vodka and just before he dropped off his package, it really looked like he was just doing a Cossack dance.

So I suppose turning our eyes to the message and assuming it is 100% - what is it exactly? A Ukrainian thanking someone for the opportunity to meet their dad, who is Vice President? A meeting that at least one attendee says didn't happen? Out of all the 1000s of emails, that's the smoking gun?

Of course, The Post's message goes on to re-write the facts and posit that Shokin's firing was because he was going to investigate Burisma to try to insinuate that there is a link this and the supposed meeting - when in fact its the opposite that is true: a Burisma investigation was exactly the sort of thing Shokin was completely avoiding to do. Thus, Joe Biden made it more likely that a Burisma investigation would go ahead if it was actually on the cards. There isn't a single career diplomat, intelligence officer, or foreign policy writer between the most Western shores of the US and Eastern reaches of Europe as far as Russia's borders that would disagree with that.

[amusingduck]

DanL said:

xamples please - they have prevented disinformation from spreading, particularly where it can be harmful (Covid in particular).

I’ve not been paying attention so perhaps there is something here. What news stories have you been prevented from reading due to Twitter et al?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-partisan-censors-11602803394

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

DanL said:

xamples please - they have prevented disinformation from spreading, particularly where it can be harmful (Covid in particular).

I’ve not been paying attention so perhaps there is something here. What news stories have you been prevented from reading due to Twitter et al?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-partisan-censors-11602803394

But we know about the story, Twitter removing the article because the images used in the article contained personal info(against Twitter Policy) has't prevented us from talking about it.

Arguably it engaged the Streisand Effect.

I do look forward to septugenarian Senators asking Dorsey why Apple does XYZ with its phone, or why their local broadband is slow though.

[dasigty]

paulguitar said:

It would be a good idea when accusing others of stupidity to make sure you can spell and correctly use an apostrophe.

Deflection rather than answers...Straight out of the Little leftie playbook.

[amusingduck]

Sam.M said:

But we know about the story, Twitter removing the article because the images used in the article contained personal info(against Twitter Policy) has't prevented us from talking about it.

Arguably it engaged the Streisand Effect.

I do look forward to septugenarian Senators asking Dorsey why Apple does XYZ with its phone, or why their local broadband is slow though.

Isn't that a bit of a strawman? There's no possible way Twitter/Facebook can censor a news story from the Internet, just from their platforms, which they did do. I thought that's what the discussion was about.

Streisand effect I'm sure.

Does anyone here think that Twitter/Facebook behaving in that way would be acceptable if they backed trump? I don't see why it matters which way they lean, it's putting their fingers on the scale which millions of people get their information from that's the problem.

Should they get their information from there? Obviously not. But they do.

[paulguitar]

dasigty said:

paulguitar said:

It would be a good idea when accusing others of stupidity to make sure you can spell and correctly use an apostrophe.

Deflection rather than answers...Straight out of the Little leftie playbook.

I voted Tory and I'm right-leaning.

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

Sam.M said:

But we know about the story, Twitter removing the article because the images used in the article contained personal info(against Twitter Policy) has't prevented us from talking about it.

Arguably it engaged the Streisand Effect.

I do look forward to septugenarian Senators asking Dorsey why Apple does XYZ with its phone, or why their local broadband is slow though.

Isn't that a bit of a strawman? There's no possible way Twitter/Facebook can censor a news story from the Internet, just from their platforms, which they did do. I thought that's what the discussion was about.

Streisand effect I'm sure.

Does anyone here think that Twitter/Facebook behaving in that way would be acceptable if they backed trump? I don't see why it matters which way they lean, it's putting their fingers on the scale which millions of people get their information from that's the problem.

Should they get their information from there? Obviously not. But they do.

I don't think it's a strawman at all. I don't have an issue with Twitter removing the article if it transgressed their user policy(their stated reason), nor do I have a problem with them indicating what they believe to be misleading content.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Leave everythingg alone and they're accused of being complicit in spreading misinfo. Remove it and they're accused of censorship and acting as a defacto publisher.

In the interest of progressing the conversation since I've not seen it mentioned... opinions on Section 230 of the FCC CDA and it's relation to social media.

Should it be removed? Maintained?

Why? Why not?

Did you watch Dorseys two appearances on Rogan? One alone, one with Twitters head legal counsel and Tim Pool(lefty online journo) making the anti-"censorhip" case.

What did you think of the arguments put forth there by Twitter?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st October 12:19

[DanL]

amusingduck said:

DanL said:

xamples please - they have prevented disinformation from spreading, particularly where it can be harmful (Covid in particular).

I’ve not been paying attention so perhaps there is something here. What news stories have you been prevented from reading due to Twitter et al?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-partisan-censors-11602803394

So, none then given that Twitter isn’t a new site, and doesn’t run news sites? Or is the argument that the only way anyone finds out anything these days is via Twitter, who must be compelled to allow shares are retweets because big government is a good idea?

[amusingduck]

Sam.M said:

I don't think it's a strawman at all.

In the interest of progressing the conversation since I've not seen it mentioned... opinions on Section 230 of the FCC CDA and it's relation to social media.

Should it be removed? Maintained?

Why? Why not?

I'm not sure what the solution should be, but I definitely think that they should be regulated.

AIUI (poorly, I'm sure ), they mostly cannot be held responsible for the content posted on their platforms. If they were, I don't see how the platforms could possibly work.

I support, in theory, the right of companies to do whatever they want with their platform. It just doesn't scale to this level. If you get banned from your local pub, you can just find another. This is more like an internet-free world where 99% of pubs are 'Spoons, the whole country goes there to socialise, and if you're banned from one you effectively can't socialise any more.

st analogy, but hopefully you get my drift.