Big Tech/Social Media Censorship. Musk: Blackmailing Advertisers Can ***** Off.

[BillsFanNC]

Tldr version of Twitter Files 5

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

For those who still might not be aware of what the Great Barrington Declaration is, it was started by a group of scientists from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford (you know fringe scientists from fringe institutions) who were concerned about the near and long term mental and physical damage of the covid policies in place. They recommended a policy called Focused Protection that essentially calls for protecting the vulnerable while lallowing the vast majority to resume life as normal.

 

It currently has over 934k signatures by other scientists and physicians from around the world.

 

https://gbdeclaration.org

 

Dr. Bhattachayra is one of the leaders out of Stanford.

 

He joined Twitter in August of 2021 and was placed on a blacklist the very day that he joined the platform (cOnTeNT mODerAtIoN!)

 

The Twitter Files are all a big  nothing burger though!

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

The liberal tantrums on Twitter are epic.  

[ChiGoose]

Solid advice for how to properly use Twitter:

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

ELON IS WINNING

 

Liberals are aghast at Elon Musk’s movement to free Twitter: how can we get along without censorship? People might say bad things about Saint Fauci!

 

But Americans are squarely in Musk’s corner. Rasmussen finds an extraordinary level of concern about censorship on social media sites. Almost everyone believes that political censorship is going on:

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 77% of Likely U.S. voters believe it’s likely that social media companies like Facebook censor news and commentary because of political bias, including 52% who think it is Very Likely. Only 14% say it’s unlikely social media sites are engaging in political censorship.

 

And a large majority don’t like it:

Seventy-two percent (72%) think censorship by social media companies is a serious problem, including 49% who say it’s a Very Serious problem. Twenty percent (20%) don’t think it’s a serious problem.

 

Understandably, then, 66% of voters approve of GOP plans to investigate social media censorship, while only 26% disapprove.

 

The same survey shows that Republicans think censorship is a bigger problem than “misinformation,” while Democrats think “misinformation” is a bigger problem than censorship. The confounding fact is that most Democrats seem to think that anything they disagree with is misinformation.

 

While, on the other hand, I don’t believe I have ever seen a single Democrat cite the Russia collusion hoax–the great disinformation campaign of our time–as an instance of misinformation.

 

In any event, while he may be enraging liberals, Elon Musk has the large majority of Americans on his side.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/12/elon-is-winning.php

[BillsFanNC]

Seems a bit odd that there were so many former FBI, CIA, NSA etc. employed at Twitter....

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

These Twitter files are sick.  

but the law-and-order folks are saying they are nothing burgers. so we should just trust them.

 

 

20 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Solid advice for how to properly use Twitter:

 

 

That dude is crying so hard in that thread. 

Bigotry is being intolerant of others' opinions.

its much easier to rationalize one's own bigotry, if they see the others as demonized or "evil"

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

ELON IS WINNING

 

Liberals are aghast at Elon Musk’s movement to free Twitter: how can we get along without censorship? People might say bad things about Saint Fauci!

 

But Americans are squarely in Musk’s corner. Rasmussen finds an extraordinary level of concern about censorship on social media sites. Almost everyone believes that political censorship is going on:

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 77% of Likely U.S. voters believe it’s likely that social media companies like Facebook censor news and commentary because of political bias, including 52% who think it is Very Likely. Only 14% say it’s unlikely social media sites are engaging in political censorship.

 

And a large majority don’t like it:

Seventy-two percent (72%) think censorship by social media companies is a serious problem, including 49% who say it’s a Very Serious problem. Twenty percent (20%) don’t think it’s a serious problem.

 

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/12/elon-is-winning.php

The other 28% post here, content with the right type of censorship. 

[BillStime]

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, Chris farley said:

These Twitter files are sick.  

but the law-and-order folks are saying they are nothing burgers. so we should just trust them.

 

 

That dude is crying so hard in that thread. 

Bigotry is being intolerant of others' opinions.

its much easier to rationalize one's own bigotry, if they see the others as demonized or "evil"

 

 

 

 

It’s not bigotry to block trolls and bad faith actors. That is incredibly stupid.

 

Nobody is owed your attention. If someone is being a troll or jackass, it’s not bigotry or some violation of their free speech for you to ignore, mute, or block them. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

IT’S THE TRUMP VENDETTA ALL OVER AGAIN:

 

These “prominent attorneys” need to be named and shamed.

 

.

[Tommy Callahan]

25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

It’s not bigotry to block trolls and bad faith actors. That is incredibly stupid.

 

Nobody is owed your attention. If someone is being a troll or jackass, it’s not bigotry or some violation of their free speech for you to ignore, mute, or block them. 

big·ot·ry

/ˈbiɡətrē/

noun

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

25 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

IT’S THE TRUMP VENDETTA ALL OVER AGAIN:

 

These “prominent attorneys” need to be named and shamed.

 

.

That profile cracks me up. 

Wonder what PAC runs it.

 

at least half of its tweets are outright lies. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

big·ot·ry

/ˈbiɡətrē/

noun

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

That profile cracks me up. 

Wonder what PAC runs it.

 

at least half of its tweets are outright lies. 

 

 

I understand what bigotry is and ignoring jerks is not bigotry. 
 

Even if people aren’t being jerks but talking about things you don’t care about, blocking or muting isn’t bigotry.

 

If you just used Twitter for Buffalo Bills and NFL stuff, blocking or muting everyone who talks about Pokémon to keep them off your timeline isn’t bigotry.

 

Absolutely nobody is entitled to your attention. 

[Chef Jim]

31 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

It’s not bigotry to block trolls and bad faith actors. That is incredibly stupid.

 

Nobody is owed your attention. If someone is being a troll or jackass, it’s not bigotry or some violation of their free speech for you to ignore, mute, or block them. 

The reason they are considered trolls could very well be due to bigotry no? 

[Tommy Callahan]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I understand what bigotry is and ignoring jerks is not bigotry. 
 

Even if people aren’t being jerks but talking about things you don’t care about, blocking or muting isn’t bigotry.

 

If you just used Twitter for Buffalo Bills and NFL stuff, blocking or muting everyone who talks about Pokémon to keep them off your timeline isn’t bigotry.

 

Absolutely nobody is entitled to your attention. 

So people that talk about pokeman are jerks and need to be blocked?

 

thats just mean.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

The reason they are considered trolls could very well be due to bigotry no? 

Sure. And it might not be as well. 
 

One of the reasons I like Twitter, and why I am not concerned about Elon changing the content moderation from a user perspective is that if I start seeing people spewing vitriol on my timeline, I can just mute or block them.

 

If people are talking about things I do not care about, I can mute or block them as well. It’s not some terrible stigma to have been blocked by a random account. I’ve been blocked by a parking lot’s account. That’s fine. I’m not entitled to their attention. I doubt I’m missing much. I also have that Nick Wright guy muted because he likes to troll Bills fans to get them to react and thus increase his platform and attention. I don’t have the patience for people like that nor do I want them to benefit from my reaction to them. 

 

It’s generally not bigotry to want to use Twitter how you want to use it. If you want to mute all Pokémon talk, that’s fine!

 

To your point, if you want to block all Jews, that would be problematic. But I just don’t think that anyone is entitled to anyone else’s attention and people are free to craft the user experience they prefer. 

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

So people that talk about pokeman are jerks and need to be blocked?

 

thats just mean.

No, that’s clearly not what I said. 
 

People who talk about Pokémon are, like everyone else, not entitled to your attention. Removing them from your timeline doesn’t mean they are bad or you are bad, it just means you’re not interested in Pokémon. Nobody’s rights were violated. 
 

I used Pokémon as an example because I looked up a lot of stuff on Twitter back when I was playing Pokémon Sword. That lead to Twitter suggesting accounts talking about other video games I don’t play and Japanese culture I’m not interested in (or can’t even read because it’s in Japanese). I generally mute those accounts so they don’t clutter my timeline and crowd out the things I do care about. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s just curating your account to show you the things you’re interested in. I didn’t violate someone’s rights because I don’t want to see content for a video game I don’t play and have no interest in playing. 
 

Another example is that about a month ago, I saw a lot of Bills Mafia people on Twitter complaining. Apparently someone who posts a lot of Bills Mafia content was also liking a lot of porn accounts. This meant that, because people had engaged with this person on Bills content, Twitter was now serving them up the porn accounts this person was also interacting with. So through no fault of their own, these people were now seeing porn on their timeline.
 

Surely you don’t think they would be wrong to block or mute those accounts or the account of the guy who was liking them?

Edited December 14, 2022 by ChiGoose

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

IT’S THE TRUMP VENDETTA ALL OVER AGAIN:

 

These “prominent attorneys” need to be named and shamed.

 

.

 

An absolute guarantee that Musk is directly over the target.

 

Thanks for the confirmation commies.

[Tommy Callahan]

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No, that’s clearly not what I said. 
 

People who talk about Pokémon are, like everyone else, not entitled to your attention. Removing them from your timeline doesn’t mean they are bad or you are bad, it just means you’re not interested in Pokémon. Nobody’s rights were violated. 
 

I used Pokémon as an example because I looked up a lot of stuff on Twitter back when I was playing Pokémon Sword. That lead to Twitter suggesting accounts talking about other video games I don’t play and Japanese culture I’m not interested in (or can’t even read because it’s in Japanese). I generally mute those accounts so they don’t clutter my timeline and crowd out the things I do care about. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s just curating your account to show you the things you’re interested in. I didn’t violate someone’s rights because I don’t want to see content for a video game I don’t play and have no interest in playing. 
 

Another example is that about a month ago, I saw a lot of Bills Mafia people on Twitter complaining. Apparently someone who posts a lot of Bills Mafia content was also liking a lot of porn accounts. This meant that, because people had engaged with this person on Bills content, Twitter was now serving them up the porn accounts this person was also interacting with. So through no fault of their own, these people were now seeing porn on their timeline.
 

Surely you don’t think they would be wrong to block or mute those accounts or the account of the guy who was liking them?

The person in the tweet you shared spent like 10 tweets demonizing anyone not in his group think.  DEMONIZING.  and in turn its much easier to have a bigoted view if you demonize the others first.  and that's what that entire thread was doing.

 

ITs like we went full circle.

 

BTW.  the Pokémon reply is just typical strawman.

 

 

31 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Sure. And it might not be as well. 
 

One of the reasons I like Twitter, and why I am not concerned about Elon changing the content moderation from a user perspective is that if I start seeing people spewing vitriol on my timeline, I can just mute or block them.

 

If people are talking about things I do not care about, I can mute or block them as well. It’s not some terrible stigma to have been blocked by a random account. I’ve been blocked by a parking lot’s account. That’s fine. I’m not entitled to their attention. I doubt I’m missing much. I also have that Nick Wright guy muted because he likes to troll Bills fans to get them to react and thus increase his platform and attention. I don’t have the patience for people like that nor do I want them to benefit from my reaction to them. 

 

It’s generally not bigotry to want to use Twitter how you want to use it. If you want to mute all Pokémon talk, that’s fine!

 

To your point, if you want to block all Jews, that would be problematic. But I just don’t think that anyone is entitled to anyone else’s attention and people are free to craft the user experience they prefer. 

By vitrol you mean others opinions that differ from yours?  vs an echo chamber?

And dang, from blocking pokeman to "the jews"  DAMN..

 

 

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

The person in the tweet you shared spent like 10 tweets demonizing anyone not in his group think.  DEMONIZING.  and in turn its much easier to have a bigoted view if you demonize the others first.  and that's what that entire thread was doing.

 

ITs like we went full circle.

 

BTW.  the Pokémon reply is just typical strawman.

 

 

By vitrol you mean others opinions that differ from yours?  vs an echo chamber?

And dang, from blocking pokeman to "the jews"  DAMN..

 

 

I think you’re reading into things that just aren’t there. You’re just making a bunch of assumptions. 
 

The tweet thread mentioned blocking trolls. The only person he actually named is Elon. I fail to see how that is demonizing whole groups of people. 
 

At no point did I advocate for blocking people simply because you disagree with them.