So does this mean when the chinese communist party say the spratly islands have always being part of china you will delete such false & misleading information? Well you might actually get my support to censor the propaganda BS artists.

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Nail on the head.  And I would take it a step further - social media should only be allowed to remove comments or stories that are in breach of any Laws.  Then they should be 'reviewed' by an independent authority - the Courts.  

 

The fact that over the last month that most censoring is being done by the progressives in Twitter and Facebook against conservatives, as admitted by the CEO of Twitter, shows that bias is inherent in anyone censoring another person's views on social media. 

 

Example:  Candace Owen is a leading black conservative, and she retweeted exactly what Sarah Jeong (NY Times) said in her pointedly racist tweets against whites and Trump (substituting blacks and Obama),. She was immediately suspended from Twitter. Meanwhile Sarah was certified by Twitter. 

 

Twitter apologised and reinstated Candace, but never suspended or banned Sarah. At best the application of their 'rules' is inconsistent, and at worst it is biased.  And that is the problem -  the people imposing the bans and suspensions on Twitter and Facebook have their own inherent bias.  And now for the last 2 weeks, you only have to search through Twitter and you will now see a lot of progressives complaining about being suspended for calling Trump a nazi or worse, when up until then it was apparently OK  Now they have gone too far the other way.  

 

Social Media has become part of people's lives, and Trump will be very soon implementing some form of control over social media companies censoring people's views, just because they dont agree with them.  In the USA people have the right to say awful things - unlike in Europe and other countries.  Certainly if someone says something extremely innapropriate or offensive that is designed to incite racial or religious hatred, then action should be taken to delete the tweet/account.  But likewise, that person should have the right to exercise their 1st Amendment right and therefore to be able to test in a Court if that delete/suspension decision was valid.  Let the Courts decided - not the SJWs or Nazis in the employ of Facebook and Twitter.   

 

In a rare moment, I did agree with Obama when he refused to do what the progressives wanted and introduce laws making 'hate speech' illegal. An onwer of an NBA team made a particularly offensive racist remark, and refused to apologise and withdraw it.  Obama refused to get involved - and he was right - that is a rocky road best not travelled. In the end the NBA rules that the statement was not in the best interests of the league, and they suspended the racist from being a member - he had to sell his ownership.  That is how to do it - making laws about what anyone can say or not say, and can read and cannot read, is what the Nazis did in Germany - enough said.  

 

Your arguments regarding 1st Amendment Rights are irrelevant wrt to what individuals say on social media.

 

The social media platform is privately owned, people who post on a social media website are subject to the rules and regulations of the site.

If, by example, the rules state you may not post racist remarks, those are the rules within the site - the 1st Amendment does not apply.

 

You yourself gave the the example of the NBA (a private organisation) enforcing its rules without infringing the 1st Amendment. That’s precisely how Social Media sites have the right to delete whatever they wish.

 

An individual who’s racist or hate remarks are deleted from social media can easily call upon protection under the 1st Amendment by making those same comments openly in a public space.

 

Though be warned, the 1st Ammendment provides no protection against the reaction of the general public to offensive remarks.

9 minutes ago, Tailwagsdog said:

Opinions can be based on false facts or erroneous interpretations that's the basis of debate/ argument ..don't you get it?

And such ‘Opinions’ can be used as propaganda.

 

Don’t you get it?!

5 minutes ago, Tailwagsdog said:

Opinions can be based on false facts or erroneous interpretations that's the basis of debate/ argument ..don't you get it?

Exactly - and a great example of this is the fake news from the left who call ANYONE on the right side of politics "Nazis" or "Far right". Even the MSM start their reports with "A gathering of far right blah blah blah" Its absolutely laughable yet they have said it so many times they believe their own lies!!

I was at a meeting yesterday in York, England in support of ex servicemen being hounded by their own government for things that happened during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Guess who turned up to counter demo? SUTR (Stand Up To Racism). Yep, an anti racist group counter demonstrating against the witch-hunt against troops. How is what we were doing racist? People from all political divides and ethnic backgrounds serve in the military. Just goes to show more embarrassment that the left manufacture things to oppose

A week or 2 ago in Sunderland, England the LBGT community held a demo against islams view on gay people. Guess who counter demoed that one? Yep, Antifa. Antifa and LGBT have been known to get along but this example shows Antifa for what they really are. It's time they themselves are classed as a terror organisation

3 minutes ago, Tailwagsdog said:

So does this mean when the chinese communist party say the spratly islands have always being part of china you will delete such false & misleading information? Well you might actually get my support to censor the propaganda BS artists.

 No because it would be true that they said it.

  but if someone falsely posts that the Chinese said such thing  but the had not,and tried to make it look like it was true news, in order that they inflame relations between the Chinese   and another party, Then such post should be deleted 

5 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

A week or 2 ago in Sunderland, England the LBGT community held a demo against islams view on gay people. Guess who counter demoed that one? Yep, Antifa. Antifa and LGBT have been known to get along but this example shows Antifa for what they really are. It's time they themselves are classed as a terror organisation

Terrorist organisation, why?

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your arguments regarding 1st Amendment Rights are irrelevant wrt to what individuals say on social media.

 

The social media platform is privately owned, people who post on a social media website are subject to the rules and regulations of the site.

If, by example, the rules state you may not post racist remarks, those are the rules within the site - the 1st Amendment does not apply.

 

You yourself gave the the example of the NBA (a private organisation) enforcing its rules without infringing the 1st Amendment. That’s precisely how Social Media sites have the right to delete whatever they wish.

 

An individual who’s racist or hate remarks are deleted from social media can easily call upon protection under the 1st Amendment by making those same comments openly in a public space.

 

Though be warned, the 1st Ammendment provides no protection against the reaction of the general public to offensive remarks.

Agree with everything you say on this one Chomper

I would suggest though that when a social media platform such as the big 2 get as big as they do, with so many users, then maybe government law should apply after they reach a certain number of users? Or maybe FB and Twitter should advise their users more because I would doubt most users would realise the difference between free speech in general and free speech on a privately owned platform as well as you pointed out

11 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Exactly - and a great example of this is the fake news from the left who call ANYONE on the right side of politics "Nazis" or "Far right". Even the MSM start their reports with "A gathering of far right blah blah blah" Its absolutely laughable yet they have said it so many times they believe their own lies!!

I was at a meeting yesterday in York, England in support of ex servicemen being hounded by their own government for things that happened during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Guess who turned up to counter demo? SUTR (Stand Up To Racism). Yep, an anti racist group counter demonstrating against the witch-hunt against troops. How is what we were doing racist? People from all political divides and ethnic backgrounds serve in the military. Just goes to show more embarrassment that the left manufacture things to oppose

A week or 2 ago in Sunderland, England the LBGT community held a demo against islams view on gay people. Guess who counter demoed that one? Yep, Antifa. Antifa and LGBT have been known to get along but this example shows Antifa for what they really are. It's time they themselves are classed as a terror organisation

Poor you.

6 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Terrorist organisation, why?

My perception of them and how they go about their 'business' what I see at their demos or counter demos. Taking weapons and explosives to said gatherings, face masks. Planning and organising attacks against people who have the cheek to disagree with them

Take a look at Youtube and decide for yourself. They are no better than these 'far right' groups, worse in many cases

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Poor you.

Why?

Just now, Walter Travolta said:

Why?

Well you know, exercising your rights and doing your protest bit alongside ‘Veterans Against Terrorism’, ‘UK Freedom Marchers’ and the ‘Democratic Football Lads Alliance’.

 

And along come a load of other people exercising their right to demonstrate.

 

I’m sure it was a great shock, I can almost feel your pain.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well you know, exercising your rights and doing your protest bit alongside ‘Veterans Against Terrorism’, ‘UK Freedom Marchers’ and the ‘Democratic Football Lads Alliance’.

 

And along come a load of other people exercising their right to demonstrate.

 

I’m sure it was a great shock, I can almost feel your pain.

Haha dont try too hard old boy there is no pain. I was simply showing SUTR for what they are. They decided to have a COUNTER demo, not one on their own (which would have been fine obviously). But to counter demo accusing ours of racism is beyond belief and this was my point. They came out to oppose something that had no relevance to them being there. They automatically think that if there is a chance there might be a Union Jack flying it MUST be racist haha - a joke of an organisation. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 No because it would be true that they said it.

  but if someone falsely posts that the Chinese said such thing  but the had not,and tried to make it look like it was true news, in order that they inflame relations between the Chinese   and another party, Then such post should be deleted 

what matters is the statement is a lie and should be removed along with all lies, propaganda & false information ... So who is going to decide , now people should start to understand the issue. Do not censor anybody or anything!

2 minutes ago, Tailwagsdog said:

what matters is the statement is a lie and should be removed along with all lies, propaganda & false information ... So who is going to decide , now people should start to understand the issue. Do not censor anybody or anything!

It’s not simply lies, it’s also inciting hatred or violence and a whole host of criminal activity and images that I trust everyone who’s not sick in the head agrees must never be acceptable.

 

An example is social media being used to spread videos of terrorists executing people they’ve captured. Spreading their terrorist message and earning money for the terrorists though each click or viewing.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not simply lies, it’s also inciting hatred or violence and a whole host of criminal activity and images that I trust everyone who’s not sick in the head agrees must never be acceptable.

 

An example is social media being used to spread videos of terrorists executing people they’ve captured. Spreading their terrorist message and earning money for the terrorists though each click or viewing.

The one who holds the power of information holds the power of thought of the masses. 

 

What you see as terrorists, others might see as the last line of freedom fighters. What you see as a act of heroism, bombing your terrorists with drone bound smart bombs, others see as acts of terrorism.

 

You have already been subjected to thinking what is right and what is wrong. So has the other side. 

 

So who decides what is right and what is wrong? Who should we let to have the ultimate power to define that fine line?

 

I would say nobody. We each should define that line by ourselves. 

 

Therefore we must keep the flow of information free. Regardless whether we agree or disagree with it's message. Someday we might flip our minds and think differently, if then we don't have any data, how can we support what we think then.

1 hour ago, Tailwagsdog said:

what matters is the statement is a lie and should be removed along with all lies, propaganda & false information ... So who is going to decide , now people should start to understand the issue. Do not censor anybody or anything!

I am afraid you are misunderstanding the issue. No one is arguing with the point you make as to who would be the final arbitrator of what is true or not true, or that arguable subjects such as the ownership of man made islands and their claim on surrounding areas. 

  This issue concerning the policing of social media came about from the claims of the attempt of  foreign actors to interfere in the US and other countries election by posing as citizens of the country and posting misinformation,  So if the chinese said that the island are chinese territory  it is not a false statement it is a disputed statement.and should not be removed but be the subject of debate   But if the Russians  posing as Chinese said the above, it should be removed because it is not true.(not the island assertion)  but the claiming of Russians to be Chinese.

 Then you have the locally disseminated misinformation for personal gain, such as the claim that the kids killed at sandy Hook were actors. This one is a much more difficult subject to police and does have a potential for abuse but the dangers from allowing it to happen grossly overweight the dangers from not moderating it. 

  Not different from the moderation of this forum, The moderators do a difficult job and remove what is Troll or otherwise inappropriate posts, they are human and not always get it right but they do get it right  99% of the time , the dangers of removing a legitimate post pale compared to the dangers of not moderating TVF .

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your arguments regarding 1st Amendment Rights are irrelevant wrt to what individuals say on social media.

 

The social media platform is privately owned, people who post on a social media website are subject to the rules and regulations of the site.

If, by example, the rules state you may not post racist remarks, those are the rules within the site - the 1st Amendment does not apply.

 

You yourself gave the the example of the NBA (a private organisation) enforcing its rules without infringing the 1st Amendment. That’s precisely how Social Media sites have the right to delete whatever they wish.

 

An individual who’s racist or hate remarks are deleted from social media can easily call upon protection under the 1st Amendment by making those same comments openly in a public space.

 

Though be warned, the 1st Ammendment provides no protection against the reaction of the general public to offensive remarks.

 

I can agree with that.

Private property rights  - i.e. a media platform's owner's right to select what he wants to publish and delete unwanted content trumps free speech - on that platform of course.

 

At the same time, I think that content deletion should be done in line with clearly stated content rules that make clear the platform's political stance.

 

Giving on the surface the impression of free speech and then deleting content because editors don't agree with it, I consider fraudulent, manipulative and vicious.

2 hours ago, Walter Travolta said:

Haha dont try too hard old boy there is no pain. I was simply showing SUTR for what they are. They decided to have a COUNTER demo, not one on their own (which would have been fine obviously). But to counter demo accusing ours of racism is beyond belief and this was my point. They came out to oppose something that had no relevance to them being there. They automatically think that if there is a chance there might be a Union Jack flying it MUST be racist haha - a joke of an organisation. 

 

 

Censorship no, ignore list, yes. You will note if you follow the reactions of the poster you responded to that he is "confused" by almost every post he reads. Don't waste your time trying to interact with people of such low cognitive ability.

12 hours ago, mikebike said:

16 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

they may be private companies but they have become so big and so encompassing that in essence they wield and influence public opinion. kind of like the old usa private phone company at&t that was deemed a defacto monopoly or such and the court forced them to split up.

 

different analogy; pre usa independance from great britain depended on dissemination of information to americans to guide and motivate them to gain independance from gb. had there been hugely powerful social media controlled by companies with vested interests in the uk they could have censored what they deemed as inappropriate. china does this.

You DO realize that the printing press was the social media of the revolutionary war era and that the founding fathers started printing coincidentally with their revolutionary conspiracies, right?

 

yes, the printing press was the impetus for that initial "american spring" information could be inseminated en masse.

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

15 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

no, not at face value. each individual must use their own cognitive ability-intuition to decide what they deem as real-credible, etc etc.

 

something akin to a child growing up and mommy no longer making the decisions

Apart from the fact half the population have an IQ of 100 or less and are very susceptible to propaganda.

 

They lack the intellectual bandwidth to discriminate propaganda and truth.

 

therefore what is the threshold IQ required to be able to discern between propaganda and truth?

 

did you mean "discern" rather than "discriminate"?

 

is is not possible for some propaganda to contain some truth and vice a versa ?

29 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

therefore what is the threshold IQ required to be able to discern between propaganda and truth?

 

did you mean "discern" rather than "discriminate"?

 

is is not possible for some propaganda to contain some truth and vice a versa ?

all successful propaganda contains an element of truth. Propaganda  resides not on what you are being told but on what you are not being told, and all the IQ in the world will not help you consider that which you dont know 

8 hours ago, Tailwagsdog said:

So does this mean when the chinese communist party say the spratly islands have always being part of china you will delete such false & misleading information? Well you might actually get my support to censor the propaganda BS artists.

The Chinese government can say they own the Spratly's but in general news outlets will refer to it as disputed territory.   The same with places such as Taiwan.  

9 hours ago, Tailwagsdog said:

Opinions can be based on false facts or erroneous interpretations that's the basis of debate/ argument ..don't you get it?

Yes, I get it, you on the other hand don't.

 

Facts can be established, and false facts should not be allowed.

7 hours ago, oilinki said:

The one who holds the power of information holds the power of thought of the masses. 

 

What you see as terrorists, others might see as the last line of freedom fighters. What you see as a act of heroism, bombing your terrorists with drone bound smart bombs, others see as acts of terrorism.

 

You have already been subjected to thinking what is right and what is wrong. So has the other side. 

 

So who decides what is right and what is wrong? Who should we let to have the ultimate power to define that fine line?

 

I would say nobody. We each should define that line by ourselves. 

 

Therefore we must keep the flow of information free. Regardless whether we agree or disagree with it's message. Someday we might flip our minds and think differently, if then we don't have any data, how can we support what we think then.

Except the information flowing is already manipulated.

 

Allowing private businesses to be used by third parties as portals for misinformation, propaganda, and all forms of hate mongering while taking in vast profits is the issue at hand.

 

The idea that individuals decide for themselves what is true is predicated on a number of false assumptions that include at least:

 

That they see or seek out a range of views and or alternative views and that they have the necessary intelligence, education, personality to able to understand and critically analyze what they see.

 

A specific problem of social media and internet usage is the fact ‘information’ can be and is directed at individuals by software identifying what messages each individual is susceptible to.

 

The internet, social media and the algorithms that are selecting and directing information are actively manipulating what information individuals see.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

all successful propaganda contains an element of truth. Propaganda  resides not on what you are being told but on what you are not being told, and all the IQ in the world will not help you consider that which you dont know 

 

I disagree with this assertion. I think IQ or intelligence is all about making connections in one's mind. Make enough connections and you can discern what is false and indeed discover that something is missing in the narrative.

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not simply lies, it’s also inciting hatred or violence and a whole host of criminal activity and images that I trust everyone who’s not sick in the head agrees must never be acceptable.

 

An example is social media being used to spread videos of terrorists executing people they’ve captured. Spreading their terrorist message and earning money for the terrorists though each click or viewing.

Yes i see your point, however if anonymous trolls were denied the privelege of posting rubbish then we would get a more sensible debate on issues no matter how much i may disagree with my opponent. The so called terrorist may be fighting for justice.

  19 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

I receive telepathic transmission every third Saturday of each month from a purple walrus that lives on the far side of Pluto.

 

Prove me wrong.

I am the walrus. You promised not to tell. 

___________________________________________________________________________

 

I am the Eggman.

 

What the hell is going on behind my back?

 

 

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Censorship no, ignore list, yes. You will note if you follow the reactions of the poster you responded to that he is "confused" by almost every post he reads. Don't waste your time trying to interact with people of such low cognitive ability.

Don’t be confused by your own assumption of how others use the ‘confused’ emoji.

 

Yes it might mean they are confused, but might also mean they regard the arguments within post itself confused.

7 hours ago, manarak said:

 

I can agree with that.

Private property rights  - i.e. a media platform's owner's right to select what he wants to publish and delete unwanted content trumps free speech - on that platform of course.

 

At the same time, I think that content deletion should be done in line with clearly stated content rules that make clear the platform's political stance.

 

Giving on the surface the impression of free speech and then deleting content because editors don't agree with it, I consider fraudulent, manipulative and vicious.

The problem so far has been the mainstream social media platforms have passively allowed their platforms to be used to spread misinformation, propaganda, hate and abuse.

 

But yes I agree the rules should be explicit and published ( TVF does a great job in this respect).

3 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

therefore what is the threshold IQ required to be able to discern between propaganda and truth?

 

did you mean "discern" rather than "discriminate"?

 

is is not possible for some propaganda to contain some truth and vice a versa ?

I meant discern.

 

The most effective propaganda laces lies around a truth. It may be extremely difficult to discern such messages/news as propaganda.