Random News not worthy of own thread

[Vertigo 7]

As for the GOP, I have a feeling if this was Trump's first run at the WH, then this dinner wouldn't have made such an impact. And the republicans would have remained silent and looked the other way still. It wouldn't have mattered who Trump sat with, as long as it give GOP votes. But now they are getting tired of Trump and his antics, so calling him out now, yes, hypocritical of them. As it was fine to embrace Trump and all his beliefs and misconduct. Look the other way when things hit the fan. But not now, yeah right, the GOP will never change.

What is more, some of the Oath Keepers are currently on trial, the senior member maybe found guilty and if that happens, may turn on Trump. Plus Trump has lost his case to keep his case of presidential immunity defence going. So he can be charged with crimes while he was in office. Next year will be interesting to watch. He will be squealing like a pig soon, as the heat continues to build.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the GOP is synonymous with racism and bigotry. It should be pretty obvious when they continue to give MTG and Boebert the spotlight. Sure, after they get called out repeatedly for BS will McCarthy come out and say "naughty naughty" but he doesn't do anything to admonish them or anyone else that behaves like them. It's the same so-called "free speech" that ol' Elon wants on Twitter.

And this isn't new for the GOP. They've been this way since the 60's when they welcomed the KKK into their folds in the wake of civil rights legislature. They're just being less subtle about their tolerance of racist and bigoted ideology. After all, the GOP can't exist without a manufactured bogeyman.

[Warenwolf]

Going back to Apple - it's seem they cooperate with Chinese goverment to crackdown on Chinese protesters right now.
Neither Elon, nor Apple give a damn about freedom or liberty, only profit margins.

Is this your interpretation of the news or do you have source for it? Note that I am not disputing Apple's focus solely being on profit margins .

[mr.WHO]

Going back to Apple - it's seem they cooperate with Chinese goverment to crackdown on Chinese protesters right now.
Neither Elon, nor Apple give a damn about freedom or liberty, only profit margins.

Is this your interpretation of the news or do you have source for it? Note that I am not disputing Apple's focus solely being on profit margins .

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/11/busi ... index.html

[felter]

What I'm taking from Musk's Tweets about Apple and Tim Apple is that he is actually dumber than I originally thought he was. For some reason, he does not seem to know what censorship is as he goes around throwing that accusation at the likes of Apple, Apple cannot censor anyone they are a private entity they are neither a government nor government entity and only those two can censor you, only they have the power to do so. Either that or he does know, in which that case he is playing everyone for a fool and looking down on their ignorance while laughing at them. Either case does not make him look good.

He also does not seem to realize that Twitter is not an American company, that they are a worldwide company and by being so, they have to abide by the rules and laws that govern those other countries, which means for example here in the UK we have hate speech laws and breaking those laws can end you up in jail, there have been numerous cases over the years where that has happened. This is why the likes of Apple remove certain apps from their store, it's not to do with their censoring, it's them protecting their asses from the legalities of other countries that they wish to do business with, nipping it in the bud so to speak.

All I can see happening is that he is going to get himself into some serious trouble if he keeps going down the path that he is going, if he keeps letting certain entities back onto Twitter, and they start spouting their hate, lies and abuse, Twitter will end up getting banned in the UK anyway, meaning the likes of Apple and Google will have no choice but to remove it from their stores, so I can see them doing so before it gets to that stage.

[felter]

To carry on with what I said above, since I made that post the news is reporting that the EU has told Musk that Twitter faces a possible ban if it doesn't get itself sorted out, Musk of course has said he will have it sorted out in time, but the thing is to do so he will have to ban all of those accounts he has been reinstating. Happy days for Musk.

A real but satirical look at what Musk, Zuck and SBF (never knew who SBF was until his scam came to light).

[matthewfarmery]

To carry on with what I said above, since I made that post the news is reporting that the EU has told Musk that Twitter faces a possible ban if it doesn't get itself sorted out, Musk of course has said he will have it sorted out in time, but the thing is to do so he will have to ban all of those accounts he has been reinstating. Happy days for Musk.

A real but satirical look at what Musk, Zuck and SBF (never knew who SBF was until his scam came to light).

That is going to be some wakeup call to Musk, there will be no way he will be able to get Twitter ready in time. He would have to rehire all those that he fired and walked out on the company. I doubt they will come back. I think there will be a good chance of the EU banning Twitter, and that will mean Apple will need to comply and will be forced to remove Twitter in it's app store in EU countries. I bet if that happens, other countries may follow suit.

All in all, Twitter is dead. There will no way to reverse the damage in time. also if I was a shareholder in Tesla, I would be monitoring all this very closely, and wondering what happened to all my money that I spent in that company? If things go bad for Twitter, it could go bad for tesla, and Musk might get a no confidence vote from the shareholders. He would be finished then, full stop.

So much for a sable genius, he doesn't have much in the brains department.

[clakclak]

To carry on with what I said above, since I made that post the news is reporting that the EU has told Musk that Twitter faces a possible ban if it doesn't get itself sorted out, Musk of course has said he will have it sorted out in time, but the thing is to do so he will have to ban all of those accounts he has been reinstating. Happy days for Musk.

A real but satirical look at what Musk, Zuck and SBF (never knew who SBF was until his scam came to light).

Going to be interested how this will be handled here in Germany considering our laws. With people like Andrew Anglin back on the platform things are bound to get way worse rather sooner than later.

[Observe]

So, where do we draw the line on censorship? Are ideas to be prohibited? Are conversations and discussions, which are the bedrock of democracies, to be banned? Musk has already stated that Twitter won't tolerate posts that incite violence, or represent illegalities in the various countries according to those countries laws. What else can be expected that he do in the censorship regard?

If we are talking about censoring discussions that are determined to be in the realm of "misinformation", we tread on dangerous ground. Likewise, if we ban discussions about subjects related to LGBTQIA+, or any number of other controversial and heated topics, we end up with a single narrative and any time we force a single narrative, we imprison reason.

[Vertigo 7]

So, @observe, given that MTG and the Oompa Loompa King (and other RWNJs) have a history of posts calling for violence, anti-Semitism, racism, and a whole host of other bs, can you explain why they are allowed back on Twitter? Or does that rule not apply to rich white folks?

Can you explain why anyone who is being critical of ol' Elon is getting banned? Not to mentioned if employed at Twitter getting fired.

Thing is, Twitter belongs to Elon. It's his platform now. If he wants to make it a bastion for white supremacists, which he is certainly free to do, then why would anyone be surprised that no reasonable institution wants anything to do with it or will provide means to fund it? And why should the kind of "free speech" ol' Elon is promoting be allowed in countries where it is explicitly illegal?

What you fail to understand here is that private entities, like Twitter, have jack all to do with the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment has only to do with what the federal and state governments can enforce on private citizens, that's it. Businesses can determine their own policies for dealing with what is acceptable speech and what isn't. No one is forcing you to participate on their platforms, or be in their employ. So where the line is drawn is primarily up to the businesses and secondarily the people participating with it.

However, what we're doing is laughing at ol Elon as his dreams of running a white supremacists platform crumble and burn around him. It's just delicious.

[clakclak]

So, where do we draw the line on censorship? Are ideas to be prohibited? Are conversations and discussions, which are the bedrock of democracies, to be banned? Musk has already stated that Twitter won't tolerate posts that incite violence, or represent illegalities in the various countries according to those countries laws. What else can be expected that he do in the censorship regard?

If we are talking about censoring discussions that are determined to be in the realm of "misinformation", we tread on dangerous ground. Likewise, if we ban discussions about subjects related to LGBTQIA+, or any number of other controversial and heated topics, we end up with a single narrative and any time we force a single narrative, we imprison reason.

Apparently currently the only thing that can get you reliably banned from twitter is makeing fun of Elon Musk. Covid missinformation? Very good, very free speech after all all opinions and information should have the same value no matter if they come from years of research or John who read that drinking bleach will help to keep out the 5G rays. Hate speech also seems to flourish. However this will only quicken twitters downfall. The platform is rapidly becoming toxic for advertisers and the EU said it is allready aware of the situation and monitoring it while considering fines under the digital services act. According to the New York Time the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market allready talked with Musk basically saying: "Careful, not doing enough against hate speech=illegal in the EU."

[mr.WHO]

It put a smile to my face that we are all together back to free speech discussion from 2 years ago


First, as I stated a few post above, Elon is NOT some kind of liberty Jesus, he's a billionare egomaniac, so if you expect him to be consistent on free speech principles, you're bound for one a hell dissapointment.

Second, I still think free speech in social media is best approach, coz then you can easily spot who might have deranged point of view - recent stuff from Ye is good example of this.
Still not sure if it's PR stunt, mental breakdown, temporary fad or his genuine believe. Albeit in last 3 yeast we had a couple epic meltdowns, probably will have a several more in next 2-3 years.
Calling for violence should be clear bannable offense, but given that we have things like microaggresion and people in the West now see every little thing as violence, I don't think it will be solid rule for long.

"Muh private company, make your own Twitter" - that would be good approach, if not that we were basically in duopoly of Twitter and Facebook.
Those two (with Google/Alphabet support) were actively trying to kill all new competition by doing schenanigans with payment processor companies and adding legislative bloat that increase the barriers for new competitors to enter.
This means there was no free market here and you didn't had much of a choice.
However since last 2-3 years, we see some cracks in this oligopoly (now with addition of Tik Tok). All big fish seem to have troubles and new competitiors are now by dozen.
If Twitter, Meta and Tik Tok collapse tomorow, it would be social media bubble pop that was long overdue. There will be many companies to build anew from ashes.

Ironically, Elon ruining Twitter might be bigger win for free speech (and free market competition) than any reform he try to do with Twitter 2.0.

[Chips]

Meanwhile, TikTok is apparently hosting videos from Wagner group glorifying violence in Ukraine -- with a billion accumulated views.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63820437

NewsGuard said it had identified 160 videos on the short-video platform that "allude to, show, or glorify acts of violence" by the mercenary group, founded by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin.

Fourteen of those videos showed full or partial footage of the apparent killing of former Russian mercenary Yevgeny Nuzhin which saw high engagement within days of being uploaded last month, it said.

Analysts said one video of the murder was viewed at least 900,000 times before it was taken down. TikTok is owned by China-based firm ByteDance.

Twitter aint the only platform that has issues - unsurprisingly. More worrying is why anyone would want to watch a video of someone being murdered (was it by hammer blows to the head?). Pretty damned sick, on both accounts.

[Observe]

Calling for violence should be clear bannable offense, but given that we have things like microaggresion and people in the West now see every little thing as violence, I don't think it will be solid rule for long.

A charge of calling for violence should be limited to physical violence. Discussing the validity of gender pronouns, vaccine efficacy, abortion, obesity, or any other subject should be open to a choice of whether to participate or not. If the complaint is that someone is offended, then welcome to the world, which is not and never has been a garden of thorn-less roses.

How about bullying? Yes, there will be unfortunate cases of bullying with consequent distress and suicide, but this problem runs far deeper than social media. If we really want a completely civil social media environment, we would have to root out all the destructive tendencies latent in the human mind. In the meantime, we can choose whether to participate in social media and we can choose where we do so.

For the most part, this forum is really the only social media participation that I have. Why? Because it is well moderated (yes, censored) and I enjoy the members herein. Long ago, I gave up my short-lived Facebook account, because I didn't like the toxicity and plain stupidity of what I experienced there. I never bothered with Twitter, because I didn't see the point.

So, aside from threats or plans to commit physical violence, or breaking the laws of the land, I say let those on social media do what they will. I'm OK with right-wing or left-wing extremists and other misfits, spewing their crazy in the open, where everyone who chooses can see them and be forewarned of their views. Hell, sometimes there is even a nugget of truth to be found in the wilderness of the misty fringe.

[Vertigo 7]

You find truth in racism and bigotry? You find truth in lies about vaccinations? You find it acceptable to give people a voice that would lead others to their deaths?

[Observe]

You find truth in racism and bigotry? You find truth in lies about vaccinations? You find it acceptable to give people a voice that would lead others to their deaths?

In the case of racism and bigotry, I find the truth that those ideas exist and I have an opportunity to dissect their basis. Likewise with lies about vaccines etc. I just don't think it is healthy for us to create an environment where there is only a single, controlled narrative, an echo chamber. I realize that we are at loggerheads on this topic and I'm glad that we have the ability to discuss our differences with civility. I would like to think that any subject would be open to such discussion in pursuit of truth and expression.

[Vertigo 7]

Well, I find it more healthy to stamp it out at its source instead of letting it grow. You can't cure disease by letting it live.

[clakclak]

A charge of calling for violence should be limited to physical violence. Discussing the validity of gender pronouns, vaccine efficacy, abortion, obesity, or any other subject should be open to a choice of whether to participate or not. If the complaint is that someone is offended, then welcome to the world, which is not and never has been a garden of thorn-less roses.[...]In the case of racism and bigotry, I find the truth that those ideas exist and I have an opportunity to dissect their basis.[...]

Are you also against public libraries and schools banning books on critical race theory, LBTQI+ issues or gender? Just curious, because to be quite frank I often heard similar talking points from people who will then, in the very next sentence, say that books like "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" by Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado or "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe obviously should not be allowed in public libaries. And for the record, YES, I want Jordan Peterson and Adolf Hitler to be available in libaries, just like I want the other two to be available. I do not like Peterson and Hitler, but it is a god damn PUBLIC library where freedom of speech, unlike with a private company, actually applies very directly at least in my opinion.

[Vertigo 7]

Public libraries are very much held to the 1st amendment as they're government owned.

[mr.WHO]

It might be that there is too much subjectivity and fluidity with current "private moderation" over a major internet platforms.

Rules are language of machines - 0 and 1 - the more exceptions, the more double standards the more frequent changes the more confusing and redundant it become.

There is a need for some kind of standard internet bill of rights or constitution - the first country, organization or even company who will create it, will gain and edge over the one not having it.

...and no, TOS is nothing like that, it's just a HR/PR brainlet to protect companies from litigation.


I mean the first pieces of puzze are already there, like:
- EU "right to be forgoten(on the internet)" - e.g. this was made so if you post something dump on twitter, it shouldn't be pull on you 10-15 years in future, when definition of <pick the -ism of your choice> change.
- EU General Data Protection Regulation of how to handle user privacy and data protection
- US section 230 that defines, if the platform is public square or a publisher and what are priviledges and responsibilities of each.

What else could be added:
- some kind of goverment regulation of user limit/traffic where company over certain size automatically became public square (e.g. too big to fail, but instead, too big to remain as a publisher).
- some kind of restrictions on "trending/recomended" manipulation in public square
- some kind of oversight and countermeasures regulation against bot usage in public platforms (I wouldn't like to be an advertizer to pay hard hash only to find out 80% of user base are bots, that won't buy anything)
- probably many more things that I'm not aware of


We probably still need maybe a decade for various regulation to be iron out and tested in reality.
At some point we'll reach critical mass of trial and error, to produce some kind of unified bill, that will become the core standard of future internet.

[clakclak]

Public libraries are very much held to the 1st amendment as they're government owned.

True. Problem: I worded that statement so that it seemed as if I was only referencing the situation in America. I did so because I assumed most people would be most familiar with that. However I mean the statement in a more universal way, so let me rephrase:

Are you also against public libraries and schools banning books on critical race theory, LBTQI+ issues or gender? Just curious, because to be quite frank I often heard similar talking points from people who will then, in the very next sentence, say that books like "Was weiße Menschen nicht über Rassismus hören wollen aber wissen sollten" by Alice Hasters or "Radikale Zärtlichkeit – Warum Liebe politisch ist" by Şeyda Kurt obviously should not be allowed in public libaries. And for the record, YES, I want Hans-Georg Maaßen and Adolf Hitler to be available in libaries, just like I want the other two to be available. I do not like Maaßen and Hitler, but it is a god damn PUBLIC library where freedom of speech, unlike with a private company, actually applies very directly at least in my opinion.