Twitter is better

[Ban Basketball]

1 hour ago, jross said:

The leftist-controlled Wikipedia claims him as left of the Democratic party and middle.

Wikipedia too, eh?

You understand that anyone can contribute to its content,  correct?

[jross]

Is the behavior of the government and Twitter a nothing burger?

Are the Twitter files a work of fiction?  Or is it truth and not a concern.  

[Mike Parrish]

5 hours ago, jross said:

The leftist-controlled Wikipedia claims him as left of the Democratic party and middle.

Don't you guys hate wikipedia?

I'm so confused now...

 

[Mike Parrish]

What a surprise!
Elmo was full of shit about the stalker and "assassination coordinates".

Here's my shocked face.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/20/police-provide-first-official-details-on-elon-musks-alleged-stalker-incident

[jross]

There are articles that contributors are unable to update because the moderators will not allow it.  If I said John Doe is a human, a Wiki moderator will change to it to state John Doe is a smelly fart.

So it’s really something when that place claims someone as left who when the group in control is looking to discredit him.  I was shocked wiki didn’t label him a conspiracy theorist, alt-right, etc.  

Edited December 21, 2022 by jross

[jross]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

What a surprise!
Elmo was full of shit about the stalker and "assassination coordinates".

Here's my shocked face.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/20/police-provide-first-official-details-on-elon-musks-alleged-stalker-incident

 

Let me assume Musk is doing bad stuff and he is a terrible guy.  Let’s both assume the journalists documenting Twitter files are all conservative and must be biased.

For a moment, why don’t you assume the Twitter files is real.  

Is the behavior and content revealed in the Twitter files a concern to you.

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, jross said:

 

Let me assume Musk is doing bad stuff and he is a terrible guy.  Let’s both assume the journalists documenting Twitter files are all conservative and must be biased.

For a moment, why don’t you assume the Twitter files is real.  

Is the behavior and content revealed in the Twitter files a concern to you.

Goes to the credibility of the author(s).

[Mike Parrish]

2 hours ago, jross said:

There are articles that contributors are unable to update because the moderators will not allow it.  If I said John Doe is a human, a Wiki moderator will change to it to state John Doe is a smelly fart.

So it’s really something when that place claims someone as left who when the group in control is looking to discredit him.  I was shocked wiki didn’t label him a conspiracy theorist, alt-right, etc.  

I know far more about how wikipedia actually works than you do.

That's not how it works. At all.

 

Why do all of your posts reek with this unreasoning fear of 'leftists'?
Are these leftists in the room with you right now?

[Mike Parrish]

8 hours ago, jross said:

Is the behavior of the government and Twitter a nothing burger?

Are the Twitter files a work of fiction?  Or is it truth and not a concern.  

You guys have made a lot of hay about how all of this behavior is illegal.
Please cite the federal statutes that were violated. Be specific.

[Mike Parrish]

This is the kind of stuff you should be angry about.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-20/big-tech-divided-and-conquered-to-block-key-bipartisan-bills

[jross]

I want to understand the thought process behind the belief that "big-tech censorship is good" and "government involvement with big-tech to censor" is good.  When you do not condemn the behavior as bad, it implies that you think the behavior is fine.  I can't wrap my head around it, so I'm asking 50 different ways to see if you move past deflection to share an opinion on the actual behavior.

[jross]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

I know far more about how wikipedia actually works than you do.

Great.  Who wins the edit warring?

[Ban Basketball]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

Why do all of your posts reek with this unreasoning fear of 'leftists'?
Are these leftists in the room with you right now?

It's not just him though; this is the M.O. of conservatism today.  Make everyone afraid of these mythical leftists at the expense of not fearing things that will actually affect their lives. 

As I say,  they routinely go against their supposed "beliefs" and interests because that's far less scary than are leftists and Democrats.  It's why people vote blindly. 

[Mike Parrish]

26 minutes ago, jross said:

Great.  Who wins the edit warring?

As in any venue, the people who understand the rules and have the most friends.

What do you do when some quackery gets repeatedly put into a medical article?
What do you do when Nazis try to say the Holocaust didn't happen all over wikipedia?
What do you do when spammers try to add their website to a bunch of articles?
What do you do when some middle schooler tries to add the word "penis" to every article they can?
What do you do about decade long edit wars (Israel/Palestine as one example) where the partisans on both sides will never stop trying to get their version of the article?

Further, do you not see the irony in claiming that wikipedia is run by "scary 'leftists' who lie all the time" and then trying to use wikipedia's description of itself as some sort of holy weapon?

If you really want to understand how wikipedia actually works under the covers, instead of ranting and raving without foundation, read https://wikipediocracy.com

Check out the forums.
Every bad thing ever done on wikipedia is in there, with cogent comments from both long time critics and from people who currently have advanced permissions on wikipedia.

[jross]

FWIW The irony is why I did it.

Edited December 21, 2022 by jross

[Mike Parrish]

40 minutes ago, jross said:

I want to understand the thought process behind the belief that "big-tech censorship is good" and "government involvement with big-tech to censor" is good.  When you do not condemn the behavior as bad, it implies that you think the behavior is fine.  I can't wrap my head around it, so I'm asking 50 different ways to see if you move past deflection to share an opinion on the actual behavior.

First, stop trying to frame the question that way. It's disingenuous and stifles actual conversation.

Second, I don't trust the sources (Musk/Taibbi). At all.

Third, there's no illegal behavior (in spite of much early wailing to this effect).

Fourth, it's their property.

 

How about you answer some questions:

• What is the core of your complaint here?
• What do you want done about it?

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, jross said:

FWIW The irony is why I did it.

And you didn't answer any of the rest of the points I made in the post...

I begin to suspect you aren't conversing in good faith, sir.

[jross]

Look at the warring here.  Leftists are blocking contributors.  They are not 'winning' with logic in their editorial comments.  There are these people that act like "if we 'discredit' the company, then we can deflect accountability from the outrageously wrong behavior they keep showing in videos."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Veritas&action=history&dir=prev

[Mike Parrish]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

Look at the warring here.  Leftists are blocking contributors.  They are not 'winning' with logic in their editorial comments.  There are these people that act like "if we 'discredit' the company, then we can deflect accountability from the outrageously wrong behavior they keep showing in videos."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Veritas&action=history&dir=prev

lol, no.

Again with the scary "leftists"...

What do you think your link demonstrates (it's article history from August 2019)?

 

Can you show that this description from the lede of the article is incorrect in any way?

Quote

Project Veritas is an American far-right^[14] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.^[18] The group produces deceptively edited videos^[13] of its undercover operations,^[5] which use secret recordings^[5] in an effort to discredit mainstream media organizations and progressive groups.^[19][20] Project Veritas also uses entrapment^[12] to generate bad publicity for its targets,^[2] and has propagated disinformation^[22] and conspiracy theories^[30] in its videos and operations.

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Mike Parrish

[Mike Parrish]

29 minutes ago, jross said:

FWIW The irony is why I did it.

Sure, Jan.

[Ban Basketball]

8 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

lol, no.

Again with the scary "leftists"...

What do you think your link demonstrates (it's article history from August 2019)?

 

Can you show that this description from the lede of the article is incorrect in any way?

 

I'd add that Project Veritas also has engaged in illegal activity to try to achieve their ends. 

[jross]

Core of complaint.

I share the concern of Twitter Chinese employee that said

• Censorship destroys public conversation.
• The First Amendment in the U.S.A. exists specifically to prevent the government from silencing the people.

Here we had a publicly owned company running a digital town square that connects millions of people.  It's been proven repeatedly that people conform to the people around them.  "You are who you hang out with" is a well-known saying.  The company lies to the public.  They lie in court.  They say they are not doing the things they are accused of doing around censorship.  Later it comes out that not only was this company censoring information, the government was paying them to do so.  Beyond foreign, this was domestic psychological warfare.  I believe millions of people, myself included, were influenced to think a certain way because of censorship.  Censorship to silence people with certain speech, to gaslight them, and to amplify other social views is anti-American.  

The Twitter files are remarkable.  It exposes unacceptable behavior that many people were unaware of and that smart people cannot believe is true.  It does not matter who is breaking the story because the screenshots of emails are stand-alone evidence of facts.

[jross]

The leftists are getting my flack because they are not condemning the behavior.  Anyone on the right doing this is equally dangerous and awful.

[Mike Parrish]

16 minutes ago, jross said:

Core of complaint.

I share the concern of Twitter Chinese employee that said

• Censorship destroys public conversation.
• The First Amendment in the U.S.A. exists specifically to prevent the government from silencing the people.

Here we had a publicly owned company running a digital town square that connects millions of people.  It's been proven repeatedly that people conform to the people around them.  "You are who you hang out with" is a well-known saying.  The company lies to the public.  They lie in court.  They say they are not doing the things they are accused of doing around censorship.  Later it comes out that not only was this company censoring information, the government was paying them to do so.  Beyond foreign, this was domestic psychological warfare.  I believe millions of people, myself included, were influenced to think a certain way because of censorship.  Censorship to silence people with certain speech, to gaslight them, and to amplify other social views is anti-American.  

The Twitter files are remarkable.  It exposes unacceptable behavior that many people were unaware of and that smart people cannot believe is true.  It does not matter who is breaking the story because the screenshots of emails are stand-alone evidence of facts.

You have shown none of this.

You are merely asserting it without evidence... yet again.

[jross]

Seriously?  Your brain may refuse to consume what the Twitter files show.  It happens to me all the time when first looking at content that I'm not ready to listen to.