Jump to content

Twitter is better

jross

By jross
in Non Wrestling Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, jross said:

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

Why do you care if anyone else condemns this behavior?
How does that affect you?

You seem to be looking for a reason to be angry and scared at these mythical "leftists".

I've asked you, repeatedly, to:

  • Explain what you think it was that Twitter did that was actionable
  • Explain what you want done.

 

<crickets.wav> has been the answer so far.

Step up.

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Husker_Du
Husker_Du
ionel
ionel

Ok Putin praised him about SpaceX (who wouldn't) nothing about X.  This is exactly why we ask for evidence/reference to see if the accuser actually has any or is attempting to use unrelated info to tr

jross
jross

Posted Images

Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted
Just now, jross said:

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.

You are making the assertion that *something is terribly wrong*.

The burden of making that case is borne by the person making the assertion.

You have failed to do so.

 

You make lots and lots of unsupported assertions.
Then you get frustrated when everybody doesn't immediately agree with you.

mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted

If it is not a big deal to censor, why was there such a hue and a cry when Musk put reporters and journalists on temporary ban?   If the feds colluding with Twitter to ban or censor certain speech, why was this a big deal?   Perhaps no one here cared but there were plenty who did. 

mspart

  • Fire 1
Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted
Just now, mspart said:

If it is not a big deal to censor, why was there such a hue and a cry when Musk put reporters and journalists on temporary ban?   If the feds colluding with Twitter to ban or censor certain speech, why was this a big deal?   Perhaps no one here cared but there were plenty who did. 

mspart

Post your evidence.

 

There's lots of outrage and thrashing so far, but not much in the way of convincing arguments.

Ban Basketball Big Brain

Ban Basketball

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, jross said:

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

"It's not illegal,  right?"- The 30 percenters from 2015- present. 

Those are the new standards.  I'm ok with it.

Owner of over two decades of the most dangerous words on the internet!  In fact, during the short life of this forum, me's culture has been cancelled three times on this very site!

mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted

Hi Mike,

First - No response.   I could have guessed based on the tone going on here. 

Second - Have you not been following the news?    I thought I was speaking of something that everyone was aware of.  You feign ignorance by  requested evidence.   Well, here is some.   Simple google search. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63996061

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html

https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/15/23512004/elon-musk-starts-banning-critical-journalists-from-twitter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/15/twitter-journalists-suspended-musk/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/technology/twitter-suspends-journalist-accounts-elon-musk.html

https://www.foxnews.com/media/olbermann-mocked-by-twitter-users-after-being-reduced-posting-from-his-dogs-account-he-has-snapped

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/business/dealbook/twitter-musk-suspends-journalists-sanctions.html

So there are a few points of evidence.   Apparently you were unaware this happened.   It was all the rage in the past week. 

The items jross has complained about have been revealed, not just in words, but in the posts and emails as they were being actively discussed.   Yet you discount this.   You say it is not real.  But from what I have read, you still believe the Steele dossier is actual evidence that Trump should have been impeached and voted out by the Senate, even though all parties have shown it to be nothing but lies.  Hillary and the DNC had their hands all over it.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

That is why it is called the disgraced or debunked Steele Dossier.   The FBI knew it was fake but used it anyway to obtain FISA warrants.  https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html

Why accept one but not the other?  If I have this wrong, I apologize. 

mspart

Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted (edited)

I didn't say "it's not real".

Quote

The items jross has complained about have been revealed, not just in words, but in the posts and emails as they were being actively discussed.   Yet you discount this.   You say it is not real.

I said there doesn't appear to be anything illegal.
This seems to be a sticking point for you guys here.
You're *OUTRAGED* but you guys can't point to any illegal behavior and you don't have an answer for what you want done.

I suspect most social media companies operate in much the same manner.
I've posted here before (or at the other place) that social media is brain poison.
Expecting social media companies to behave differently is a fool's errand, especially if you can't point to illegality and you can't come up with proposed changes...

 

Quote

But from what I have read, you still believe the Steele dossier is actual evidence that Trump should have been impeached and voted out by the Senate, even though all parties have shown it to be nothing but lies.  Hillary and the DNC had their hands all over it. 

Well, then you need to reread what I wrote, because you seem to be constructing a strawman here.

You do realize that neither of Trump's impeachments were based on the Steele work product?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

 

 

Edited by Mike Parrish
Bigbrog Big Brain

Bigbrog

Posted
Posted

Why is this so hard for one person to understand...it can absolutely be wrong to influence people to hold certain believes on social media, especially when it can persuade ones thinking and voting behaviors...and yet it can be completely "legal".

Does anyone on here not agree that social media absolutely influences people one way or the other and it isn't a good thing...period??  No mention of legality.

The other part is, people are clearly biased in what "bothers" them in terms of Twitter, et. al....when the old CEO was censoring and blocking a certain political group, the D's loved it and the R's hated it, now that a new CEO is in place, the D's hate it and attack him and the R's love it...when each CEO was doing the EXACT SAME THING as the other!!!

It's fascinating that certain people can't see that this is the hypocrisy of the two-party system, and that they think their side is right and the other side are complete idiots, and vice versa...guess what, both sides are right in both cases.  I'll never understand the blind allegiance to one political party or the other...to me people that do that are completely weak minded.

  • Fire 2
jross Big Brain

jross

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:
  • Explain what you think it was that Twitter did that was actionable

Citing sources of lies, censorship, and manipulation to amplify social views of Democratic views while suppressing those on the right.  I believe this was part of the plan to win the presidency because it was admitted as much.  https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
 

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.

Evidence


Here we had a publicly owned company running a digital town square that connects millions of people.

Evidence


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. 

Evidence


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. 

Evidence


Later it comes out that not only was this company censoring information, the government was paying them to do so. 

Evidence


Beyond foreign, this was domestic psychological warfare. 

Evidence


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 Big Brain

jross

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:
  • Explain what you want done.

The first action has already occurred.  The swamp was cast out of Twitter.

There should be a bipartisan proposal to regulate big tech.  This censorship must stop occurring now and future.  Transparency.  Audits.  Laws.

mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

I didn't say "it's not real".

 

 

Oh, then I must have misunderstood you below.   He asks why you don't believe the Twitter files are real.  You said, "Goes to the credibility of the author(s)."  So I'm thinking I understood and you are deflecting by saying you weren't saying "it's not real", when in fact, that is what you were saying.   See below screenshot. 

mspart

image.png.e269c29d649ce6b137b84033335478dd.png

mspart Big Brain

mspart

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

You're *OUTRAGED* but you guys can't point to any illegal behavior and you don't have an answer for what you want done.
 

The fact that the FBI asked for the censoring and then it happened should not be a cause of concern for anyone, is that what you think?  I disagree.  It should be a cause of concern for everyone.   It was true information that the FBI asked to be squelched and Twitter obliged with no good reason as they admit in the Twitter files.   They did it based on no real criteria.   They did it because FBI said to and then they tried to justify it.  If this does not concern you, I'm wondering what would? 

mspart

Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jross said:

The first action has already occurred.  The swamp was cast out of Twitter.

There should be a bipartisan proposal to regulate big tech.  This censorship must stop occurring now and future.  Transparency.  Audits.  Laws.

No, dude.

A newer, more crazy swamp creature moved in.

I give Twitter about 6 months before it makes the current MySpace look good.

Edited by Mike Parrish
Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, mspart said:

 

Oh, then I must have misunderstood you below.   He asks why you don't believe the Twitter files are real.  You said, "Goes to the credibility of the author(s)."  So I'm thinking I understood and you are deflecting by saying you weren't saying "it's not real", when in fact, that is what you were saying.   See below screenshot. 

mspart

image.png.e269c29d649ce6b137b84033335478dd.png

If the national inquirer said aliens were running the post office, you would discount that because NI has a less than casual relationship with the truth.

Just like Project Veritas.

I have seen ZERO law enforcement actions that would lend credence to the naked assertion that Twitter perjured themselves in court.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

jross Big Brain

jross

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

If the national inquirer said aliens were running the post office, you would discount that because NI has a less than casual relationship with the truth.

Just like Project Veritas.

I have seen ZERO law enforcement actions that would lend credence to the naked assertion that Twitter perjured themselves in court.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

True at first about the NI!  But when I see the aliens take their human mask off on video and run away when confronted... I'm going to look past the NI being NI and pay attention to what the aliens did on video.  PV takes underhanded action to expose terrible behavior.  I wish they targeted the right as much as they do the left.  

I care a great deal more that censorship stops than I do whether there are consequences of possible perjury.

jross Big Brain

jross

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Lawsuits are the not the point.  They are already out there BTW -- well before this recent disclosure of direct evidence of behavior.    

Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, jross said:

Lawsuits are the not the point.  They are already out there BTW -- well before this recent disclosure of direct evidence of behavior.    

The only lawsuits regarding Twitter are for failure to abide by California employment law.

Post links to the lawsuits, please.

Edited by Mike Parrish
Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, jross said:

Here are a few.

There are more.

  • Trump (his track record for litigation is embarrassing)
  • Liberty Center with a single person lawsuit on the books since 2020 and going nowhere fast according to Pacer
  • This weirdo(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai)
  • That's not a lawsuit. That's a law that is almost certainly going to be ruled unconstitutional when it reaches the Fifth Circuit

If that's all you've got, then I don't see any danger to Big Tech and/or Social Media...

Mike Parrish Big Brain

Mike Parrish

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jross said:

I don't see these lawsuits going anywhere under the current law.  The law will change.

No, it won't.

Under what premise do you see legislation making it through a divided congress and then being approved by Joe Biden?

And if the law changes, these causes of action won't be able to be litigated under the newly revised law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

It's like you're just making shit up here.

BobDole NCAA All-American

BobDole

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, mspart said:

The fact that the FBI asked for the censoring and then it happened should not be a cause of concern for anyone, is that what you think?  I disagree.  It should be a cause of concern for everyone.   It was true information that the FBI asked to be squelched and Twitter obliged with no good reason as they admit in the Twitter files.   They did it based on no real criteria.   They did it because FBI said to and then they tried to justify it.  If this does not concern you, I'm wondering what would? 

mspart

So if someone is releasing highly secret information the FBI shouldn't ask for it to be removed? 

  • Fire 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...