Big Tech Assault on Free Speech

[OldBrownsFan]

 

[tiamat63]

14 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

 

 

LOL.  What a fucking dweeb.

 

This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB.  

[LogicIsForSquares]

27 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

 

This guy just discover the internet? I hope he gets buried under trolls who know they can get a rise out of a public figure.

[LogicIsForSquares]

14 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

LOL.  What a fucking dweeb.

 

This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB.  

I bet he cried and begged kids not to call him a nerd....only to be called a nerd two seconds later.

[OldBrownsFan]

17 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

LOL.  What a fucking dweeb.

 

This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB.  

"This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB"

Quite a bit of difference between TBB and FB, Google and Twitter....this is not about trolling or insulting but censorship.

[OldBrownsFan]

This would be a good first step:

"Most industries have some form of regulatory body that protects consumers and assists with complaints. These ombudsmen cover everything from telcos, to banking and even the NHS, with an independent team assisting in processing consumer queries. So why shouldn’t we have a similar process with tech businesses?

A watchdog would serve to scrutinise the powers of the big tech giants, adjust market power to allow competition to thrive, and demand greater transparency to build trust, resulting in a more positive online environment for all. We’ve seen that self-regulation hasn’t worked. A governing body that is able to implement suitable regulations that are sensible and fair would be the only solution to keep unfair practices in check."

https://www.techradar.com/news/why-its-high-time-we-regulated-big-tech

[FairHooker11]

w

18 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB"

Quite a bit of difference between TBB and FB, Google and Twitter....this is not about trolling or insulting but censorship.

yea - what I heard Nunes say was akin to getting punched and his arms are tied behind his back? 

no voice because of his being shadowbanned -  but twitter has NO problem with the onslaught of biased responses...

[tiamat63]

45 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"This is equivalent to being trolled and insulted on here, then suing TBB"

Quite a bit of difference between TBB and FB, Google and Twitter....this is not about trolling or insulting but censorship.

No, in this case it has nothing to do with censorship.  He's suing for slander and pointing out the multiple accounts trolling him.

Did...did you actually listen to what you posted?

edit:  Essentially he's crying because of parody accounts and critics online. 

double edit:

 

“As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes’ voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes’ investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing,” the complaint said.... 

 

Now keep in mind Nunes account has not been suspended or muted in anyway so he is welcomed to respond to said tweets.    

One tweet is from DevinNunes'Cow   (no need for explanation here)

""Devin's boots are full of manure. He's udder-ly worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison," reads one tweet from Devin Nunes' Cow."

 

So if you're allowed to sue over that, then I'll be real when I say the President is going to be in a world of financial hurt really fucking quickly with his twitter antics.

 

[LogicIsForSquares]

Haha this dork was crying over a Twitter account that uses cattle puns.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Nunes would put his head in an oven after a week on this forum. 

[OldBrownsFan]

3 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

No, in this case it has nothing to do with censorship.  He's suing for slander and pointing out the multiple accounts trolling him.

Did...did you actually listen to what you posted?

edit:  Essentially he's crying because of parody accounts and critics online. 

Shadow banning is just a more secretive form of censorship.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Just now, OldBrownsFan said:

Shadow banning is just a more secretive form of censorship.

On their free, privately owned website? Ghoolie got a lawsuit in the works?

[tiamat63]

16 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Shadow banning is just a more secretive form of censorship.

Only there is little to no evidence to back up this claim. It's a conspiracy theory in truth.  Even Nunes' and his followers on Twitter admit his content is fully accessible at his home page 24/7 and his tweets are visible to any and all of his followers.     

So to make clear - No Censorship and this is about slander. 

Public figures are subject to criticism and ridicule protected by law in this case. - So...  that lawsuit is DoA.

Now you move to - "Shadow banning"...   or more accurately, a conspiracy theory term Nunes' heard and is propagating. Even though his followers admit there has been zero restriction to content posted to his twitter provided you follow him.     

Sounds like he's mad that he isn't at the top of a recommend search result, in which case, neither am I.   Guess I should sue Google for that?

Are we about done here?

[LogicIsForSquares]

Nunes is also suing newspapers over slander.

[Clevfan4life]

hey didnt u fucktwats post a thread here just last week highlighting an AOC parody account? would it be in anyway shsoe or form possible fir one of u to show the smallest most infintisimal minutiae of principle and consistency? because every day u validate every toxic utterance ive written about u. 

[Clevfan4life]

2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

Are we about done here?

no. They will swim to another unrelated faux grievance

[OldBrownsFan]

2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Only there is little to no evidence to back up this claim. It's a conspiracy theory in truth.  Even Nunes' and his followers on Twitter admit his content is fully accessible at his home page 24/7 and his tweets are visible to any and all of his followers.     

So to make clear - No Censorship and this is about slander. 

Now you move to - "Shadow banning"...   or more accurately, a conspiracy theory term Nunes' heard and even his followers admit doesn't restrict ANY access to his tweets provided you follow him.  

Are we about done here?

Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite. 

"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."

Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:

 Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof

https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03

 

[tiamat63]

1 minute ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite. 

"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."

Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:

 Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof

https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03

 

Yes and his followers confirmed all content on his page (as he later did) is and has been completely visible. 

You're welcomed to go start a Twitter, follow the man and report back.  If he tweets something and it randomly goes missing (while being within the ToS) then you have an argument.  But if I go there right now, you can see all of his posts with zero restriction. 

So.... What exactly has been banned? The term is almost a contradiction in and of itself. 

 

[Clevfan4life]

7 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Nunes did not say his tweets were visible to any and all of his followers, he said the opposite. 

"look, they don't want to call it shadow banning, that's fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But the fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets."

Shadow banning is not just some conspiracy theory:

 Twitter Shadow Banned Me This Week & I Have the Proof

https://medium.com/@deathd0tcom/twitter-shadow-banned-me-this-week-i-have-the-proof-39a826ca6d03

 

i feel as if u lack a certain amt of core "tech" knowledge so what Tia is trying to convey to u may not be taking. So either read what Tia is saying to u and go verify it urself......or stfu. 

[OldBrownsFan]

1 minute ago, Clevfan4life said:

i feel as if u lack a certain amt of core "tech" knowledge so what Tia is trying to convey to u may not be taking. So either read what Tia is saying to u and go verify it urself......or stfu. 

I never claimed to be a tech genius and I don't figure you for one either but Nunes said people could not see his tweets...I put it in parenthesis..and you can take your stfu and put it where the sun don't shine. 

[tiamat63]

8 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I never claimed to be a tech genius and I don't figure you for one either but Nunes said people could not see his tweets...I put it in parenthesis..and you can take your stfu and put it where the sun don't shine. 

Nunes' seems to claim a lot of things. This one he had now back tracked on and clings to the phrase "shadow banning".  

Despite tweets responding to his own actually showing that the guy has limited knowledge of his own feed settings thus believing Twitter has "X" a user. 

So he clings to phrases he himself can't begin to fully explain without half contrived third party "help".

 

Example a -  

https://mobile.twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1126260968894472192

 

In short, the guy is a functional idiot with little technical saavy.

[OldBrownsFan]

16 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Yes and his followers confirmed all content on his page (as he later did) is and has been completely visible. 

You're welcomed to go start a Twitter, follow the man and report back.  If he tweets something and it randomly goes missing (while being within the ToS) then you have an argument.  But if I go there right now, you can see all of his posts with zero restriction. 

So.... What exactly has been banned? The term is almost a contradiction in and of itself. 

 

A couple things. I get these big tech companies are private enterprises. The simple answer to big tech companies discriminating against conservative voices is for conservatives to start their own Google, Twitter and Facebook. That is not so simple. I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral. It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way. 

[Clevfan4life]

9 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

Nunes' seems to claim a lot of things. This one he had now back tracked on and clings to the phrase "shadow banning".  

Despite tweets responding to his own actually showing that the guy has limited knowledge of his own feed settings thus believing Twitter has "X" a user. 

So he clings to phrases he himself can't begin to fully explain without half contrived third party "help".

 

Example a -  

https://mobile.twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1126260968894472192

 

In short, the guy is a functional idiot with little technical saavy.

 

if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?

do i have this down? 

[tiamat63]

13 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The simple answer 

That is not so simple.

 

which is it? Simple or not so simple?  

Is starting the company "simple"? No, hardly ever is.  But at least you have a vision of an idea. 

 

I want these companies to at least be honest and transparent in how they operate if they want to claim to be neutral.

They don't claim to be neutral. They claim to ban things violating their ToS. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

It is obvious they are not going to self regulate themselves properly or in a fair and neutral way. 

Again, they don't have to.  But this is based mostly in perception. 

For example: I'm lead to believe by the tone of this forum many democrats are skill-less freeloaders.   It would appear that if Twitter, it's founders and Devs are bias vs Republican view points-  it would stand to reason they are democrats showing that they're playing a high level game with a pretty solid corner on the market... While Not being skill-less freeloaders.  

 

In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".

Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.

Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories. 

Good night, Cleveland! 

[tiamat63]

9 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

 

if i go to nunes twitter feed, not being a twitter user myself....i cant see his feed right? and if i was a twitter user but didnt follow his nebbish ass...i still couldnt see it right? i would have to actually follow him to see his dumb shit right?

do i have this down? 

No. 

I don't have Twitter and his very public profile I can see (with responses) clear as day. 

[OldBrownsFan]

I have no doubt and there is enough evidence out there to show big tech discriminating against conservative voices. 

Just now, tiamat63 said:

In short, you want to feel like these companies are banning equal "lefties".

Let's be real, you'll never be satisfied with their response and even if a detailed release concerning number of accounts banned was presented - some type of excuse would be made at some point. Doctoring of results and what have you.

Why? Because you feel a way that is subjective and that cannot be dismissed rationally by the enterprise you're lead to distrust by such theories. 

Good night, Cleveland! 

In short simple fairness would suffice. 

[MLD Woody]

That's pathetic

 

Now you've got conservatives calling for regulation because people are mean to them?

You've got people agreeing with suing internet trolls... and those same people support Trump... The biggest troll there is. The guy that literally insults everyone he doesn't like. The guy that gained the support of internet trolls during the election.

 

But now you're soft and don't like the meanies online? 

Oh fuck off...

[MLD Woody]

"The homosexual lifestyle is evil and they're all sinners!"

"All Muslims are terrorists!"

"Everyone that follows me go attack this liberal!"

"Sandy Hook was a false flag!'

 

Tweets / accounts removed

 

 

"Big Tech is censoring conservative free speech!!!"

 

 

Bunch of dumb snowflakes

[OldBrownsFan]

Facebook censorship fast becoming an enemy of free expression for conservatives

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/facebook-censorship-fast-becoming-an-enemy-of-free-expression-for-conservatives

[Clevfan4life]

14 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

No. 

I don't have Twitter and his very public profile I can see (with responses) clear as day. 

are u fucking serious? so what exactly is the fucking problem then? wtf obf...seriously...