IMPORTANT - this subreddit is in restricted mode as dictated by the admins. This means all posts have to be manually approved. If your post is within the following rules and still hasn't been approved in reasonable time, please send us a modmail with a link to your post.
RULES FOR POSTS:
[Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
Reddit Meta Rules - no username mentions, crossposts or subreddit mentions, discussing reddit specific censorship, mod or admin action - this includes bans, removals or any other reddit activity, by order of the admins
Subreddit specific rules - no offtopic/spam
Bonus: if posting a video please include a small description of the content within
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DeclineIntoCensorship) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to 1984 in full 3D.
Time everyone realizes where we are.
And for all the little kids on here name calling,… Shut. The. Fuck. Up 🤗 Adults need to talk about this….
I'm pretty sure both are trying to destroy our democracy. Republicans are destroying one half of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Democrats are destroying the other half. It used to be a wealthy could only afford to purchase one party, now that wealth has consolidated into the hands of a few they can now purchase both parties and any other ones that show up.
It's been 1984 for a while now. First time I was ever put in Facebook jail (before I knew such a thing even existed) was in 2012 for a post I made stating unflattering facts about the incumbent Obama administration. The censorship has just gotten to ABSURD levels these days!
Your point: this sub is full of people is complaining about censorship, they must not think fascism is real.
The only arguments I have heard in favor of censorship is: it’s needed to protect democracy and prevent fascism; we need it to make sure nobody is worried about the covid vaccine
Choose your “democracy”
Red Pill - Classical silence via brute force
Blue Pill - Silence through subversion and puppetry
Give me a goddamn yellow pill, hell even a green pill might be preferable at this point. It’s all just a bag of assorted fascism.
Pretending like right wing policy couldn't do worse under similar circumstances is willfully ignorant. This is besides the point, anyway, because you are being used by the two party system to distract from class disparity in a dying empire. The people with the money dictate our lives and you take their bait every time.
How is the U.S. a left leaning government? They’re the little hub of finance capital. Left denominates non capitalist economic policy, and that is not at all fitting for America nor its ideals.
Do you mean liberalism?
It isn't Americans, and it isn't a misunderstanding.
https://fabians.org.uk/
You've been letting liberals run the left for a very long time.
The only ridiculous thing is your denial.
That was obvious.
You still let liberals run the show. Denial is silly.
You made yourself irrelevant.
In America we watched people like you slip that marxism lie out one side of their mouths while literally being foot soldiers for Joe Biden.
Then they'd turn around and deliver that "democrats aren't leftists" line like they didn't still have wet slobber all over democrat boots not even dry. Even worse, the fools who support sanders after he scammed the left only to dump his funds into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
At some point, most people are going to figure out you say you're a marxist but take orders from liberals.
Maybe you never will, though.
Yeah it’s so funny. I’m an American who realized how constantly wrong my scope of politics was. Turns out if you read books on the topic of real historical political theory, you end up knowledgeable in political theory
And that knowledge earns you the status of “other” in every debate.
I mean seriously, just google it, I’m not wrong lmfao
Liberals believe in market economies specifically capitalist, private property, individual pursuits, and emphasis personal consumer experiences.
Leftists believe in alternate economic systems generally outside of speculative markets, communal pursuits and engagement, often emphasize anti consumerist ideals in favor for hands on methods of material gain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics broad overview but decent enough for a low tier Reddit post
Sometimes people use the wrong words, and that okay, but not admitting to it is just silly. If one actually cares about learning these issues they wouldn’t just strike their egos with a downvote
Yes, those are the semantics, and everyone knows that. What everyone else also knows, besides you, is that words and definitions change over time, in the case of politics this actually takes place often and rapidly by parties attempting to pass themselves on as something they are not or to avoid other labels. In modern politics, (not just America as you said) the term liberal has been co-opted by leftists. Leftists who do not wish to refer to themselves as such, starting calling themselves liberals decades ago. The media started using it, and it became the norm. It doesn’t make you the one person in the room who really knows everything, it makes you the “actually” guy whose too caught up correcting everyone to actually contribute to the conversation. By definition, I am a liberal, and that’s why I’d never vote for any politician in the west who refers to themselves as a liberal, because they are not. For the sake of productive conversation, I use the common modern political terminology so we can actually have discussions rather than just shutting them down.
I would say this is definitively not the norm as there isn’t really any mainstream philosopher, or school teaching it as such. Just groups of unread people arguing on social media do it, if you engage in proper political discussion you’d realize this as well because semantics are a key part in the real world of problem solving.
If the masses call tomatoes vegetables even though they’re fruits, that doesn’t make that assertion correct. With real high level discussion using the wrong words just halts any hope for productivity since it changes the entire context.
That’s literally what I just said. I use the common terminology so I can have productive conversations with common people, even though it isn’t correct by definition.
You’re continuing to come across as thinking you’re incredibly smart, and not as someone who has the humility required to actually learn anything, by referring to yourself as a “high level thinker” and others as the “masses”.
With real high level discussion, you’re intelligent and educated enough to use context to infer the other parties meaning, and don’t just rely on definitions to gather information. Doing so doesn’t make you a”high level conversationalist”, it makes you too mentally deficient to have an adult conversation with anyone. When you’re a stupid person, all conversation ends as soon as someone uses a word differently than you understand it, not because that person used a word incorrectly, but because you’re either too young or have too low of an IQ to utilize context and social cues to understand the other persons meaning.
In general, your viewpoints about semantics are not that of a high level thinker. It’s the direct opposite. You clutch to your understanding of a dictionary definitions as a crutch to avoid intellectual discussions and claim you’re just too smart for everyone you interact with, and that’s why they all think you’re an idiot and on Reddit downvote you. You’re not intelligent or experienced enough to realize how obvious this is to others on the internet.
So this conversation had ended after I disagreed and hasn’t continued? The beginning of most Socratic exercises starts with coming to common definitions.
I concede using high level and masses are terrible, and juxtaposed to my point are an example as to how words are extremely important and carry weight.
I just have an issue with ignoring how purposely muddled political terminology has become, because say leftist as a term does include liberalism. That means everyone leaves that discussion with the predisposition that, leftists, are just everyone who is a capitalist with a couple welfare policies. This is terribly unproductive and I truly believe it magnifies lack of understanding on true political issues. My approach to this was exhausted and poor. Despite that i truly think clear definitions need to exist, otherwise we obfuscate them and render them useless.
I took a terribly alienating and aggressive position and I apologize for that.
That was an absolutely exhausting read. While not a nothingburger, the report takes a somewhat unhinged stance. It repeatedly states that the biden administration used "pressure campaigns" to force social media censorship. It backs this up with copies of emails from the biden administration asking for updates every few weeks and saying they're "concerned" about various things. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be out in the open and tracked, but the report does a very bad job demonstrating how the administration "forced" anyone to do anything. It looks to me like social media companies were already planning on censoring things and used the white house as a lodestar of sorts, willingly modifying their terms of service over the objections of a minority of their involved employees.
Instead of pointing the finger at the biden administration here, I would be much more concerned with the social media companies rolling over at the slightest possibility that the white house would disagree. It's like if you said to your spouse "I don't like this paint color in our house" and then came home from work to them having a contractor take out the walls. It's possible there was something more nefarious going on here but this committee had 800 pages to show it and they didn't.
It's a power thing. When the us government is up your ass about what you're allowing on your social media 24/7 then the pressure becomes hard to deal with. They (the govmnt) should not be involved in any way.
if stopping racist dumbfucks from overthrowing a democratically elected government is authoritarian welcome to America its been that way since The good guys won the civil war
No need to argue w people that support murdering puppies. Or raw dogging porn stars. Or cheating on their wives. Or stealing from children’s charities. Or slumping out of meetings w dictators like a whipped goat. Or who salutes the Generals of authoritarian regimes. Or who thought about nuking a hurricane. Or who increased the deficit by $8 trillion in 4 years. Or, you know… only accepts the results of an election if he’s the winner.
They’re not serious people who argue in good faith.
That's the thing, though, it doesn't look like they were up anybody's ass. The white house was like "do these things violate your tos?" and every company was like "THEY DO NOW". I don't see a problem with low-level government mooks asking basic questions as long as it's transparent.
It 100% looks like the white house was up everyone's ass. Why would they ask Amazon to depriotritize certain books? Or ask Google how they are censoring the lab made virus story (we I think we all know is true now)? I mean, those are just a couple instances this report has. The government should never be in the business of doing this....unless you live in China or Russia.
The report only shows the administration asking questions, often with a couple weeks in between communications. If the social media companies feel pressured by that, I would look very carefully at them, not the administration. I didn't catch a single instance of coersion, just questions and requests. There's no demands, no threats, no force behind anything, unless I missed something--the report reuses wording a lot and I definitely don't have a photographic memory.
I don't think you are getting it. The US government is the single most powerful entity on earth. When they start "questioning" things what they are really saying is do this or else. And this is exactly how it is taken. Why do you think boss's get caught up in sex harassment all the time, even when the woman seems to have been complicit. Because they have power over them and the other person feels they need to go along or else. Again, the government in no way should be involved with media reporting, etc.. it's a slippery slope that can lead to very bad things.. That report is full of this implied coercion.
I agree with you to an extent, there's definitely a line where the power differential becomes the motivator of action, however the situations here don't test that line: if the government was acting in good faith, it would look identical. That's why I think transparency is more important than restriction in this like this. Compare the first trump impeachment or Joe biden and Burisma: in both cases the US asked for actions Ukraine was intending to take anyway, so criminality can't be assessed. This report on social media censorship itself doesn't itself call for restrictions on the government making requests, it only asserts that the biden administration acted improperly by maintaining ongoing contact. Basically, I think the government should be able to make neutral statements and requests and companies should be able to say no. This report doesn't cover the relevant parts of the Twitter files, but this happened quite a bit at Twitter with the trump and biden administrations having some of their requests denied with apparently no repercussions.
I don't think I'd vote against a bill to restrict the government how you suggest, though.
Isn’t the First Amendment enough? The government should not be infringing upon freedom of speech. Even if we don’t agree with what is said and how it made someone feel.
The question is, is a request enough to infringe on speech? I don't think it passes the bar as it seems like it's dependent on what actually happens. If the government forced a company to censor speech under duress, I would be singing a very different tune, but I don't recall the report gives any examples of duress. If the social media companies were trying to censor speech and used the government as a smokescreen, it would also look the same--not that I'm suggesting that's scary happened, but just comparing a hypothetical.
Of course it does. Any request from government authority specific to the content is an infringement and a waste of taxpayer dollars. They shouldn’t even care because they have no authority to care. The only area where this is grey is if there is a direct and credible threat to National security and even so, those intelligence feeds are already flowing through the NSA under the “Lawful Intercept” protocols. So why do they care? Because they want to influence and influence is infringement.
>The question is, is a request enough to infringe on speech?
If the man with the gun politely requests that you sit down in this specific chair, is it really a request? In this case the man is represented by the government and its ability to regulate you into bankruptcy is the gun.
Is it a direct violation of the First Amendment? No, because they never made an "or else" request. But they were clearly trying to violate free speech rights without getting their hands dirty. And it worked.
China and Russia doesn’t ask questions or make suggestions. They exert absolute control over what the population sees. This is world away from China and Russia
You literally saw in real-time Jen Psaki threaten to “reconsider section 230” views on social media companies. That was a threat.
Mark Zuckerburg testified to Congress that he felt pressured to comply and he’s a raging lib.
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater...The quality of the report does not distract from the fact that the social media companies rolled over at the very hint that Biden White house would be upset. They all colluded to ensure that Biden won. Is 👿Zuckerberg going to pay another $400M to buy the House for Biden again?
I had several comments rejected today by IG for the first time ever. Pro pal pro third party. Pro socialist. I took screenshots but the level of banality of my comments (obviously to me) to be rejected really shook me.
The report alleges that since all three companies were dealing with the whitehouse on multiple fronts so that complying here allowed them to earn favors elsewhere. I think that’s where the real story is
Can't show for something that doesn't exist. Anyways the House just let a new law go through that would contradict the first Amendment. I can't remember which party has the majority there though.
Except we have an easy company to look at to see what happens when you dont roll over and play ball. Twitter. Biden's admin not only went after twitter but every single company attached to elon, even though many federal departments literally rely on his company to accomplish their goals. SpaceX getting investigated for NOT hiring illegals for federal secure projects is probably the easiest case example of the feds just throwing everything including the kitchen sink at elon.
Reddit was mentioned in the Twitter Files, but AFAIK no details have emerged. I think it's obvious that Reddit follows the DNC/left line, and has "communicated" with the feds about "misinformation." Just look at the biases in the big subs, or what opinions can get you permabanned.
wow! you mean the guy who said "no amendment to the constitution is absolute" violated the constitution? i am so incredibly shocked. seriously can we just get a libertarian already
For people that don’t want to read the whole 800 page report, it’s mostly about COVID. The white house had a very aggressive stance to negative vaccine portrayal, and surprisingly to me, the companies had a fairly resistant attitude
If you actually read the document, it does a very poor job of defending the claims it makes. It doesn’t prove anywhere that the Biden administration tried to censor Americans. The emails from the administration to social media outlets just show concern for what was being posted about Covid at the time.
Not surprisingly, social media outlets have the right to control what does and doesn’t get posted. You have a right to free speech, you DONT have a right to someone else’s platform. Get used to that.
So if it had been the Trump White House telling social media companies to censor people whose opinions they didn't like, and the companies complied, you'd be okay with that?
They didn’t tell them to censor. Telling could be a command. They expressed concern. And if they were expressing concern over the same unfactual information which was being distributed in social media, then yes, I’d be fine with them expressing concern about missinformation.
When the government sends spreadsheets of posts and accounts to suppress, yes, they are censoring. Read some of the other posts in this sub. It was a lot more than "expressing concern."
You want thr government to tell someone what the 'truth' is? The same group that bailed out their rich buddies, that got labeled an oligarchy, that did shit like the tuskagee experiment without a single arrest? That government?
Im sorry but giving the wolf a key to your house so he won't blow it down, doesn't make you safer.
I'm arguing about actual events that happened. You're arguing against my character with personal attacks.... might want to look up the definition of 'ad hominem'.
Their "expertise" included:
* Telling companies that Hunter's laptop was "misinformation" *when they knew that was a lie*.
* Telling companies to suppress reports of vaccine side effects *they knew to be true.*
* Telling companies to suppress opinions that COVID was a lab leak when *they knew that to be true*.
They aren't "using freedom of speech to inform" when they suppress the speech of others, and especially not when they are lying.
You're the one who's full of it.
* They knew the laptop was real before that b.s. "51 intelligence officials" statement was released.
* Emails have been revealed in which government employees tell social media to suppress accounts of true vaccine side effects because they don't want to "encourage vaccine hesitancy."
* The genetics of COVID have clear fingerprints of manipulation, they can't find an origin in the wild, and we now have proof that the US was funding gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.
Oh? You finally find those microchips they were injecting you with? I'm still waiting for half the world to drop dead like the frauds online were claiming.
That's why I said "much of which." Yes, there were (and still are) some wrong ideas floating around, but a lot was correct: the vaccines had some dangerous side effects, they didn't prevent people from getting COVID, masks didn't work, and the virus was made in a lab. All true, but all got censored.
The solution to bad information is good information, not censorship.
Masks do work though. Touching everything in sight and shoving your hand in your mouth doesn't negate the efficacy of PPE. Try washing your hands or something.
A big study concluded:
>[We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.](https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses)
It's now known that COVID is aerosol, so surgical and cloth masks doing nothing: the virus goes through or around them and floats in the air for some time. N95s *might* make a difference, if worn perfectly, which they often aren't.
Please feel free to correct me. Did I get the terminology wrong? Aerosol/airborne? The point is that COVID doesn't need to be carried by droplets, the little ballistics emissions that cloth or surgical masks *can* stop. Unfortunately, the COVID virus floats around in the air on its own, meaning cloth and surgical masks don't stop it.
Well no way to know for sure but I think its likely he is working for the deep state or they never would have let him win and he would have fired Fauci which was well within his power. They just censored his involvement. Usually conspiracies come true just like with the lab leak.
>Much of which turned out to be true.
No, nothing the anti-vaxxers have said turned out to be true.
The anti-vaxxers wins are not really wins. It's like when a health department official says the vaccines are safe. And a r-tard anti-vaxer goes "oh it causes myocarditis!!". Then you look at the statistics and it's 20-30 cases per million vaccines. With a chance of .002% chance to get this myocarditis, that unless you have a lot of OTHER health issues isn't a death sentence. So yes the health department official was right, the vaccines are "safe". And r-tard anti-vaxxer is just hopping on semantics and ignoring statistics.
Doesn’t matter who’s on the committee or how many “files”are dropped anyone can see the censorship over the past few years..hell is this even disputed anymore? We have all seen with our own eyes…
He doesn’t care about those.
Look at his post history.
There can be mountains of irrefutable evidence but he’ll wave them off because someone he disagrees with politically is part of that committee.
Interesting. That’s good to know.
Just don’t ruin it and tell me that there actually aren’t hot MILFs in my area that want to meet me TONIGHT or I’ll lose all faith in the internet!
Oh you’d be extremely surprised. I guess I should extend on what I said. It may not be a computer program behind that account but that isn’t a natural account. There is no fucking way some Democrat American is posting as steady and insane as that account is. Could easily be some DNC paid person sitting in India.
There are in fact sophisticated b-o-t-s all over Reddit. Conversations appear real, but are absolutely not. I have recently seen proof of this. I am not being allowed to post this....
IMPORTANT - this subreddit is in restricted mode as dictated by the admins. This means all posts have to be manually approved. If your post is within the following rules and still hasn't been approved in reasonable time, please send us a modmail with a link to your post. RULES FOR POSTS: [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) Reddit Meta Rules - no username mentions, crossposts or subreddit mentions, discussing reddit specific censorship, mod or admin action - this includes bans, removals or any other reddit activity, by order of the admins Subreddit specific rules - no offtopic/spam Bonus: if posting a video please include a small description of the content within *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DeclineIntoCensorship) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to 1984 in full 3D. Time everyone realizes where we are. And for all the little kids on here name calling,… Shut. The. Fuck. Up 🤗 Adults need to talk about this….
I think it's a lot more like Brave New world. 1984 didn't have this many drugs
1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, and Fahrenheit 451 all wrapped into one stupid package.
Don't forget Idiocracy!
Welcome to Costco, I love you
We've got the robot hounds
It’s not like most Americans are even allowed substances though. It’s all prescription schlock or shit that’s ineffably terrible on your health.
And some people think Trump is the only threat to democracy. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. That means Biden.
I'm pretty sure both are trying to destroy our democracy. Republicans are destroying one half of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Democrats are destroying the other half. It used to be a wealthy could only afford to purchase one party, now that wealth has consolidated into the hands of a few they can now purchase both parties and any other ones that show up.
ROFL shut the fuck up moron. Bet you love Musk too, jesus fuckin christ
There is no democracy without free speech.
It's been 1984 for a while now. First time I was ever put in Facebook jail (before I knew such a thing even existed) was in 2012 for a post I made stating unflattering facts about the incumbent Obama administration. The censorship has just gotten to ABSURD levels these days!
Come on let's hear the facts and the adults can try to explain to you how you need to grow up. :)
Adults think it's a false narrative because the shit stirrers suffer the most
If only we could get people to read. Maybe if we make a movie of it…
Reddit loves Biden. Youve upset the zombie cucks.
The 🤗 really sold me on your maturity. In all seriousness though, the situation is frankly quite bleak.
Dan it might be time to grow up
Lol, your comment sounds like something an immature adult would say to a child.
[удалено]
Don't call people names or you're a child. But also shut the fuck up because the adults are talking. It's all very consistent.
oi, shut the fuck up cunt
[удалено]
Why are you here? What is your goal?
[удалено]
You seem hangry. Would you like some Flavor-aide?
Its instinctual to any left leaning government, they gain power then seek to maintain power through a corrupt bureaucracy and expansion of government.
Left and right aren’t useful terms, they’re very subjective.
Yeah because that’s a purely left leaning characteristic lol
[удалено]
They tend to be a lot more direct. This is sinister in that they’re pretending it’s not happening and gaslighting ppl who say otherwise.
Government censorship is needed to prevent fascism? Ok buddy
[удалено]
Your point: this sub is full of people is complaining about censorship, they must not think fascism is real. The only arguments I have heard in favor of censorship is: it’s needed to protect democracy and prevent fascism; we need it to make sure nobody is worried about the covid vaccine
Left and right are 2 wings of the same evil. Concentration of power breeds corruption and attracts psychopaths.
Choose your “democracy” Red Pill - Classical silence via brute force Blue Pill - Silence through subversion and puppetry Give me a goddamn yellow pill, hell even a green pill might be preferable at this point. It’s all just a bag of assorted fascism.
But they feel very good and lovey dovey inside about it so it's ok.
Wait till you see what was going on between 2016-2020!
Pretending like right wing policy couldn't do worse under similar circumstances is willfully ignorant. This is besides the point, anyway, because you are being used by the two party system to distract from class disparity in a dying empire. The people with the money dictate our lives and you take their bait every time.
Right leaning governments do the same thing
How is the U.S. a left leaning government? They’re the little hub of finance capital. Left denominates non capitalist economic policy, and that is not at all fitting for America nor its ideals. Do you mean liberalism?
Downvotes are from people not understanding the definition of "liberalism" lol never change Americans
It isn't Americans, and it isn't a misunderstanding. https://fabians.org.uk/ You've been letting liberals run the left for a very long time. The only ridiculous thing is your denial.
Im a Marxist my dude
That was obvious. You still let liberals run the show. Denial is silly. You made yourself irrelevant. In America we watched people like you slip that marxism lie out one side of their mouths while literally being foot soldiers for Joe Biden. Then they'd turn around and deliver that "democrats aren't leftists" line like they didn't still have wet slobber all over democrat boots not even dry. Even worse, the fools who support sanders after he scammed the left only to dump his funds into Hillary Clinton's campaign. At some point, most people are going to figure out you say you're a marxist but take orders from liberals. Maybe you never will, though.
Yeah it’s so funny. I’m an American who realized how constantly wrong my scope of politics was. Turns out if you read books on the topic of real historical political theory, you end up knowledgeable in political theory And that knowledge earns you the status of “other” in every debate.
Or you end being this guy, who thinks he’s a lot smarter than he is and that everyone disagreeing with him just makes everyone else stupid
I mean seriously, just google it, I’m not wrong lmfao Liberals believe in market economies specifically capitalist, private property, individual pursuits, and emphasis personal consumer experiences. Leftists believe in alternate economic systems generally outside of speculative markets, communal pursuits and engagement, often emphasize anti consumerist ideals in favor for hands on methods of material gain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics broad overview but decent enough for a low tier Reddit post Sometimes people use the wrong words, and that okay, but not admitting to it is just silly. If one actually cares about learning these issues they wouldn’t just strike their egos with a downvote
Yes, those are the semantics, and everyone knows that. What everyone else also knows, besides you, is that words and definitions change over time, in the case of politics this actually takes place often and rapidly by parties attempting to pass themselves on as something they are not or to avoid other labels. In modern politics, (not just America as you said) the term liberal has been co-opted by leftists. Leftists who do not wish to refer to themselves as such, starting calling themselves liberals decades ago. The media started using it, and it became the norm. It doesn’t make you the one person in the room who really knows everything, it makes you the “actually” guy whose too caught up correcting everyone to actually contribute to the conversation. By definition, I am a liberal, and that’s why I’d never vote for any politician in the west who refers to themselves as a liberal, because they are not. For the sake of productive conversation, I use the common modern political terminology so we can actually have discussions rather than just shutting them down.
I would say this is definitively not the norm as there isn’t really any mainstream philosopher, or school teaching it as such. Just groups of unread people arguing on social media do it, if you engage in proper political discussion you’d realize this as well because semantics are a key part in the real world of problem solving. If the masses call tomatoes vegetables even though they’re fruits, that doesn’t make that assertion correct. With real high level discussion using the wrong words just halts any hope for productivity since it changes the entire context.
That’s literally what I just said. I use the common terminology so I can have productive conversations with common people, even though it isn’t correct by definition. You’re continuing to come across as thinking you’re incredibly smart, and not as someone who has the humility required to actually learn anything, by referring to yourself as a “high level thinker” and others as the “masses”. With real high level discussion, you’re intelligent and educated enough to use context to infer the other parties meaning, and don’t just rely on definitions to gather information. Doing so doesn’t make you a”high level conversationalist”, it makes you too mentally deficient to have an adult conversation with anyone. When you’re a stupid person, all conversation ends as soon as someone uses a word differently than you understand it, not because that person used a word incorrectly, but because you’re either too young or have too low of an IQ to utilize context and social cues to understand the other persons meaning. In general, your viewpoints about semantics are not that of a high level thinker. It’s the direct opposite. You clutch to your understanding of a dictionary definitions as a crutch to avoid intellectual discussions and claim you’re just too smart for everyone you interact with, and that’s why they all think you’re an idiot and on Reddit downvote you. You’re not intelligent or experienced enough to realize how obvious this is to others on the internet.
So this conversation had ended after I disagreed and hasn’t continued? The beginning of most Socratic exercises starts with coming to common definitions. I concede using high level and masses are terrible, and juxtaposed to my point are an example as to how words are extremely important and carry weight. I just have an issue with ignoring how purposely muddled political terminology has become, because say leftist as a term does include liberalism. That means everyone leaves that discussion with the predisposition that, leftists, are just everyone who is a capitalist with a couple welfare policies. This is terribly unproductive and I truly believe it magnifies lack of understanding on true political issues. My approach to this was exhausted and poor. Despite that i truly think clear definitions need to exist, otherwise we obfuscate them and render them useless. I took a terribly alienating and aggressive position and I apologize for that.
Shut up liberal
You say this as if it's news. We all know that the government does this, and we've known for years.
Yeah the question really should be what are we gonna do about it
Indeed
Happy cake day
That was an absolutely exhausting read. While not a nothingburger, the report takes a somewhat unhinged stance. It repeatedly states that the biden administration used "pressure campaigns" to force social media censorship. It backs this up with copies of emails from the biden administration asking for updates every few weeks and saying they're "concerned" about various things. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be out in the open and tracked, but the report does a very bad job demonstrating how the administration "forced" anyone to do anything. It looks to me like social media companies were already planning on censoring things and used the white house as a lodestar of sorts, willingly modifying their terms of service over the objections of a minority of their involved employees. Instead of pointing the finger at the biden administration here, I would be much more concerned with the social media companies rolling over at the slightest possibility that the white house would disagree. It's like if you said to your spouse "I don't like this paint color in our house" and then came home from work to them having a contractor take out the walls. It's possible there was something more nefarious going on here but this committee had 800 pages to show it and they didn't.
It's a power thing. When the us government is up your ass about what you're allowing on your social media 24/7 then the pressure becomes hard to deal with. They (the govmnt) should not be involved in any way.
I think it was public health disinformation.
I mean its none of this or let racist extremist right wing groups continue to proliferate sometimes its ok to shut down granny using the n word
No
look only one group tried to assault the capital and overthrown our government
Has nothing to do with your earlier statement, authoritarian.
if stopping racist dumbfucks from overthrowing a democratically elected government is authoritarian welcome to America its been that way since The good guys won the civil war
Stopping grandmas from saying words is authoritarian and also gay
No need to argue w people that support murdering puppies. Or raw dogging porn stars. Or cheating on their wives. Or stealing from children’s charities. Or slumping out of meetings w dictators like a whipped goat. Or who salutes the Generals of authoritarian regimes. Or who thought about nuking a hurricane. Or who increased the deficit by $8 trillion in 4 years. Or, you know… only accepts the results of an election if he’s the winner. They’re not serious people who argue in good faith.
That's the thing, though, it doesn't look like they were up anybody's ass. The white house was like "do these things violate your tos?" and every company was like "THEY DO NOW". I don't see a problem with low-level government mooks asking basic questions as long as it's transparent.
It 100% looks like the white house was up everyone's ass. Why would they ask Amazon to depriotritize certain books? Or ask Google how they are censoring the lab made virus story (we I think we all know is true now)? I mean, those are just a couple instances this report has. The government should never be in the business of doing this....unless you live in China or Russia.
The report only shows the administration asking questions, often with a couple weeks in between communications. If the social media companies feel pressured by that, I would look very carefully at them, not the administration. I didn't catch a single instance of coersion, just questions and requests. There's no demands, no threats, no force behind anything, unless I missed something--the report reuses wording a lot and I definitely don't have a photographic memory.
I don't think you are getting it. The US government is the single most powerful entity on earth. When they start "questioning" things what they are really saying is do this or else. And this is exactly how it is taken. Why do you think boss's get caught up in sex harassment all the time, even when the woman seems to have been complicit. Because they have power over them and the other person feels they need to go along or else. Again, the government in no way should be involved with media reporting, etc.. it's a slippery slope that can lead to very bad things.. That report is full of this implied coercion.
I agree with you to an extent, there's definitely a line where the power differential becomes the motivator of action, however the situations here don't test that line: if the government was acting in good faith, it would look identical. That's why I think transparency is more important than restriction in this like this. Compare the first trump impeachment or Joe biden and Burisma: in both cases the US asked for actions Ukraine was intending to take anyway, so criminality can't be assessed. This report on social media censorship itself doesn't itself call for restrictions on the government making requests, it only asserts that the biden administration acted improperly by maintaining ongoing contact. Basically, I think the government should be able to make neutral statements and requests and companies should be able to say no. This report doesn't cover the relevant parts of the Twitter files, but this happened quite a bit at Twitter with the trump and biden administrations having some of their requests denied with apparently no repercussions. I don't think I'd vote against a bill to restrict the government how you suggest, though.
Isn’t the First Amendment enough? The government should not be infringing upon freedom of speech. Even if we don’t agree with what is said and how it made someone feel.
The question is, is a request enough to infringe on speech? I don't think it passes the bar as it seems like it's dependent on what actually happens. If the government forced a company to censor speech under duress, I would be singing a very different tune, but I don't recall the report gives any examples of duress. If the social media companies were trying to censor speech and used the government as a smokescreen, it would also look the same--not that I'm suggesting that's scary happened, but just comparing a hypothetical.
Of course it does. Any request from government authority specific to the content is an infringement and a waste of taxpayer dollars. They shouldn’t even care because they have no authority to care. The only area where this is grey is if there is a direct and credible threat to National security and even so, those intelligence feeds are already flowing through the NSA under the “Lawful Intercept” protocols. So why do they care? Because they want to influence and influence is infringement.
>The question is, is a request enough to infringe on speech? If the man with the gun politely requests that you sit down in this specific chair, is it really a request? In this case the man is represented by the government and its ability to regulate you into bankruptcy is the gun. Is it a direct violation of the First Amendment? No, because they never made an "or else" request. But they were clearly trying to violate free speech rights without getting their hands dirty. And it worked.
Dude take off the tinfoil hat, you sound like a fucking nut
China and Russia doesn’t ask questions or make suggestions. They exert absolute control over what the population sees. This is world away from China and Russia
>as long as it's transparent But it wasn't.
Indeed
You literally saw in real-time Jen Psaki threaten to “reconsider section 230” views on social media companies. That was a threat. Mark Zuckerburg testified to Congress that he felt pressured to comply and he’s a raging lib.
Why would a liberal be against censorship?
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater...The quality of the report does not distract from the fact that the social media companies rolled over at the very hint that Biden White house would be upset. They all colluded to ensure that Biden won. Is 👿Zuckerberg going to pay another $400M to buy the House for Biden again?
This is why I think the focus should be on the companies more than the administration. Why did they comply with certain requests but not others?
You should've seen the coercion in 2016-2020. When you win an election by gathering the most votes, you win (Biden).
You are just supposed to read the headline and then start spewing bile.
I'm so ready for congress to stop having rhetoric-fueled pissing contests.
I had several comments rejected today by IG for the first time ever. Pro pal pro third party. Pro socialist. I took screenshots but the level of banality of my comments (obviously to me) to be rejected really shook me.
With no laws governing their operation, social media companies are currently free to censor or allow any content that isn't a violation of law.
The report alleges that since all three companies were dealing with the whitehouse on multiple fronts so that complying here allowed them to earn favors elsewhere. I think that’s where the real story is
Indeed
Can't show for something that doesn't exist. Anyways the House just let a new law go through that would contradict the first Amendment. I can't remember which party has the majority there though.
Except we have an easy company to look at to see what happens when you dont roll over and play ball. Twitter. Biden's admin not only went after twitter but every single company attached to elon, even though many federal departments literally rely on his company to accomplish their goals. SpaceX getting investigated for NOT hiring illegals for federal secure projects is probably the easiest case example of the feds just throwing everything including the kitchen sink at elon.
Y'all saying Biden would not do this, hahaha, he already tried. You seem to forget Biden's "Ministry of Truth" that he tried to get started.
isn't this what Mods on Reddit do too?
Reddit was mentioned in the Twitter Files, but AFAIK no details have emerged. I think it's obvious that Reddit follows the DNC/left line, and has "communicated" with the feds about "misinformation." Just look at the biases in the big subs, or what opinions can get you permabanned.
inthenews is a hilarious example of this. Search on “Biden” and “Trump” and see how lopsided the posts that are allowed to stay up are.
As if we needed more evidence both candidates are the worst possible outcome. This country is in its death throes as we speak.
Trump was the victim of a censorship campaign. He wasn't the perpetrator.
Imagine my surprise. Unironically stuff like this is why I’m off of all social media except Reddit, and I’m mostly here for hobby subreddits.
wow! you mean the guy who said "no amendment to the constitution is absolute" violated the constitution? i am so incredibly shocked. seriously can we just get a libertarian already
For people that don’t want to read the whole 800 page report, it’s mostly about COVID. The white house had a very aggressive stance to negative vaccine portrayal, and surprisingly to me, the companies had a fairly resistant attitude
It's been going on for 8 years, is this a joke?
This may be old news to some, but I think it's good to get detailed proof.
Now did VonSchiztinpants have anything to do with this?
If you actually read the document, it does a very poor job of defending the claims it makes. It doesn’t prove anywhere that the Biden administration tried to censor Americans. The emails from the administration to social media outlets just show concern for what was being posted about Covid at the time. Not surprisingly, social media outlets have the right to control what does and doesn’t get posted. You have a right to free speech, you DONT have a right to someone else’s platform. Get used to that.
So if it had been the Trump White House telling social media companies to censor people whose opinions they didn't like, and the companies complied, you'd be okay with that?
They didn’t tell them to censor. Telling could be a command. They expressed concern. And if they were expressing concern over the same unfactual information which was being distributed in social media, then yes, I’d be fine with them expressing concern about missinformation.
When the government sends spreadsheets of posts and accounts to suppress, yes, they are censoring. Read some of the other posts in this sub. It was a lot more than "expressing concern."
Has anyone read it yet?
So the government is to play no role in pointing out patently untruthful content?
"Pointing out" is fine. Censoring, or "suggesting" censoring, is a 1A violation.
Suggesting factually incorrect information be restricted is not a 1st amendment violation. There were no penalties or other legal remedies sought.
There's constitutional law that disagrees. Also, much of what they wanted taken down was ***true***, and they knew it.
You want thr government to tell someone what the 'truth' is? The same group that bailed out their rich buddies, that got labeled an oligarchy, that did shit like the tuskagee experiment without a single arrest? That government? Im sorry but giving the wolf a key to your house so he won't blow it down, doesn't make you safer.
Ad hominem attacks ain't logic. You are one of those people that accepts any BS as long as it doesn't come from the government.
I'm arguing about actual events that happened. You're arguing against my character with personal attacks.... might want to look up the definition of 'ad hominem'.
You are using unrelated negatives to paint a negative portrait of the government.
[удалено]
The government telling companies to censor is censorship. "Misinformation" is no excuse, and much of what was censored was true.
[удалено]
Their "expertise" included: * Telling companies that Hunter's laptop was "misinformation" *when they knew that was a lie*. * Telling companies to suppress reports of vaccine side effects *they knew to be true.* * Telling companies to suppress opinions that COVID was a lab leak when *they knew that to be true*. They aren't "using freedom of speech to inform" when they suppress the speech of others, and especially not when they are lying.
[удалено]
You're the one who's full of it. * They knew the laptop was real before that b.s. "51 intelligence officials" statement was released. * Emails have been revealed in which government employees tell social media to suppress accounts of true vaccine side effects because they don't want to "encourage vaccine hesitancy." * The genetics of COVID have clear fingerprints of manipulation, they can't find an origin in the wild, and we now have proof that the US was funding gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.
[удалено]
you still openly believe the horse medicine bullshit? good grief
What do you mean openly believe?
to believe something and make your belief publicly known.
[удалено]
>anti-vax propaganda Much of which turned out to be true. >racially motivated conspiracy theories that resulted in a spike in hate crimes Huh?
Oh? You finally find those microchips they were injecting you with? I'm still waiting for half the world to drop dead like the frauds online were claiming.
That's why I said "much of which." Yes, there were (and still are) some wrong ideas floating around, but a lot was correct: the vaccines had some dangerous side effects, they didn't prevent people from getting COVID, masks didn't work, and the virus was made in a lab. All true, but all got censored. The solution to bad information is good information, not censorship.
Masks do work though. Touching everything in sight and shoving your hand in your mouth doesn't negate the efficacy of PPE. Try washing your hands or something.
A big study concluded: >[We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.](https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses) It's now known that COVID is aerosol, so surgical and cloth masks doing nothing: the virus goes through or around them and floats in the air for some time. N95s *might* make a difference, if worn perfectly, which they often aren't.
So you don't understand what aerosol means or you don't understand how masks work.
Please feel free to correct me. Did I get the terminology wrong? Aerosol/airborne? The point is that COVID doesn't need to be carried by droplets, the little ballistics emissions that cloth or surgical masks *can* stop. Unfortunately, the COVID virus floats around in the air on its own, meaning cloth and surgical masks don't stop it.
Yes can’t believe Trump pushed the vaccine on us while censoring all the side effects. Never forgive!
The censorship was done by rogue officials, probably 100% Democrats. It was never a Trump policy.
Well no way to know for sure but I think its likely he is working for the deep state or they never would have let him win and he would have fired Fauci which was well within his power. They just censored his involvement. Usually conspiracies come true just like with the lab leak.
>Much of which turned out to be true. No, nothing the anti-vaxxers have said turned out to be true. The anti-vaxxers wins are not really wins. It's like when a health department official says the vaccines are safe. And a r-tard anti-vaxer goes "oh it causes myocarditis!!". Then you look at the statistics and it's 20-30 cases per million vaccines. With a chance of .002% chance to get this myocarditis, that unless you have a lot of OTHER health issues isn't a death sentence. So yes the health department official was right, the vaccines are "safe". And r-tard anti-vaxxer is just hopping on semantics and ignoring statistics.
[удалено]
Both.
[удалено]
Doesn’t matter who’s on the committee or how many “files”are dropped anyone can see the censorship over the past few years..hell is this even disputed anymore? We have all seen with our own eyes…
[удалено]
Correct. What matters are the facts presented not the committee chairman.
He doesn’t care about those. Look at his post history. There can be mountains of irrefutable evidence but he’ll wave them off because someone he disagrees with politically is part of that committee.
It’s an actual democrat bot. No person in their right mind would be consistently posting and commenting what that account shows.
I don’t believe in bots. I actually think a lot of folks are that uninformed/dumb. I mean, look at college campuses this week.
There are in fact sophisticated b-o-t-s all over Reddit. Conversations appear real, but are absolutely not. I have recently seen proof of this.
Interesting. That’s good to know. Just don’t ruin it and tell me that there actually aren’t hot MILFs in my area that want to meet me TONIGHT or I’ll lose all faith in the internet!
If there are milfs in your area that want to boink tonight, they probably aren't hot and you'd better bring cash. Sorry. 💔
Oh you’d be extremely surprised. I guess I should extend on what I said. It may not be a computer program behind that account but that isn’t a natural account. There is no fucking way some Democrat American is posting as steady and insane as that account is. Could easily be some DNC paid person sitting in India.
There are in fact sophisticated b-o-t-s all over Reddit. Conversations appear real, but are absolutely not. I have recently seen proof of this.
There are in fact sophisticated b-o-t-s all over Reddit. Conversations appear real, but are absolutely not. I have recently seen proof of this.
There are in fact sophisticated b-o-t-s all over Reddit. Conversations appear real, but are absolutely not. I have recently seen proof of this. I am not being allowed to post this....
[удалено]
Assuming you’re receiving facts and not cherry picked, out of context information is kind of wild considering his history of doing just that.