"Flagging the problematic"
-
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 22:38 last edited by
-
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:09 last edited by
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
-
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:16 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Have they
admitted tobeen doing any censorship between 1945 and 2021?70 years ago, it was a matter of national security. And now you're censoring cranks on Faceypage?
-
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:24 last edited by Catseye3
"The Biden administration is telling Facebook which posts it regards as "problematic" so that Facebook can remove them."
^^^^
-
"The Biden administration is telling Facebook which posts it regards as "problematic" so that Facebook can remove them."
^^^^
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Have they
admitted tobeen doing any censorship between 1945 and 2021?70 years ago, it was a matter of national security. And now you're censoring cranks on Faceypage?
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:29 last edited by Catseye3@george-k said in "Flagging the problematic":
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Have they admitted to been doing any censorship between 1945 and 2021?
I can't say for sure, but it would totally not surprise me if such coordination has gone on on the regular since WWII. Vietnam, especially pertaining to the unrest; the pandemic, and for certain over the Trump candidacy and even more certainly over his time in the White House.
ETA: Probably govt and the press have been complicit any number of times to conceal various shenanigans deemed harmful if they got out.
-
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:38 last edited by
However, it's
kind of stupidof questionable wisdom to make a big public deal out of it.Some elements will hate it and yowl like cats, no matter what.
-
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:42 last edited by@aqua-letifer oh, the other thing is that this (sorta) speaks to Trump's suit against the big social media companies with respect to free speech.
A private entity is not subject to 1st amendment because it's not "the government." They can censor whomever they want. Once they "start working with the government," I believe that changes everything.
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Have they
admitted tobeen doing any censorship between 1945 and 2021?70 years ago, it was a matter of national security. And now you're censoring cranks on Faceypage?
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:44 last edited by@george-k said in "Flagging the problematic":
70 years ago, it was a matter of national security. And now you're censoring cranks on Faceypage?
Accepting their premise, I'd say global health is at least as important as national security.
-
@aqua-letifer oh, the other thing is that this (sorta) speaks to Trump's suit against the big social media companies with respect to free speech.
A private entity is not subject to 1st amendment because it's not "the government." They can censor whomever they want. Once they "start working with the government," I believe that changes everything.
wrote on 15 Jul 2021, 23:46 last edited by@george-k said in "Flagging the problematic":
oh, the other thing is that this (sorta) speaks to Trump's suit against the big social media companies with respect to free speech.
A private entity is not subject to 1st amendment because it's not "the government." They can censor whomever they want. Once they "start working with the government," I believe that changes everything.I think that ship sailed once they reached critical mass with their user numbers. That was my personal ethical boundary that I think they crossed. Unfortunately, no laws for that, except maybe trust-busting.
-
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 01:25 last edited by
Trust-busting will do nicely, thank you.
-
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 02:41 last edited by xenon
I think we need novel legislation for the internet.
It’s different enough that it warrants original legal thinking.
The old trust and monopoly frameworks were made for a different time and different problem.
-
I think we need novel legislation for the internet.
It’s different enough that it warrants original legal thinking.
The old trust and monopoly frameworks were made for a different time and different problem.
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 11:42 last edited by@xenon said in "Flagging the problematic":
I think we need novel legislation for the internet.
Nah, just build your own internet...
-
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 12:24 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
Working with the press to fashion your message is one thing but working with a media platform to censor and remove contradictory news, thoughts, and information? That is fascism right to the core. Removing “wrong” thought.
-
@george-k said in "Flagging the problematic":
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Have they admitted to been doing any censorship between 1945 and 2021?
I can't say for sure, but it would totally not surprise me if such coordination has gone on on the regular since WWII. Vietnam, especially pertaining to the unrest; the pandemic, and for certain over the Trump candidacy and even more certainly over his time in the White House.
ETA: Probably govt and the press have been complicit any number of times to conceal various shenanigans deemed harmful if they got out.
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 12:26 last edited by@catseye3 said in "Flagging the problematic":
@george-k said in "Flagging the problematic":
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Have they admitted to been doing any censorship between 1945 and 2021?
I can't say for sure, but it would totally not surprise me if such coordination has gone on on the regular since WWII. Vietnam, especially pertaining to the unrest; the pandemic, and for certain over the Trump candidacy and even more certainly over his time in the White House.
ETA: Probably govt and the press have been complicit any number of times to conceal various shenanigans deemed harmful if they got out.
Again, conspiring with media to craft a message is one thing, conspiring with platforms to remove contradictory messages is another.
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
Working with the press to fashion your message is one thing but working with a media platform to censor and remove contradictory news, thoughts, and information? That is fascism right to the core. Removing “wrong” thought.
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 12:32 last edited by Aqua Letifer@lufins-dad said in "Flagging the problematic":
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
Working with the press to fashion your message is one thing but working with a media platform to censor and remove contradictory news, thoughts, and information? That is fascism right to the core. Removing “wrong” thought.
These aren't "contradictory views," there's absolutely insane shit being promoted out there that's causing people to not get vaccinated. That puts them, everyone around them, and everyone else still living at greater risk.
-
@lufins-dad said in "Flagging the problematic":
@aqua-letifer said in "Flagging the problematic":
Uh, no. In the days of old, the press would coordinate regularly with the feds regarding WWII coverage.
I'm not saying I like the above, but calling it fascism is histrionic AF.
Working with the press to fashion your message is one thing but working with a media platform to censor and remove contradictory news, thoughts, and information? That is fascism right to the core. Removing “wrong” thought.
These aren't "contradictory views," there's absolutely insane shit being promoted out there that's causing people to not get vaccinated. That puts them, everyone around them, and everyone else still living at greater risk.
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 12:41 last edited by@aqua-letifer batshit? Like the virus escaped from the lab? That’s one of the batshit (kind of appropriate) contradictory ideas that has been removed.
How about natural immunity? Test after test has shown that people that have had the virus have as good of an immune response or better than those with the vaccines, yet those posts have been flagged recently. Info on various treatments that are still being tested get’s flagged. Let’s not even talk about the arguments over anti-malarials. There are credible tests and scientists disputing one another on this, but one side doesn’t match the message so they are batshit crazy…
-
@aqua-letifer batshit? Like the virus escaped from the lab? That’s one of the batshit (kind of appropriate) contradictory ideas that has been removed.
How about natural immunity? Test after test has shown that people that have had the virus have as good of an immune response or better than those with the vaccines, yet those posts have been flagged recently. Info on various treatments that are still being tested get’s flagged. Let’s not even talk about the arguments over anti-malarials. There are credible tests and scientists disputing one another on this, but one side doesn’t match the message so they are batshit crazy…
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 12:44 last edited by@lufins-dad said in "Flagging the problematic":
@aqua-letifer batshit? Like the virus escaped from the lab? That’s one of the batshit (kind of appropriate) contradictory ideas that has been removed.
How about natural immunity? Test after test has shown that people that have had the virus have as good of an immune response or better than those with the vaccines, yet those posts have been flagged recently. Info on various treatments that are still being tested get’s flagged. Let’s not even talk about the arguments over anti-malarials. There are credible tests and scientists disputing one another on this, but one side doesn’t match the message so they are batshit crazy…
Fucking shit. Yes that's exactly what I had in mind when I said batshit crazy. Thank you for filling in the blanks so accurately.
You know if you want to talk to a proxy for liberal politics be my guest but that's not me, so I'll let you carry on, you're doing fine by yourself.
-
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 12:59 last edited by
Shucks, I thought he had a point...
-
wrote on 16 Jul 2021, 13:06 last edited by
Hunter Biden's laptop was deemed "problematic," and that may have cost Trump the election.
May have.
