FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Facebook Abandon Woke Politics.
Facebook Abandon Woke Politics.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Effectively Facebook will become similar to the Politics Forum - lots of unreliable information from uninformed people mixed with interesting facts and viewpoints sometimes from those very same people. The problem is sorting out what the facts are from the dross and whilst the politics forum has a limited audience, Facebook etc. have a very large audience with many people who will believe anything they read especially if it is something that they want to hear! Welcome to the new internet age where you certainly should not believe everything you read or see! " What do you propose is the solution for reliable and uncensored information? | |||
"Effectively Facebook will become similar to the Politics Forum - lots of unreliable information from uninformed people mixed with interesting facts and viewpoints sometimes from those very same people. The problem is sorting out what the facts are from the dross and whilst the politics forum has a limited audience, Facebook etc. have a very large audience with many people who will believe anything they read especially if it is something that they want to hear! Welcome to the new internet age where you certainly should not believe everything you read or see! " great news id say, obviously theres gunna be crap spouted so as always do your own due diligence and treat it as msm or any other media outlet | |||
"Effectively Facebook will become similar to the Politics Forum - lots of unreliable information from uninformed people mixed with interesting facts and viewpoints sometimes from those very same people. The problem is sorting out what the facts are from the dross and whilst the politics forum has a limited audience, Facebook etc. have a very large audience with many people who will believe anything they read especially if it is something that they want to hear! Welcome to the new internet age where you certainly should not believe everything you read or see! " I resemble that remark !  | |||
"I just listened to his update, and it’s no surprise the Biden administration pressured Meta on censorship. The left’s increasing push to silence opposing views is driving the surge to the right in the UK, US, and Europe. If they weren’t so determined to shut down free speech, this shift wouldn’t be happening so rapidly." Unfortunately the UK seems set to go the other way with Ofcom trying to control Social Media. | |||
"I just listened to his update, and it’s no surprise the Biden administration pressured Meta on censorship. The left’s increasing push to silence opposing views is driving the surge to the right in the UK, US, and Europe. If they weren’t so determined to shut down free speech, this shift wouldn’t be happening so rapidly. Unfortunately the UK seems set to go the other way with Ofcom trying to control Social Media." They will struggle to police this as they will rely on the public to notify them, which will overwhelm their capabilities in a reactive manner. I think another way around ofcom for social media platforms would be to ensure UK users were connecting to a service in the US or other, with T&C's relevant to that territory. Remember how they took on scam calls, worked a treat and literally nobody gets scam calls anymore | |||
| |||
"I also see failed UK politician Nick Clegg has been given the boot from Facebook, another good move. "Good. Little rat. | |||
"I also see failed UK politician Nick Clegg has been given the boot from Facebook, another good move. "Johnathan Gullis has failed to find another job since being voted out at the last election so maybe he should apply. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes." So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter?" Musk got it right, sacked freeloaders and allowed users to decide for themselves. Block or don’t block, up to you. Free speech slowly on it way back | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter?" I think it is exactly what Tresesse_Meliorem mentioned further up, flipping his political support. He would be out in the cold come Jan 20th. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? I think it is exactly what Tresesse_Meliorem mentioned further up, flipping his political support. He would be out in the cold come Jan 20th." Maybe, except he didn't flip when Trump was first elected, quite the opposite. I think Zuckerberg is smart enough to know there is a real and deep cultural change underway of which Trump is a symptom more than a cause. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em" Exactly right. I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. At the moment Twitter is a complete garbage can of misinformation, disinformation, selective quoting and political bots are driving the agenda. If Facebook goes the same way and no one gets held accountable for propagating disinformation and lies then the civilised world that we have known for decades could probably come to a very unpleasant and violent end. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em" Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? I think it is exactly what Tresesse_Meliorem mentioned further up, flipping his political support. He would be out in the cold come Jan 20th. Maybe, except he didn't flip when Trump was first elected, quite the opposite. I think Zuckerberg is smart enough to know there is a real and deep cultural change underway of which Trump is a symptom more than a cause." If that cultural change is some kind of deeply introverted Nationalism - then we are all in for some very unpleasant changes. Just heard Trump refusing to rule out using force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal. This kind of power trip Nationalism is not going to end well. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? I think it is exactly what Tresesse_Meliorem mentioned further up, flipping his political support. He would be out in the cold come Jan 20th. Maybe, except he didn't flip when Trump was first elected, quite the opposite. I think Zuckerberg is smart enough to know there is a real and deep cultural change underway of which Trump is a symptom more than a cause. If that cultural change is some kind of deeply introverted Nationalism - then we are all in for some very unpleasant changes. Just heard Trump refusing to rule out using force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal. This kind of power trip Nationalism is not going to end well." I don't think that's what's happening at all, except in far left wet dreams. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? I think it is exactly what Tresesse_Meliorem mentioned further up, flipping his political support. He would be out in the cold come Jan 20th. Maybe, except he didn't flip when Trump was first elected, quite the opposite. I think Zuckerberg is smart enough to know there is a real and deep cultural change underway of which Trump is a symptom more than a cause. If that cultural change is some kind of deeply introverted Nationalism - then we are all in for some very unpleasant changes. Just heard Trump refusing to rule out using force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal. This kind of power trip Nationalism is not going to end well. I don't think that's what's happening at all, except in far left wet dreams." So what’s happening then? Musk is openly platforming Germany’s AfD and Tommy Robinson here in the U.K., and he is interfering in the election process in France and criticising the Norweigan government. Trump is wanting to take over sovereign independent nations (and long standing allies) and is refusing to rule out the use of force and very soon Putin will get his wish as Trump pulls the rug from under Zelensky and effectively hangs Ukraine over to be absorbed into the Russian empire. Big figures on the world stage are promoting Nationalism and that will not end well. | |||
| |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. " The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used." Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!!" So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? I think it is exactly what Tresesse_Meliorem mentioned further up, flipping his political support. He would be out in the cold come Jan 20th. Maybe, except he didn't flip when Trump was first elected, quite the opposite. I think Zuckerberg is smart enough to know there is a real and deep cultural change underway of which Trump is a symptom more than a cause. If that cultural change is some kind of deeply introverted Nationalism - then we are all in for some very unpleasant changes. Just heard Trump refusing to rule out using force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal. This kind of power trip Nationalism is not going to end well. I don't think that's what's happening at all, except in far left wet dreams. So what’s happening then? Musk is openly platforming Germany’s AfD and Tommy Robinson here in the U.K., and he is interfering in the election process in France and criticising the Norweigan government. Trump is wanting to take over sovereign independent nations (and long standing allies) and is refusing to rule out the use of force and very soon Putin will get his wish as Trump pulls the rug from under Zelensky and effectively hangs Ukraine over to be absorbed into the Russian empire. Big figures on the world stage are promoting Nationalism and that will not end well." Open platform - free speech Interfering and criticism - opinion - allowed with free speech Trump - banned from Twitter while the Taliban remained now allowed back probably just giggling to himself winding up the Left - free speech Big figures on the world stage promoting nationalism is always a possibility with democracy and - free speech Why is censorship always demanded by the Left? | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? " What disinformation are you referring to ? | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? " The problem with arresting people for misinformation or disinformation or whatever is who decides what's truth and what's misinformation. I will will flip this question to you. If Farage wins the elections and decides what's truth and what's misinformation and decides to take legal action on what he considers as misinformation, would you be supportive of it? The only reason you are excited about controlling free speech is because it is being controlled by people whose views align with you. If the tables turn, you won't be happy. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ?" It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc | |||
| |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? " I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc" It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? " I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. " It's the difference between expressing an opinion and incitement to violent disorder. That's where I draw the line personally | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. It's the difference between expressing an opinion and incitement to violent disorder. That's where I draw the line personally " "Direct calls for violence" is a clear line. But "inciting violence" is a very blurry line. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. " The definition of incitement and the expression of opinions people find upsetting or offensive are entirely different, yet they are often conflated. Hurting someones feelings or making them angry with an opinion is not incitement, it is a differing opinion. If a person moves away from opinion and calls for action, it is clearly no longer an opinion it is a call to action. If that action is to peacefully demonstrate, it is not calling on people to commit a crime. If however the call to action was to physically prevent people from going about their day, that is inciting violence due to the likelihood of it becoming a physical altercation and therefore a crime. Over a good few years now I have witnessed left wing activism attack our freedom of speech. As a society we have allowed it get out of hand through fear of being called fascists, racists, bigots which is such an ironic thing to do from those who are claiming to be upset about opinion or language used. However, the tide appears to be turning on populist left wing ideologies that have destabilised much of the West, often influenced by external groups seeking to assert their authority. Many of these views are now being recognised for what they truly are, oppressive, misguided, and harmful. As a result, those who once believed they occupied a morally superior position are now feeling confused and even isolated as their ideas and views are now facing increased scrutiny and rejection. Going back to your example of Tommy Robinson: As far as I'm aware he has not been charged with incitement, are you sure he has or are is opinions offensive? | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. The definition of incitement and the expression of opinions people find upsetting or offensive are entirely different, yet they are often conflated. Hurting someones feelings or making them angry with an opinion is not incitement, it is a differing opinion. If a person moves away from opinion and calls for action, it is clearly no longer an opinion it is a call to action. If that action is to peacefully demonstrate, it is not calling on people to commit a crime. If however the call to action was to physically prevent people from going about their day, that is inciting violence due to the likelihood of it becoming a physical altercation and therefore a crime. Over a good few years now I have witnessed left wing activism attack our freedom of speech. As a society we have allowed it get out of hand through fear of being called fascists, racists, bigots which is such an ironic thing to do from those who are claiming to be upset about opinion or language used. However, the tide appears to be turning on populist left wing ideologies that have destabilised much of the West, often influenced by external groups seeking to assert their authority. Many of these views are now being recognised for what they truly are, oppressive, misguided, and harmful. As a result, those who once believed they occupied a morally superior position are now feeling confused and even isolated as their ideas and views are now facing increased scrutiny and rejection. Going back to your example of Tommy Robinson: As far as I'm aware he has not been charged with incitement, are you sure he has or are is opinions offensive? " Brilliant summary of where we are. | |||
"I just listened to his update, and it’s no surprise the Biden administration pressured Meta on censorship. The left’s increasing push to silence opposing views is driving the surge to the right in the UK, US, and Europe. If they weren’t so determined to shut down free speech, this shift wouldn’t be happening so rapidly." Exactly true. Political correctness disease is exactly that and the left is completely infected with it. Most people prefer things to be told as they are not all sugar coated. | |||
| |||
"TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't." TR wasn't jailed for inciting hatred. He was jailed for Contempt of Court, i.e. repeating a statement in defiance of a court order not to do so. | |||
"Zuckerberg highlighting censorship of issues such as immigration and gender identity would end at Facebook and Instagram." Good. It's called freedom of speech. Liberty means the right to say things people don't like. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. So does this mean that Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot that has no idea how to run a company? Or does it mean that Elon Musk may have got it right with the changes he made to Twitter? Musk got it right, sacked freeloaders and allowed users to decide for themselves. Block or don’t block, up to you. Free speech slowly on it way back" Correct. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em" If someone wants to spout off "bollox" that's their right. Freedom of speech. Yeah baby. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude?" Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? " What, you mean like putting forward the idea that you can identify as something you're clearly not but the majority have to accept it? Is that what you mean? | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. The definition of incitement and the expression of opinions people find upsetting or offensive are entirely different, yet they are often conflated. Hurting someones feelings or making them angry with an opinion is not incitement, it is a differing opinion. If a person moves away from opinion and calls for action, it is clearly no longer an opinion it is a call to action. If that action is to peacefully demonstrate, it is not calling on people to commit a crime. If however the call to action was to physically prevent people from going about their day, that is inciting violence due to the likelihood of it becoming a physical altercation and therefore a crime. Over a good few years now I have witnessed left wing activism attack our freedom of speech. As a society we have allowed it get out of hand through fear of being called fascists, racists, bigots which is such an ironic thing to do from those who are claiming to be upset about opinion or language used. However, the tide appears to be turning on populist left wing ideologies that have destabilised much of the West, often influenced by external groups seeking to assert their authority. Many of these views are now being recognised for what they truly are, oppressive, misguided, and harmful. As a result, those who once believed they occupied a morally superior position are now feeling confused and even isolated as their ideas and views are now facing increased scrutiny and rejection. Going back to your example of Tommy Robinson: As far as I'm aware he has not been charged with incitement, are you sure he has or are is opinions offensive? " I don't know much about him, but I thought he was in prison. I've never read anything he's stated. As for the cleric/iman, I distinctly recall how the police were powerless to act... until they weren't. So legislation must have gone through/changed. Maybe those in authority took lessons from that and went too far with free speech restrictions? | |||
"Is there a difference between "free speech" and throwing unfounded insults at people ?" There's no free speech here  . There's the naughty step . Mind you, one person saying no insults please, and you look and you haven't insulted anyone... so it is very subjective in this forum.
Back to the safety of the topic  | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. " That works both ways. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways." That great phrase cancel the cancel culture. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? I have a couple of questions off the back of your posts. How do "you" decide what is misinformation? Who are "you" actually protecting by advocating the removal of free speech? If we remove the ability to be able to speak our minds freely, what type of world would we be living in? I guess it all depends on the legality of it. Remember the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who was allowed free speech in London, inciting hatred... until he wasn't. What he was doing was legal... until it wasn't. TR inciting hatred of illegal immigrants, legal until it wasn't. The definition of incitement and the expression of opinions people find upsetting or offensive are entirely different, yet they are often conflated. Hurting someones feelings or making them angry with an opinion is not incitement, it is a differing opinion. If a person moves away from opinion and calls for action, it is clearly no longer an opinion it is a call to action. If that action is to peacefully demonstrate, it is not calling on people to commit a crime. If however the call to action was to physically prevent people from going about their day, that is inciting violence due to the likelihood of it becoming a physical altercation and therefore a crime. Over a good few years now I have witnessed left wing activism attack our freedom of speech. As a society we have allowed it get out of hand through fear of being called fascists, racists, bigots which is such an ironic thing to do from those who are claiming to be upset about opinion or language used. However, the tide appears to be turning on populist left wing ideologies that have destabilised much of the West, often influenced by external groups seeking to assert their authority. Many of these views are now being recognised for what they truly are, oppressive, misguided, and harmful. As a result, those who once believed they occupied a morally superior position are now feeling confused and even isolated as their ideas and views are now facing increased scrutiny and rejection. Going back to your example of Tommy Robinson: As far as I'm aware he has not been charged with incitement, are you sure he has or are is opinions offensive? I don't know much about him, but I thought he was in prison. I've never read anything he's stated. As for the cleric/iman, I distinctly recall how the police were powerless to act... until they weren't. So legislation must have gone through/changed. Maybe those in authority took lessons from that and went too far with free speech restrictions?" Not knowing much about him, you formed an opinion based on misinformation, but you are free to express that opinion even though it is wrong. Now you know it is wrong by expressing your opinion freely, it has helped remove the misinformation. Take away your freedom of speech and that misinformation will remain. Free speech as mentioned is opinion, move to a call for action that can incite violence and you are promoting crime which is illegal. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways." Nope. It's always the lefties. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. " Ok you know best, bless ya | |||
Mrs x | |||
"So does anyone know what a woman is now? Mrs x"if you listen to some people it's anyone who wants to identify as one myself id say its someone born with a vagina | |||
"So does anyone know what a woman is now? Mrs x"A woman should be all things to everyone or she is nothing | |||
"So does anyone know what a woman is now? Mrs x"The Supreme Court is still deciding, should have a verdict before 2028. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. Ok you know best, bless ya "Excellent answer. No answer . Just another attempt to belittle. It ain't working lefty. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. Ok you know best, bless ya
Excellent answer. No answer . Just another attempt to belittle.
It ain't working lefty."Accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with your views as being lefties is very woke of you. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. Ok you know best, bless ya
Excellent answer. No answer . Just another attempt to belittle.
It ain't working lefty.
Accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with your views as being lefties is very woke of you."No it isn't,it's true. If I'm on the right of the political spectrum and you don't agree with me on a political issue then there's an extremely good chance you're on the left. No? | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ?" ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth." Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? | |||
| |||
"So does anyone know what a woman is now? Mrs x"Was there really any doubt  | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. Ok you know best, bless ya
Excellent answer. No answer . Just another attempt to belittle.
It ain't working lefty.
Accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with your views as being lefties is very woke of you.
No it isn't,it's true. If I'm on the right of the political spectrum and you don't agree with me on a political issue then there's an extremely good chance you're on the left.
No?"Or like the majority of the British population and centerist. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk." I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. | |||
"I just listened to his update, and it’s no surprise the Biden administration pressured Meta on censorship. The left’s increasing push to silence opposing views is driving the surge to the right in the UK, US, and Europe. If they weren’t so determined to shut down free speech, this shift wouldn’t be happening so rapidly. Exactly true. Political correctness disease is exactly that and the left is completely infected with it. Most people prefer things to be told as they are not all sugar coated." Then you end up with people getting hurt, even murdered. The Jo Cox murder was a direct consequence of online misinformation and disinformation. The murderer became so groomed and radicalised by what he had been reading that he saw fit to brutally murder an MP. People are being affected today by misinformation and disinformation that makes them angry and easy to manipulate. The riots in Southport (and across the country) in the summer were entirely the result of people becoming groomed and radicalised by what they had been reading online. Far from the reins being loosened on social media they need to be tightened up. No more pile ons, no more riots, no more harm and no more murders. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation." You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation." 1930s . Jeez is this the only date in the history books ! | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech." But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. 1930s . Jeez is this the only date in the history books !"You can look at any authoritarian regime "both recent and in the 1930's" to see how messaging is controlled and manipulated. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ?" _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see." Can't you see your dislike for one person is forcing you to advocate closing down free speech and you are by default doing the very thing you think Musk is, pulling the levers to manipulate free speech. Musk, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinions. If you disagree with those opinions, challenge them directly. Free speech allows for debate and dissent. However, if he crosses the line into inciting violence or committing unlawful acts, that’s no longer a matter of free speech it’s a breaking a law and should be dealt with accordingly. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate." But you said it will be abandoned? | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. 1930s . Jeez is this the only date in the history books !
You can look at any authoritarian regime "both recent and in the 1930's" to see how messaging is controlled and manipulated.
"Which is exactly what Zuckerberg is addressing by getting rid of biased 'fact' checkers, ending political manipulation of content. He's doing exactly what you advise. | |||
" Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see." With free speech, there will be multiple platforms so that no one person controls information flow. When a government controls speech using regulations, it's a single entity controlling information flow and that's what leads to authoritarianism. In both your 1930s example and left wing authoritarianism(USSR, Maoism), the one common factor is this - the government was using its force to control flow of information. | |||
" I think almost everyone is in support of free speech as long as you can accept that there may be consequences for the things that you say and/or write. The word freedom is defined in terms of consequences. If you can get arrested for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you will face violent response for speaking something, you don't have free speech. If you are banned from a system for speaking something, you don't have free speech in that system. The left needs to stop using the lame "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line. It's a variation of what Idi Amin said - "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech" Given that the biggest challenge for modern leftists is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, it would be better for them to stay away from reusing a line which a dictator like Idi Amin used. Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation." Excellent point | |||
| |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
"How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Sad news but may help his profits in the short term. I don't see X doing particularly well just now " I'd have thought both are doing better than most right now, Mrs x | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?"Where did you get that from? | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from? "You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone? | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?"With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable. | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable."Can you expand on the consequences, I thought we had been over that a number of times. | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable."So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ? | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
Can you expand on the consequences, I thought we had been over that a number of times."I hadn't previously given my own thoughts on the subject. I just thought it'd be good to compare actual free speech a couple of decades ago to online stuff now. But you've asked me my thoughts by stating inaccurate assumptions. Now you have it. I believe in free speech with the caveat, if it's illegal you pay the consequences. | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?"Don't put words in my proverbial mouth. | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth."my opinion is that freedom of speech in regards to opions yes, in regards to instructions and possible actions them no. Someone smarter could probably word that more officially but if my opinion offends somebody then its as much there interpretation at blame as my opinion | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth." | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth."That's the root of the problem, isn't it? Left keeps saying that they like free speech, but there must be "consequences" to speech. We would like to know what kind of consequences you want. If the consequence is government action, it is not free speech anymore. | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth.
That's the root of the problem, isn't it? Left keeps saying that they like free speech, but there must be "consequences" to speech. We would like to know what kind of consequences you want. If the consequence is government action, it is not free speech anymore. "I've not stated what I want. If it's illegal you simply pay for the crime. If you mouth off about someone who knows you, you might get a punch in the mouth. Commit treason verbally and off with your head .
They are just examples. Just cos I'm left leaning, doesn't mean I'm going to give a list of what you can and cannot say. I'll leave that to others | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth.
That's the root of the problem, isn't it? Left keeps saying that they like free speech, but there must be "consequences" to speech. We would like to know what kind of consequences you want. If the consequence is government action, it is not free speech anymore.
I've not stated what I want. If it's illegal you simply pay for the crime. If you mouth off about someone who knows you, you might get a punch in the mouth. Commit treason verbally and off with your head .
They are just examples. Just cos I'm left leaning, doesn't mean I'm going to give a list of what you can and cannot say. I'll leave that to others "If homosexuality is made illegal, and right wingers say, "if it's illegal, just pay for the crime", would you be fine with it? Surely, you have opinions beyond what the law says? | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth.
That's the root of the problem, isn't it? Left keeps saying that they like free speech, but there must be "consequences" to speech. We would like to know what kind of consequences you want. If the consequence is government action, it is not free speech anymore.
I've not stated what I want. If it's illegal you simply pay for the crime. If you mouth off about someone who knows you, you might get a punch in the mouth. Commit treason verbally and off with your head .
They are just examples. Just cos I'm left leaning, doesn't mean I'm going to give a list of what you can and cannot say. I'll leave that to others "I'm left leaning too but that's just the way I wear my trousers. | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth.
That's the root of the problem, isn't it? Left keeps saying that they like free speech, but there must be "consequences" to speech. We would like to know what kind of consequences you want. If the consequence is government action, it is not free speech anymore.
I've not stated what I want. If it's illegal you simply pay for the crime. If you mouth off about someone who knows you, you might get a punch in the mouth. Commit treason verbally and off with your head .
They are just examples. Just cos I'm left leaning, doesn't mean I'm going to give a list of what you can and cannot say. I'll leave that to others
If homosexuality is made illegal, and right wingers say, "if it's illegal, just pay for the crime", would you be fine with it? Surely, you have opinions beyond what the law says?"This is tiresome! | |||
"Btw I'm a proud lefty
How does your pride in your left wing views tie into your appetite for removing freedom of speech?
Where did you get that from?
You are in favour of freedom of speech for everyone?
With the knowledge that some speech will have consequences so people have to be accountable.
So legally accepted speech must suffer 'consequences' ? What are you proposing ?
Don't put words in my proverbial mouth.
That's the root of the problem, isn't it? Left keeps saying that they like free speech, but there must be "consequences" to speech. We would like to know what kind of consequences you want. If the consequence is government action, it is not free speech anymore.
I've not stated what I want. If it's illegal you simply pay for the crime. If you mouth off about someone who knows you, you might get a punch in the mouth. Commit treason verbally and off with your head .
They are just examples. Just cos I'm left leaning, doesn't mean I'm going to give a list of what you can and cannot say. I'll leave that to others
I'm left leaning too but that's just the way I wear my trousers." | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned?" ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted." Community based checks, like X’s Community Notes, will replace the politically motivated fact checkers. To leave fact checking to politically motivated fact checkers, it would indeed show no interest in the truth. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted." That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors." It’s commonly known as the Kellyanne Conway Alternative Facts method. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. It’s commonly known as the Kellyanne Conway Alternative Facts method." That isn't true at all. See community fact checking works | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. It’s commonly known as the Kellyanne Conway Alternative Facts method. That isn't true at all. See community fact checking works "Imagine Community Notes on Fab ! "Actually the poster's penis is only 5 inches long and not 13 inches as he claims in his profile" | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. It’s commonly known as the Kellyanne Conway Alternative Facts method. That isn't true at all. See community fact checking works " | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors." Enlighten me, are you saying politically biased is the opposite, or left leaning is opposite? | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. It’s commonly known as the Kellyanne Conway Alternative Facts method. That isn't true at all. See community fact checking works
Imagine Community Notes on Fab !
"Actually the poster's penis is only 5 inches long and not 13 inches as he claims in his profile""He meant 13cm  | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. Enlighten me, are you saying politically biased is the opposite, or left leaning is opposite?" Any political bias is the opposite of neutral fact checking. | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors. Enlighten me, are you saying politically biased is the opposite, or left leaning is opposite? Any political bias is the opposite of neutral fact checking." Ta muchly | |||
"Great speech by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing his platforms will stop using politically motivated 'fact checkers', embrace free speech, and use a similar system to X's Community Notes. Facebook and Instagram had previously censored content in collaboration with the Biden Administration and allowed far left activists to write its algorithms. Great news for free speech- will Wokepedia be next to fall ? ____________________________________ So effectively abandoning an interest in the truth. Really ? Can you give an example of how the truth will now be censored ? _______________________________________________ I didn't say it'd be censored but it will become lost in the fog and white noise of lies, conjecture, speculation and hate. But you said it will be abandoned? ______________________________________________________________ No I said an 'interest' in it will be abandoned for the reasons I explained. At least fact checking provides some clarification of spurious statements before they're accepted. That obviously depends who is checking the facts. Zuckerberg has concluded that the current checkers are politically biased (to the left) which is the opposite of an interest in the truth. The community notes system allows anyone to point out factual errors." ____________________ With a little cerebral energy it'd be perfectly possible to automate this process through AI rather than dispensing with fact checking all together. Of course Musk, Zuckerberg and others aren't interested in that, they'd rather have 'the commumity' arguing about spurious comments which in turn drives revenue to their networks. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. " Yes 100pc .. the left completely drowned in their own utopian ideas of perfection .. just wholely unrealistic. So predictable, so outdated, so wrong. | |||
"Really!?! Oh well that’s just great. Yet more regression back to 1970s attitudes. How sad and pathetic. We were making good steady progress but thats ended. People saying “return of free speech” But actually it’s just spouting off Bollox with no come back. Fuck’em Why don't you like free speech? Isn't that a very regressive attitude? Because lefties only like to hear what they agree with. If you say something they don't like they either shout you down or want it banned. That works both ways. Nope. It's always the lefties. Yes 100pc .. the left completely drowned in their own utopian ideas of perfection .. just wholely unrealistic. So predictable, so outdated, so wrong. " Bless. It must be wonderful to live under the illusion righties are right all the time | |||
"Yes 100pc .. the left completely drowned in their own utopian ideas of perfection .. just wholely unrealistic. So predictable, so outdated, so wrong. " _____________________________________________________ What are the right engrossed in that's so auspicious? | |||
" Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see. With free speech, there will be multiple platforms so that no one person controls information flow. When a government controls speech using regulations, it's a single entity controlling information flow and that's what leads to authoritarianism. In both your 1930s example and left wing authoritarianism(USSR, Maoism), the one common factor is this - the government was using its force to control flow of information. " And you don’t think that Musk and Trump are doing exactly this? I spent the weekend muting Musk and every account that was pushing the same nonsense but this morning my timeline was full of him again - but interestingly only his comments on U.K. matters. This is an attempt by Trump and Musk to destabilise Western Alliances with the intention of making everyone become America’s bitch. I went on to Musk’s page on Sunday and there wasn’t a single post (negative or otherwise) about America’s traditional enemies - instead it was full of attacks on allies and/ir Democrats in the USA. | |||
" Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see. With free speech, there will be multiple platforms so that no one person controls information flow. When a government controls speech using regulations, it's a single entity controlling information flow and that's what leads to authoritarianism. In both your 1930s example and left wing authoritarianism(USSR, Maoism), the one common factor is this - the government was using its force to control flow of information. And you don’t think that Musk and Trump are doing exactly this? I spent the weekend muting Musk and every account that was pushing the same nonsense but this morning my timeline was full of him again - but interestingly only his comments on U.K. matters. This is an attempt by Trump and Musk to destabilise Western Alliances with the intention of making everyone become America’s bitch. I went on to Musk’s page on Sunday and there wasn’t a single post (negative or otherwise) about America’s traditional enemies - instead it was full of attacks on allies and/ir Democrats in the USA. " luckilly for us they're levelling up the playing field as far as social media goes | |||
" Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see. With free speech, there will be multiple platforms so that no one person controls information flow. When a government controls speech using regulations, it's a single entity controlling information flow and that's what leads to authoritarianism. In both your 1930s example and left wing authoritarianism(USSR, Maoism), the one common factor is this - the government was using its force to control flow of information. And you don’t think that Musk and Trump are doing exactly this? I spent the weekend muting Musk and every account that was pushing the same nonsense but this morning my timeline was full of him again - but interestingly only his comments on U.K. matters. This is an attempt by Trump and Musk to destabilise Western Alliances with the intention of making everyone become America’s bitch. I went on to Musk’s page on Sunday and there wasn’t a single post (negative or otherwise) about America’s traditional enemies - instead it was full of attacks on allies and/ir Democrats in the USA. " Not really. If Trump and Musk tell all social media that they will decide what's truth and what's not, that's authoritarianism. Just like they are bashing Democrats, you have the rights to bash Republicans. Everyone has the right to speak out. That's what free speech is about. | |||
" Perfectly put. Some speech is illegal, by definition that is not free from consequences. But any speech that is legal must be free from serious consequences to be free speech, it's literally the meaning!! So organising campaigns through the propagation of disinformation and misinformation is ok and should be free of consequences because it’s not illegal? Is that a world you want to live in? What disinformation are you referring to ? It doesn’t really matter does it? Disinformation and misinformation is not illegal and influencers on social media (their owners) can orchestrate vast campaigns to influence elections by overwhelming people with negative stories about individuals, policies etc It doesn't matter ??? So any opinion you disagree with will be classed as disinformation and banned or suppressed. Definitely not a world I want to live in, and thankfully nor do Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. I think that you need to review historical precedents both recent and in the 1930's. The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it. Twitter and Facebook are not free speech platforms as long as the algorithms to disseminate the messaging are controlled by the platform owners, especially if the platform owners are in turned being manipulated by an even higher authority. It's not free speech, it's manipulation. You hit the nail on the head with this: "The person who controls the propagation of "free speech" is the person who has the levers to manipulate it." This is precisely why the populist left wing or anyone, for that matter should never be allowed to succeed in shutting down free speech. But it's OK for Elon Musk to manipulate and control what is spread on Twitter? Mainstream media and professional journalists don't get it right all of the time but at least there is a code of standards that the vast majority adhere to. Social Media is a manipulation platform. I will be very surprised for example, if Musk doesn't manipulate the algorithms in Germany tomorrow to elevate the messaging of AfD - let's see. With free speech, there will be multiple platforms so that no one person controls information flow. When a government controls speech using regulations, it's a single entity controlling information flow and that's what leads to authoritarianism. In both your 1930s example and left wing authoritarianism(USSR, Maoism), the one common factor is this - the government was using its force to control flow of information. And you don’t think that Musk and Trump are doing exactly this? I spent the weekend muting Musk and every account that was pushing the same nonsense but this morning my timeline was full of him again - but interestingly only his comments on U.K. matters. This is an attempt by Trump and Musk to destabilise Western Alliances with the intention of making everyone become America’s bitch. I went on to Musk’s page on Sunday and there wasn’t a single post (negative or otherwise) about America’s traditional enemies - instead it was full of attacks on allies and/ir Democrats in the USA. " If you're looking at Musk's page that's probably why you're seeing his content ! | |||
| |||
