This bullshit was peddled and popularized by the only person you come in here to run your fucking mouth in support of, so you can fuck right off, you piss-drinking hypocrite.

The term pre-dates Trump’s misuse of it. No amount of couch-fainting can change that.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a fucking illiterate as well, you shitcock.

False, I can read. I am talking about the “fake news” as a pretext for censorship.

Says the fuckstick whose daddy spluttered out tirades about 'fake news' from the biggest pulpit on Earth for four years. Fuck off.

Again, I’m not talking about Trump’s version of “fake news”. Over your head and under your knees, I suppose.

Yeah I know, he gets the NOS exemption because you're a cynical unprincipled piece of shit.

If you don’t want to discuss the point, it’s fine, but disguising it under righteous indignation is hilarious. It’s catharsis all the way down.

Oh you know it is. I'm just here to encourage people to treat you like the opportunistic sack of shit that you are. Propagandists do not get discussions.

https://www.theroot.com/surprise-surprise-off-duty-cops-from-all-over-the-cou-1846029959

"The growing number of probes follows an announcement from the Seattle Police Department on Friday that two of its officers have been put on administrative leave pending an investigation into allegations that they were in the nation’s capital during the raucous events.

The New York Times reports that cops from Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire are now under similar scrutiny after social media posts placed them near the riots that took place in the nation’s Capitol."

Why didn't the cops stop them? Because 'them' were cops.

I am talking about the “fake news” as a pretext for censorship — NOS4A2

• Veracity of statements by Donald Trump
• List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump
• AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts record on National Guard in DC

I'm sure the lists are incomplete. :D When serial liars become the go-to authority for a lot of people with zeal and guns, then it could well make sense for privately owned platforms to kick them off.

But if you, or anyone, promotes terrorism here (so far you've equivocated), you'll still be banned in a shot and don't even think we're going to indulge any more of you playing the victim. — Baden

I support terrorism.

Long live Zohra Drif.

In other words, state-enforced truth — NOS4A2

You have a problem with truth, with states, or with both?

Orwellian? It couldn't be more capitalistic for a publisher to not want to be associated with sedition. What a whinny bitch. — praxis

What is it with these people who cannot tell the difference between free speech and a book deal?

"Socialism is when corporations are free to make decisions due to market pressures that personally affect me negatively". These gonks tried to cancel an election result and they'll whine interminably about cancel culture.

Don’t forget to reference your quotes.

To be clear, I don’t like when online communities are controlled by a central party rather than letting end-users control moderation from their end-view alone, especially when that central control is heavy-handed. But nobody has to use those kinds of communities, so I largely just don’t. Anyone else who agrees with us about that is free to do likewise, and if enough people do likewise then there goes the network effect that attracts people to those services in the first place. — Pfhorrest

I completely agree. It seems quite ridiculous to me to compare the T&C's of services provided by private interests to state censorship, especially as these complaints come from users of sites who would ban criticism of far-right violence without a second thought. If Twitter doesn't want formentors of violent coups on its user list, their house, their rules.

I think the people complaining know this. I've lost count of the number of times I've read or written the explanation that this is not a first amendment issue, that no one has a right to a platform for incitement of violence or transmission of propaganda: ultimately they are there by invite or not.

It's a little bit wrong, but this made me cackle. What a whiny little bitch.

I agree with you here. It’s their business, they choose. At least we know exactly where they stand.

These private services have been pressured by governments to regulate speech. — NOS4A2

In other news, negotiator pressures jumper off roof in violation of his free will.

I agree with you here. It’s their business, they choose. At least we know exactly where they stand. — Brett

And what they stand against: that which all decent people stand against.

I support terrorism. — Brett

I'm not going to lie, this was a great cliffhanger. Brett has gone all in. I will definitely be tuning back in.

I'm over Brett. Got super annoyed I couldn't get a straight answer out of him before. But whatever. Never liked Mike Pence all that much anyway. :lol:

I completely agree. It seems quite ridiculous to me to compare the T&C's of services provided by private interests to state censorship, especially as these complaints come from users of sites who would ban criticism of far-right violence without a second thought. If Twitter doesn't want formentors of violent coups on its user list, their house, their rules. — Kenosha Kid

So I agree that legally it looks like there's no free speech violations, since the platform has power to remove whatever content they like. There is a rational kernel to the free speech argument though. Large social media sites effectively function as the social commons; they're how we chat, make friends, inform ourselves and so on. It is quite creepy that someone can be exiled from that commons with little to no oversight.

I think the free speech complaint "goes through" so to speak, but not in the terms it's originally articulated in.

I support terrorism.

Long live Zohra Drif. — Brett

Well, the way things are going, we might get bomb attacks also in our local cafeterias where you drink your sustainable fair-trade herbal tea and me my cafe latte. But hey, Zohra looked sexy especially in the movie "the Battle for Algiers" (which is a great film about urban terrorism).



Or at least you get the government search engines to note that the user "Brett" on the site "Philosophy Forums" says "he supports terrorism" and that is then put to a huge database to be used possibly in the future.

Yup. I despise Trump, but I don't love control of the commons with no oversight.

I'm pretty sure that most Trumpers would censor people on the left given the chance. They'd justify it in terms of public safety too.

It's possible that the censored right-wingers will revolutionize communication somehow. Text doesn't require that much processing power. Perhaps a decentralized Twitter-clone will be co-hosted by millions of cellphones. Not my area, but it seems vaguely possible, especially as phones get more powerful. (It's a Silicon Valley plot-line, but in that show it's from a place of genuine idealism.)

It's possible that the censored right-wingers will revolutionize communication somehow. — five G

Trumpers couldn't even revolutionise their revolution. I doubt technological innovation is their forte.

Or at least you get the government search engines to note that the user "Brett" on the site "Philosophy Forums" says "he supports terrorism" and that is then put to a huge database to be used possibly in the future. — ssu

I must confess that I'm personally a little paranoid about this kind of thing. Our minds are mostly externalized nowadays and subject to potential policing and analysis as never before. A new kind of tyranny is becoming possible.

Or at least you get the government search engines to note that the user "Brett" on the site "Philosophy Forums" says "he supports terrorism" and that is then put to a huge database to be used possibly in the future. — ssu

Actually, it's not inconceivable the FBI will start asking sites like ours for IP addresses. The law on that is probably different in Europe and America, so I don't know the ins and outs of it.

Trumpers couldn't even revolutionise their revolution. I doubt technological innovation is their forte. — Baden

Of course you are right about the majority of them. But I do worry about the odd genius with such leanings. Like what happened to Bobby Fisher? Or Ezra Pound? I'm reading the Toland bio of Hitler, and it's eerie how otherwise intelligent people can be become seduced. Or they cynically ride on the back of a beast they think they can control (like the GOP on the back of Trumpers). (It would have been poetic justice if some of them had been captured by a crowd they humored, but the better part of me is glad that it didn't happen.)

On the bright side, the left could hijack/borrow such technology for themselves.

Our minds are mostly externalized nowadays and subject to potential policing and analysis as never before. A new kind of tyranny is becoming possible. — five G

I could certainly see the US government use domestic terrorism, especially if it continues in a more organised way, as a reason to impose measures that could negatively affect us all in terms of free speech. I don't think we're on that track yet but it's an open possibility.

I'm concerned that we will end up with an endless war on domestic terrorism. The threat is real, but so is the counter-threat of an exaggerated reaction. I agree that we're not on that track yet.

Snowden talked about how resistance can be nipped in the bud before it spreads. Oppose the wrong entities and one could in theory be discredited with lies or just embarrassing context. One's self-defense could be silenced before the attack begins. Like I said, it's paranoid. I don't really expect it to happen to me, for instance, but it sucks to realize how fragile one is. Reality is mostly mediated by screens I do not control.