Silicon Valley goes full Orwell, ADL and SPLC now official Google/Facebook/Twitter censors

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
blocking sites they create to disseminate their message is step two.

I love a conspiracy as much as the next guy, but is there any cases where this has happened?

Sucks for the guy loosing ads on his youtube show, but you build your business on top of someone else's platform that the risk you take. So I don't have much sympathy. You do your own hosting you're safe from this, but it cost more up front. You host for free on someone else's you have zero cost, but you run this risk. He knew (or should have know) that when he started so that was always the gamble he was willing to take.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Meh, go someplace else for your content. Suggest progressive sites you like start carrying content from people you follow on you-tube who you believe are being squeezed out.

I can't say why they're being squeezed out since you haven't named any or provided any evidence of them getting the boot. But the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you a platform to express your views OR that you get to consume the content you want on the platform you desire.

If you watch their channels, they talk about how they are getting squeezed out. It is because they are being demonetized and greylisted in search results (search results are now being funneled to corporate media sites). Youtube is turning into cable TV.

Go watch Secular Talk, it is by far my favorite progressive youtube channel.

My top four are:
Secular Talk
TYT
Dave Pakman
The Jimmy Dore Show

http://the2020progressive.com/top-13-progressive-news-shows-youtube/
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
It seems rather clear that you don't understand free speech protections as outlined and preserved in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. You seem a bit confused between what you thought it should be, what you want it to be from across the sea, and what it actually is in the US, in practice. Feel free to visit and see for yourself.

Reading about our laws from afar doesn't seem to be working out for you.

It seems rather clear that you don't understand what you were replying to. You seem a bit confused between what you thought it should be, what you want it to be from across the sea, and what it actually is. Feel free to read it and see for yourself. Replying without reading from afar doesn't seem to be working out for you.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,806
29,558
146
It seems rather clear that you don't understand what you were replying to. You seem a bit confused between what you thought it should be, what you want it to be from across the sea, and what it actually is. Feel free to read it and see for yourself. Replying without reading from afar doesn't seem to be working out for you.

..so, the 'ol I'm rubber, you're glue?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
The problem is that large corporations are more and more controlling what information is easily available. Now that ISPs have the right to block sites outright, there is a chance that corporations that control access to the internet could slowly begin strangling and marginalizing speech that they disagree with.... especially speech pointing out the venomous effects their money has had on our political system. There has been an active war on progressive voices and there is a chance that those voices could eventually be shut down entirely. The thought of going back to exclusively corporate news commentary makes me physically ill. It could be our future and it would be a kick to the nutsack of democracy.







https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/arts/youtube-broadcasters-algorithm-ads.html

So, the advertising issue was short lived. ALL the press and complaints about it are limited to just 2 months last year (March and April) when Youtube was boycotted by advertisers because they did not screen video content for advertisers properly. Anyone who wasn't offensive to advertisers won their demonetization appeals.

Curiously there is no recent conversation about the issue (outside of the alt-right) as it has been fixed.

David Pakman and the other channels are still chugging on. I still see them in my own feed every day even though I seldom click on them (I'm a science geek, but Pakman is still suggested to me daily).

You're taking a short lived episode and using it as an ongoing problem. It is not.

By September of last year, it was already well into being corrected and advertisers were coming back.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...outubes-demonetization-troubles/#2326feba6c26

Meanwhile, that does not change the fact that social media is private property. And as such, you cannot (and should not) force private websites to carry content they do not want to.

Why is it, among both progressives and conservatives here, I seem to be the only one who is in favor of an individual freedom to control one's own private property?
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
Why is it, among both progressives and conservatives here, I seem to be the only one who is in favor of an individual freedom to control one's own private property?

It isn't the case. Almost nobody is calling for coercion. Some just think they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Not progressives, doe, since they're named for irony.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
It isn't the case. Almost nobody is calling for coercion. Some just think they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Not progressives, doe, since they're named for irony.

I think they should, and I am conservative. I have repeatedly complained and boycotted social media for carrying racist, bigoted and defamatory conspiracy posts. I've even gone further and have protested alt-med and snake oil posts.

Why should I support any business that helps spread morally repugnant posts?

I was a business owner. If a Klan group came in with racist literature I would have kicked them out of my store. As would have been my right.

As is the right of social media owners too.

That is the core of the matter. Either private property exists, or it does not.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Reactions: feralkid

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,994
18,343
146
The problem is that large corporations are more and more controlling what information is easily available. Now that ISPs have the right to block sites outright, there is a chance that corporations that control access to the internet could slowly begin strangling and marginalizing speech that they disagree with.... especially speech pointing out the venomous effects their money has had on our political system. There has been an active war on progressive voices and there is a chance that those voices could eventually be shut down entirely. The thought of going back to exclusively corporate news commentary makes me physically ill. It could be our future and it would be a kick to the nutsack of democracy.







https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/arts/youtube-broadcasters-algorithm-ads.html
Maybe Americans should stop voted ng for people who let that happen. You get what you vote for.
 
Reactions: bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Maybe Americans should stop voted ng for people who let that happen. You get what you vote for.

I got this from UVERSE this week. I think it is related to that "ISP using your information for profit" thing that happened last year.

Your privacy is important to us. The Federal Communications Commission asks us to send you a notice about your privacy and something called “Customer Proprietary Network Information.” Please take a moment to read this. It's a bit complex, but we've tried to simplify it.

“CPNI” is information about your phone service from us. Your phone service could be a cell phone or any sort of home or business phone. The “information” is things like what kind of service you have, how often you use it, or billing information. We do not share this information with anyone outside of the AT&T family of companies or our authorized agents, with the following exceptions: Court orders or other activity authorized by law, such as fraud prevention; aggregate (grouped) information and information that doesn't identify you individually; or if we have your prior permission.

We do use CPNI internally. And that's what this notice is about. We may share information about our customers among the AT&T companies and our agents in order to offer you new or enhanced services.

If you are OK with this, great; no further action is required. But your telecommunications services still have extra rules, such as this notice every two years. It is your right and our duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of your CPNI. If you don't want AT&T to use your CPNI internally for things like offers, here is what you can do:
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
That is the core of the matter. Either private property exists, or it does not.

The core of the matter is free speech (a principle preceding the United States and therefore also obviously its constitution) as it pertains to private companies increasingly controlling communication. People seem to think that the US invented it and that it's only important in one single context.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
The core of the matter is free speech (a principle preceding the United States and therefore also obviously its constitution) as it pertains to private companies increasingly controlling communication. People seem to think that the US invented it and that it's only important in one single context.

The web is open. Social media companies in no way shape or form have a monopoly on communication. Infowars and Natural News still have their own websites.

They just want to be able to force the most popular companies to carry their messages against their will.

So... either you support the right to private property, or you do not. Full Stop. There is no way around that short of nationalizing social media. Are you a socialist at heart?
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
That is the core of the matter. Either private property exists, or it does not.

Gore Vidal...
There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

The danger is when the Property Party controls all the effective means of communication and thus have the power to materially impact free speech.... especially speech that is critical of the Property Party.

Given that, I understand/respect your POV and concede that you do make an extremely powerful argument. I really am torn on this one.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
Gore Vidal...


The danger is when the Property Party controls all the effective means of communication and thus have the power to materially impact free speech.... especially speech that is critical of the Property Party.

Given that, I understand/respect your POV and concede that you do make an extremely powerful argument. I really am torn on this one.

In point of fact, social media has NOT removed any posts or videos that discuss this issue, pro or con. So there's that. Youtube is filled with videos of people complaining about it and claiming some derp state conspiracy. Facebook and Twitter are also filled with them. The social media sites are not removing complainers or speech against them. Only that speech that is hateful, bigoted or defamatory.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
The web is open. Social media companies in no way shape or form have a monopoly on communication. Infowars and Natural News still have their own websites.

They just want to be able to force the most popular companies to carry their messages against their will.

So... either you support the right to private property, or you do not. Full Stop. There is no way around that short of nationalizing social media. Are you a socialist at heart?
You can support both the will of twitter as well as the principle of free speech. I think you're purposefully ignoring that i've stated repeatedly that I and almost nobody else want them to be coerced into not doing this. It's just a bad direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

Its basic principle was the right and also the duty of every intelligent man as a rational being, to know the grounds and take responsibility for his beliefs and actions. Its corollary was a society and a state in which decisions are reached by open discussion, in which the sources of information are not contaminated by authority in the interest of party, and in which political unity is secured not by force but by a consensus that respects variety of opinion

This is also why the Russia stuff, beyond hacking actual voting systems or the dnc, just the social media influence stuff obsession, can't be respected. Even as stupid as most of you are, almost none of you would be susceptible to the nonsense they perpetrated. Now you're resorting to censorship of all the major social platforms, because the people who control it have the same stupid views as you do. Some people live on social media. No empathy for the deranged... sad. #maga
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The core of the matter is free speech (a principle preceding the United States and therefore also obviously its constitution) as it pertains to private companies increasingly controlling communication. People seem to think that the US invented it and that it's only important in one single context.

Increasingly? WTF?

What was the most powerful form of media at the time of the American Revolution? The printing press. There weren't that many around. Franklin & other revolutionaries printed newspapers as did Loyalists, I'm sure.

The possibilities today are infinitely broader & more varied. Rush Limbaugh has poisoned the airwaves for decades. Even Stormfront can find hosting.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,999
14,517
146
You can support both the will of twitter as well as the principle of free speech. I think you're purposefully ignoring that i've stated repeatedly that I and almost nobody else want them to be coerced into not doing this. It's just a bad direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

Bad direction? No. Good direction. Yes. They are listening to their customers and getting rid of asshole posts. Good for them. I fully support them and proudly report any racist, bigoted or defamatory post I see. I also refuse to give my money to any business that carries such messages.

The principle of free speech is that the government cannot punish you for it or limit it with threat of punishment. That is where it stops. Period. Full stop.

No private company has, nor should have an obligation to carry any message it doesn't want to. Especially since any asshoile can start his own website and post his crap there.

Again, either you agree to the right of private property or you do not.

What you cannot stomach here is the vast majority of social media users do NOT want racist, bigoted or defamatory posts on their social media.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,102
136
This is also why the Russia stuff, beyond hacking actual voting systems or the dnc, just the social media influence stuff obsession, can't be respected.

The Russian presence on American social media, with the purpose of influencing our election, is against the law. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from spending money to influence the outcome of American elections. That's why Mueller indicted 13 Russians.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
The Russian presence on American social media, with the purpose of influencing our election, is against the law. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from spending money to influence the outcome of American elections. That's why Mueller indicted 13 Russians.
So I've heard. I was talking about personal responsibility. The state's also failed theirs. If you didn't have predominantly locally funded schools, or christians, then you wouldn't be susceptible in the first place. Go ahead and prosecute, but the real problem is America is stupid. Maybe it has something to do with your "motto."
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
The Russian presence on American social media, with the purpose of influencing our election, is against the law. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from spending money to influence the outcome of American elections. That's why Mueller indicted 13 Russians.

Hmmm... what about this? Looks like a bit of a Pandora's box has been opened. Foreign governments setting up sites that look like American grassroots organizations followed by pure propaganda...... American oligarchs are probably doing the same damn thing.

Since the blockade began, these countries have spent tens of millions of dollars and hired at least 20 American and British communications and lobbying firms to run public influence campaigns in the United States, according to documents filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The campaigns themselves are nothing new. What is striking, however, is that they've moved past traditional Washington, D.C., lobbying, using American media to broadcast their narrative beyond the beltway. They've bought ads and promotions with Facebook, Twitter, and Google. They've created Snapchat filters and bought full-page ads in publications including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Politico. Dozens of pro- and anti-blockade commercials were placed on networks including Fox, CNN, NBC, and MSNBC. The Qatari government even purchased a billboard in Times Square.

Both Qatar and its Middle Eastern opponents, the Saudi-led blockade coalition, are fighting to control the narrative stateside. Both sides tout a similar message, highlighting the terrorist activities of its diplomatic opponent while boasting itself as America's partner for peace in the Middle East (Qatar and Saudi Arabia's governments have both been implicated in funding terrorism, and each denies it vehemently). But what is most alarming is that both the Saudi-led coalition and Qatar are using a tactic central to the Russian meddling: setting up websites and social media accounts that are designed to resemble grassroots American organizations.

The websites and social media accounts Lift the Blockade, Boycott Qatar, and Qatar Insider are all funded by one of these Middle Eastern countries.

"It seems to me that they're saying, 'Well if Russia was so successful in using Twitter and Facebook to change public opinion, then maybe we can do the same thing,'" says Richard Lau, a political science professor at Rutgers University who specializes in political persuasion and the effects of media on political campaigns.

One of the firms recruited by the Saudi-led coalition was the Podesta Group, which recently fell into turmoil after being named in the indictments of Paul Manafort and Richard Gates. According to the indictments, Manafort hired the Podesta Group to work on a U.S. communications campaign for a pro-Russia Ukrainian group. Tony Podesta stepped down as chief executive officer the day the indictments were announced, and the firm folded soon after that.

Prior to the Podesta Group's downfall, the company was able to orchestrate a public-relations campaign for the Saudi-led coalition. It was hired last summer by the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee, which is funded by the Embassy of Bahrain as well as the Saudi millionaire Salman Al-Ansari, who is also SAPRAC's founder and president. SAPRAC receives no direct funding from the government of Saudi Arabia, but its relationship resembles that between AIPAC and the Israeli government: legally unassociated, but curiously in sync.

https://psmag.com/news/are-foreign-...-campaigns-part-of-the-new-political-playbook
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |