Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 536 of 573 < 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 >

Teddy Eagle 29 Jun 21 12.55am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle When anyone, President or not, is abusing a platform to spread misinformation, then it is the duty of that platform to take action. No-one has the right to use any social media platform. They are not publicly owned, but are commercial businesses. Users don't have rights. They only have responsibilities which involve abiding by the terms and conditions required by the site. There is no monopoly at all. There are many alternatives, which may not be as popular or successful, but they exist. Trump was not, and is not, silenced. His reach has merely been curtailed to those who WANT to hear him. Whether we need more regulation over the social media companies is another matter but should it be decided that we do it is likely to take the form of tighter controls over content, and not anything which allows unfettered access to their platforms, which would not be in the public interest. Suggesting that this is all a scheme of the "left" is really quite funny. It has nothing at all to do with political positions and only concerns ensuring that lies are not allowed to repeatedly be spread, or incitement to violence or civil disorder be posted. Who-ever does that, whether from the left or the right, will suffer the same fate. So multi-billion dollar companies are now the arbiters of truth in society? Is that because they’re all so scrupulously honest in their tax affairs, advertising and employment practices?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

29 Jun 21 12.55am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

When anyone, President or not, is abusing a platform to spread misinformation, then it is the duty of that platform to take action. No-one has the right to use any social media platform. They are not publicly owned, but are commercial businesses. Users don't have rights. They only have responsibilities which involve abiding by the terms and conditions required by the site.

There is no monopoly at all. There are many alternatives, which may not be as popular or successful, but they exist. Trump was not, and is not, silenced. His reach has merely been curtailed to those who WANT to hear him.

Whether we need more regulation over the social media companies is another matter but should it be decided that we do it is likely to take the form of tighter controls over content, and not anything which allows unfettered access to their platforms, which would not be in the public interest.

Suggesting that this is all a scheme of the "left" is really quite funny. It has nothing at all to do with political positions and only concerns ensuring that lies are not allowed to repeatedly be spread, or incitement to violence or civil disorder be posted. Who-ever does that, whether from the left or the right, will suffer the same fate.

So multi-billion dollar companies are now the arbiters of truth in society? Is that because they’re all so scrupulously honest in their tax affairs, advertising and employment practices?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 29 Jun 21 9.56am
Originally posted by kevlee But these are public companies whose shares are owned by and large by pension funds, save for the residual shareholders like Bezos and Gates etc. In the UK and USA there is a very lite touch to intervention in private media companies, it’s really only terrorism, child protection, stirring up hated etc. The rest is down to self regulation. Twitter weighed it up and Trump lost out. Once governments intervene in private media companies it’s the road to the likes of China, North Korea etc. I think it’s best that there is as little state intervention in what people can say as possible, so long as they aren’t advocating violence or similar. I do have respect for libertarian arguments.....though any summary of them is that they have lost in modern times. Also, you mention 'lite touch' intervention but then talk about 'stirring up hate'.....well, that the same excuse China uses, what's the difference? You say the state shouldn't intervene, however when a monopoly exists they are meant to by precedence. Look at what the Silcon Valley companies do bullying competitors...Gab for example. These companies act as a political cartel you are essentially allowing a communications medium to be politically controlled by one perspective. The state does normally act to stop monopolies but now you have the state supporting them if they agree politically. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jun 2021 10.05am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

29 Jun 21 9.56am

Originally posted by kevlee

But these are public companies whose shares are owned by and large by pension funds, save for the residual shareholders like Bezos and Gates etc. In the UK and USA there is a very lite touch to intervention in private media companies, it’s really only terrorism, child protection, stirring up hated etc. The rest is down to self regulation. Twitter weighed it up and Trump lost out.
Once governments intervene in private media companies it’s the road to the likes of China, North Korea etc.
I think it’s best that there is as little state intervention in what people can say as possible, so long as they aren’t advocating violence or similar.

I do have respect for libertarian arguments.....though any summary of them is that they have lost in modern times.

Also, you mention 'lite touch' intervention but then talk about 'stirring up hate'.....well, that the same excuse China uses, what's the difference?

You say the state shouldn't intervene, however when a monopoly exists they are meant to by precedence. Look at what the Silcon Valley companies do bullying competitors...Gab for example. These companies act as a political cartel you are essentially allowing a communications medium to be politically controlled by one perspective.

The state does normally act to stop monopolies but now you have the state supporting them if they agree politically.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jun 2021 10.05am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 10.06am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle So multi-billion dollar companies are now the arbiters of truth in society? Is that because they’re all so scrupulously honest in their tax affairs, advertising and employment practices? Of course not. But trustworthy fact-checkers who all reach similar conclusions need to be taken seriously. Holding different opinions on the best way to do things or the significance of various events are perfectly legitimate. Posting misinformation that is demonstrably, factually inaccurate is not. Thanks for your good wishes. The move was very stressful but is now behind us. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 10.06am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So multi-billion dollar companies are now the arbiters of truth in society? Is that because they’re all so scrupulously honest in their tax affairs, advertising and employment practices?

Of course not. But trustworthy fact-checkers who all reach similar conclusions need to be taken seriously. Holding different opinions on the best way to do things or the significance of various events are perfectly legitimate. Posting misinformation that is demonstrably, factually inaccurate is not.

Thanks for your good wishes. The move was very stressful but is now behind us.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lombardinho London 29 Jun 21 11.13am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course not. But trustworthy fact-checkers who all reach similar conclusions need to be taken seriously. Holding different opinions on the best way to do things or the significance of various events are perfectly legitimate. Posting misinformation that is demonstrably, factually inaccurate is not. Thanks for your good wishes. The move was very stressful but is now behind us. The only problem, Wisbech, is that there aren't any trustworthy fact-checkers.
Alert a moderator to this post

Lombardinho

London 29 Jun 21 11.13am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Thanks for your good wishes. The move was very stressful but is now behind us.

The only problem, Wisbech, is that there aren't any trustworthy fact-checkers.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jun 21 11.16am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle When anyone, President or not, is abusing a platform to spread misinformation, then it is the duty of that platform to take action. No-one has the right to use any social media platform. They are not publicly owned, but are commercial businesses. Users don't have rights. They only have responsibilities which involve abiding by the terms and conditions required by the site. There is no monopoly at all. There are many alternatives, which may not be as popular or successful, but they exist. Trump was not, and is not, silenced. His reach has merely been curtailed to those who WANT to hear him. Whether we need more regulation over the social media companies is another matter but should it be decided that we do it is likely to take the form of tighter controls over content, and not anything which allows unfettered access to their platforms, which would not be in the public interest. Suggesting that this is all a scheme of the "left" is really quite funny. It has nothing at all to do with political positions and only concerns ensuring that lies are not allowed to repeatedly be spread, or incitement to violence or civil disorder be posted. Who-ever does that, whether from the left or the right, will suffer the same fate. On that basis, you can expect to be removed from HOL very soon.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jun 21 11.16am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

When anyone, President or not, is abusing a platform to spread misinformation, then it is the duty of that platform to take action. No-one has the right to use any social media platform. They are not publicly owned, but are commercial businesses. Users don't have rights. They only have responsibilities which involve abiding by the terms and conditions required by the site.

On that basis, you can expect to be removed from HOL very soon.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 29 Jun 21 12.14pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course not. But trustworthy fact-checkers who all reach similar conclusions need to be taken seriously. Holding different opinions on the best way to do things or the significance of various events are perfectly legitimate. Posting misinformation that is demonstrably, factually inaccurate is not. Thanks for your good wishes. The move was very stressful but is now behind us. Glad it went as well as possible; anyone moving goes through the mill. The problem I have with these corporate censors is that “facts” are subject to change so what’s true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

29 Jun 21 12.14pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Thanks for your good wishes. The move was very stressful but is now behind us.

Glad it went as well as possible; anyone moving goes through the mill.
The problem I have with these corporate censors is that “facts” are subject to change so what’s true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa.

Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin 29 Jun 21 6.12pm
With Nick Clegg as a fact checker I would rather let Trump speak. Clegg is a twit
Alert a moderator to this post

The Dolphin

29 Jun 21 6.12pm

With Nick Clegg as a fact checker I would rather let Trump speak.
Clegg is a twit

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 11.15pm
Originally posted by Lombardinho The only problem, Wisbech, is that there aren't any trustworthy fact-checkers. Yes there are. Those who examine claims made and compare them to the known facts. They expose many lies and the dubious conclusions which are made by taking a few facts, ignoring others and adding unlikely hypotheses. Only those gullible enough to be prepared to believe the conspiracy theorists have been taught to regard the fact-checkers as the liars. Spreading distrust in the trustworthy is their modus operandi. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 11.15pm

Originally posted by Lombardinho

The only problem, Wisbech, is that there aren't any trustworthy fact-checkers.

Yes there are. Those who examine claims made and compare them to the known facts. They expose many lies and the dubious conclusions which are made by taking a few facts, ignoring others and adding unlikely hypotheses.

Only those gullible enough to be prepared to believe the conspiracy theorists have been taught to regard the fact-checkers as the liars. Spreading distrust in the trustworthy is their modus operandi.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 11.21pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger On that basis, you can expect to be removed from HOL very soon. Opinion is opinion and is always acceptable. It is not what is under discussion. It's the posting of demonstrable lies and particularly the incitement of illegal actions which is the concern. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 11.21pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

On that basis, you can expect to be removed from HOL very soon.

Opinion is opinion and is always acceptable. It is not what is under discussion. It's the posting of demonstrable lies and particularly the incitement of illegal actions which is the concern.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 11.27pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Glad it went as well as possible; anyone moving goes through the mill. The problem I have with these corporate censors is that “facts” are subject to change so what’s true today may not be true tomorrow and vice versa. I don't think that is an issue at all. People don't get removed for posting opinions. Or for a single offence. There has to be a pattern and repeated transgressions of the rules. It needs to present a danger to others if it is allowed to continue. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jun 21 11.27pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

I don't think that is an issue at all. People don't get removed for posting opinions. Or for a single offence. There has to be a pattern and repeated transgressions of the rules. It needs to present a danger to others if it is allowed to continue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 29 Jun 21 11.27pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Opinion is opinion and is always acceptable. It is not what is under discussion. It's the posting of demonstrable lies and particularly the incitement of illegal actions which is the concern. Bill Maher this week: “Facebook banned any post for four months about COVID coming from a lab. Of course now, even the Biden administration is looking into this," "Google -- a Wall Street Journal reporter asked the head of Google's health division -- noticed that they don't do auto-fill searches for ‘coronavirus lab leak’ the way they do for any other question and the guy said, ‘Well, we want to make sure that the search isn’t leading people down pathways that we would find not authoritative information.' "Well, you were wrong, Google and Facebook!" Maher continued. "We don't know! The reason why we want you is because we're checking on this s---!"
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

29 Jun 21 11.27pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Opinion is opinion and is always acceptable. It is not what is under discussion. It's the posting of demonstrable lies and particularly the incitement of illegal actions which is the concern.

Bill Maher this week:

“Facebook banned any post for four months about COVID coming from a lab. Of course now, even the Biden administration is looking into this,"
"Google -- a Wall Street Journal reporter asked the head of Google's health division -- noticed that they don't do auto-fill searches for ‘coronavirus lab leak’ the way they do for any other question and the guy said, ‘Well, we want to make sure that the search isn’t leading people down pathways that we would find not authoritative information.'
"Well, you were wrong, Google and Facebook!" Maher continued. "We don't know! The reason why we want you is because we're checking on this s---!"

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 11.11am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Bill Maher this week: “Facebook banned any post for four months about COVID coming from a lab. Of course now, even the Biden administration is looking into this," "Google -- a Wall Street Journal reporter asked the head of Google's health division -- noticed that they don't do auto-fill searches for ‘coronavirus lab leak’ the way they do for any other question and the guy said, ‘Well, we want to make sure that the search isn’t leading people down pathways that we would find not authoritative information.' "Well, you were wrong, Google and Facebook!" Maher continued. "We don't know! The reason why we want you is because we're checking on this s---!" I guess that the pandemic and the way information about it is handled presents a special, and very tricky, dilemma. The need to encourage vaccination and stop the spread of the very dangerous misinformation must demand some compromises. So anything that adds oxygen to that misinformation might receive some careful attention. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 11.11am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Bill Maher this week:

I guess that the pandemic and the way information about it is handled presents a special, and very tricky, dilemma. The need to encourage vaccination and stop the spread of the very dangerous misinformation must demand some compromises. So anything that adds oxygen to that misinformation might receive some careful attention.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 536 of 573 < 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Bias against Trump

Site Map

Sponsors