You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Bias against Trump
March 29 2024 6.59am

Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 538 of 573 < 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 >

 

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 11.07pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't trust anyone who manipulates people via distorted and one sided information and shuts down opposition.

I don't either, but that's not what is being done, is it? They are removing misinformation which could cause harm. Not shutting down legitimate opinions.

If they have right on their side, why would they need to?

Because there are too many gullible people prepared to buy modern day snake oil served up by con men posting misinformation on the internet.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 30 Jun 21 11.10pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Why do you think that was?

I suggest it is due to the motivations which lie behind the actions. Trump was politicising the pandemic and seeking to divert attention away from the criticism of his own response. There was an over-riding need for the world as a whole to fight the pandemic together and not get into a blame game at that point.

Now we are getting on top of it is the right time to dig deeper and see if those stories have any legitimacy, so the appropriate lessons can be learned.

So we’re now dealing with motivation rather than facts. Is it really up to social media companies and search engines to decide the motivation behind statements made by the President of America?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
BlueJay Flag UK 30 Jun 21 11.13pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Google accounts for 92% of internet searches.
When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news.

I do appreciate that Google and co have a difficult line to walk sometimes, but they've definitely overstepped the mark in terms of taking stances that they don't need to and silencing voices that deserve to be heard. It does them and us no favours, because all it succeeds in doing is pushing these specific voices onto platforms that end up especially appealing to those testing the boundaries of even those alternative services; essentially snuffing out 'normal' conversations and encouraging untethered ones. It would be better if Youtube allowed for wider debate, then people on all sides would be able to get more nuanced takes rather than 'this echo chamber or that one'.


Youtubes attitude towards say potential covid treatment Ivermectic (in censoring and demonetising Bret Weinstein and co for talking about it) is disturbing as it encourages a kind of 'state sponsored' view of medicine that may be detached from reality. This treatment is being used in several countries and granted we need our own studies, but the idea what we can't talk about something that looks promising on the surface is absurd.


Edited by BlueJay (30 Jun 2021 11.15pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 01 Jul 21 12.07am Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

I do appreciate that Google and co have a difficult line to walk sometimes, but they've definitely overstepped the mark in terms of taking stances that they don't need to and silencing voices that deserve to be heard. It does them and us no favours, because all it succeeds in doing is pushing these specific voices onto platforms that end up especially appealing to those testing the boundaries of even those alternative services; essentially snuffing out 'normal' conversations and encouraging untethered ones. It would be better if Youtube allowed for wider debate, then people on all sides would be able to get more nuanced takes rather than 'this echo chamber or that one'.


Youtubes attitude towards say potential covid treatment Ivermectic (in censoring and demonetising Bret Weinstein and co for talking about it) is disturbing as it encourages a kind of 'state sponsored' view of medicine that may be detached from reality. This treatment is being used in several countries and granted we need our own studies, but the idea what we can't talk about something that looks promising on the surface is absurd.

Edited by BlueJay (30 Jun 2021 11.15pm)

Did they do the same with Ivermectin as well? Seems to be plenty of debate about it on YouTube so what did this geezer do wrong?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
BlueJay Flag UK 01 Jul 21 2.31am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Did they do the same with Ivermectin as well? Seems to be plenty of debate about it on YouTube so what did this geezer do wrong?

They appeared to get especially trigger happy with warnings when people didn't in their view offer enough caveats or weight to treatments already in place. That was in the reply specifically sent to him. I just feel that where there is clear disinformation fair enough, but in some cases they've moved beyond that.

Youtubes actual policy states that people should not recommend the use of Ivermectin or claim that it is an effective treatment. I do not believe this is a reasonable stance, as at this point we don't have the answer to some of these questions so people should not face consequences just for holding a view that isn't exactly 'out there'.

Like I said, I would prefer Youtube to do a tough job better as in the long run it's to their detriment if they don't. There are clearly entirely anything goes video platforms but due to the nature of why they even came about, it's mostly conspiracy sh!t and nutcases (the 'Captiol crowd' and people who have zero problem with neo nazis but faint at typical everyday views). You're more likely to get a death theat than a critique if you have anything half normal or nuanced to say, so I'd rather Youtube keep things as broad and open as possible rather than drive people to places that tip them into a social and psychological no-mans land.


Edited by BlueJay (01 Jul 2021 4.15pm)

E4kg0fLXMAM-wPV.jpg Attachment: E4kg0fLXMAM-wPV.jpg (185.73Kb)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jul 21 8.31am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So we’re now dealing with motivation rather than facts. Is it really up to social media companies and search engines to decide the motivation behind statements made by the President of America?

The companies make their own rules and are under no obligation to carry messages for anyone, including the POTUS. If their determination is that their rules have been broken, then they are completely within their rights to act. Ensuring that content posted on their sites does not harm others seems sensible to me.

A President has plenty of official channels available to them.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 01 Jul 21 8.48am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't either, but that's not what is being done, is it? They are removing misinformation which could cause harm. Not shutting down legitimate opinions.

Because there are too many gullible people prepared to buy modern day snake oil served up by con men posting misinformation on the internet.

This is quite simply a one sided view.

Everything you oppose, you claim is dangerous.

How much more dangerous can you get than censoring opinion, including that of the former democratically elected POTUS.

We have a few individuals deciding what we can see and how we should think.

Once upon a time, we fought wars to stop that sort of stuff.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 01 Jul 21 8.52am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The companies make their own rules and are under no obligation to carry messages for anyone, including the POTUS. If their determination is that their rules have been broken, then they are completely within their rights to act. Ensuring that content posted on their sites does not harm others seems sensible to me.

A President has plenty of official channels available to them.

They’re still trying to determine the motivation behind the facts rather than the facts themselves.
You’ve spent many pages explaining why politicians are elected to take decisions on our behalf; shouldn’t we know the data behind those decisions? I do appreciate that Trump was a loose cannon but this seems a dangerous precedent.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 01 Jul 21 7.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son's business dealings and the mainstream media are currently protecting him.

[Link]

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 01 Jul 21 9.04pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son's business dealings and the mainstream media are currently protecting him.

[Link]

His day will come.

I noticed the BBC have posted a couple of negative stories about Biden nothing earth shattering but one was about his health I think they (Democratic Party) are lining up Kamala to take over probably by invoking the 25th amendment at some point.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 01 Jul 21 10.06pm Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

His day will come.

I noticed the BBC have posted a couple of negative stories about Biden nothing earth shattering but one was about his health I think they (Democratic Party) are lining up Kamala to take over probably by invoking the 25th amendment at some point.

Apparently he supported this athlete’s actions.


[Link]

[Link]


Edited by Spiderman (01 Jul 2021 10.08pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
croydon proud Flag Any european country i fancy! 01 Jul 21 10.33pm

This Allen Wiesselberg story could be bad news for the don according to sky, no doubt a deal can be done to smoothe things over, thats business, but not what you want in your retirement years all the same.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 538 of 573 < 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Bias against Trump