You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Rafiq
November 28 2021 2.11pm

Rafiq

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 70 of 70 << First< 66 67 68 69 70

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Yesterday 5.21pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

I agree. Not really a left or right thing though really. It certainly happens in societies that you may view to be a better model, or seek to emulate and it happens in ours. I wonder how quick the freedom of speech love would dial down in a society that more reflected your racial interests (as in for all our faults China, Russia, Hungary etc don't seem all that hot on individual freedoms or voices in how they govern).

In any case, many proposed laws hijack both the sensibilities of the perceived left (cancel culture) and right attributes (groundless stop and search, often anti protest - well until covid) to contort into laws that impact all. They breeze past on account of side stepping the left and right Punch and Judy show that they rely on to sneak in authoritarian laws

[Link]


A decent note to toddle off on. Cheers.

Edited by BlueJay (27 Nov 2021 3.57pm)

I think you make good points here.

I'm a bit pushed for time for a bit but at a later point I'd like to extend some of these points as some of your criticisms are indeed valid.....I just think it's all inevitable.

I'm saying that so often now I could put it on my gravestone....it still works there as well.

 


'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 Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall Yesterday 7.27pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I don't think it's true to say that mainstream opinions aren't found on Hol. I don't even think that interpretation is close.

Also, If people choose not to post, that is the operation of choice, and so that isn't an attack on free speech. Hol does quite well in terms of posts compared to some other sites.

I have always defended free speech (as have you, though perhaps not so much recently) however I also agree that a private site has the right to make its own interpretations of its own rules.

I see that continually attacked by people who have the choice to attend sites that much more closely resemble their desire for restricted opinions.

I think that is a point worth making.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2021 2.58pm)

I am very glad to know you now support the right of Facebook, Twitter etc to ban the likes of Alex Jones and, of course, Donald Trump. Welcome to the club.

The only people who I see attacking that principal are those who themselves have the right to go and support the likes of "Gab".

My own view is that there is little point in participating in an echo chamber of similar views, unless your only purpose is to confirm your biases. That some do here is unfortunate, and I would urge them all to also post their views elsewhere. You won't change minds unless you engage with them.

I abhor extreme right attitudes and don't want to see them ever gaining any traction in my country. I cannot impact that much, but if all I did was complain in an echo chamber, I wouldn't do anything at all.

So I reject the concept, often expressed here, that people like me aren't welcome and should go somewhere else, like the BBS where, apparently, my views are commonplace. That feels like the antithesis of free speech.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View soapbox's Profile soapbox Flag Yesterday 7.37pm Send a Private Message to soapbox Add soapbox as a friend

If you want to see a balanced, fair- minded article on this subject, then get hold of Monty Panesar’s article in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ today.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park Yesterday 7.41pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by soapbox

If you want to see a balanced, fair- minded article on this subject, then get hold of Monty Panesar’s article in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ today.

Here is something from Wisden:

[Link]

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall Yesterday 8.09pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Here is something from Wisden:

[Link]

He is, of course, fully entitled to his view that the BBC have made an error of judgement, but he didn't actually have to make the decision which was probably very difficult and finely balanced.

He says nice things about both Vaughan and Rafiq, who says nice things about vaughan too.

So this sounds, to me, it is a headline searching for a story.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Yesterday 10.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

The silicon valley companies were given both public funds at start up and laws were changed to allow them to operate.

They aren't private operations in the same way Hol is.

A very important second point to make here is on monopolies.

In a free marketplace, I have no issues with companies having rules on their platforms which would see people they don't like banned (though this is done in a very underhand and dishonest fashion).

However, the point should also be made that the kind of restrictions they now use were not in place when they started up. Only once they reached powerful positions have they started to exclude people...directly going back on their original free speech beginnings....However, all that is what it is...what I very much more opposed to are those same companies have conspired to limit new competing platforms that differ from them politically because of their monopoly power.....they have conspired together because they have the same politics and it's very unethical.


Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2021 10.08pm)

 


'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 Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall Yesterday 11.49pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The silicon valley companies were given both public funds at start up and laws were changed to allow them to operate.

They aren't private operations in the same way Hol is.

A very important second point to make here is on monopolies.

In a free marketplace, I have no issues with companies having rules on their platforms which would see people they don't like banned (though this is done in a very underhand and dishonest fashion).

However, the point should also be made that the kind of restrictions they now use were not in place when they started up. Only once they reached powerful positions have they started to exclude people...directly going back on their original free speech beginnings....However, all that is what it is...what I very much more opposed to are those same companies have conspired to limit new competing platforms that differ from them politically because of their monopoly power.....they have conspired together because they have the same politics and it's very unethical.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2021 10.08pm)

Silicon valley was designed to be a base for start-up tech companies, so it's hardly surprising that start-up tech companies set up there. That means zilch in terms of their ownership being private and the rules being their rules. No different at all to the Hol, other than in scale.

None are monopolies. They all have competition. That they can reach the same conclusions is a sign that they are all trying to find a balance between allowing freedom of expression and ensuring that their sites are not used to promote dangerous misinformation, or calls for violence. Something that unmoderated sites, like Gab fail badly at doing.

My view, which seems to be shared by many these days, is that they don't go nearly far enough. It has nothing at all to do with whether someone is "liked" or not. It's how they behave and what they post. You can find some pretty outrageous stuff on all the social media sites. Unedited untruths that would never get past a lawyer on the regular media. Some might like that, because it's "free speech", but when it's irresponsible speech that can cause actual harm, we need them to take action.

Of course, as they have grown, oversight arrangements have had to evolve to suit their new environment. That happens to every business, in every sector. They need to evolve faster, though, because their environment is ever-changing.

The idea that these companies must, by default, have political motivations behind their decisions is untrue. It is an excuse to justify the antagonism. Removals and bans happen because of the posting of lies and dangerous calls for unlawful actions, and not because of any particular viewpoint of the poster. They can easily be avoided, simply by staying within the rules and not posting things known to be untrue.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong Today 12.15am Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

This is spot on

Originally posted by soapbox

If you want to see a balanced, fair- minded article on this subject, then get hold of Monty Panesar’s article in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ today.

 


A lie will travel half way around the world before the truth has got it's shoes on.

When conceited septuagenarians opine , best to ignore.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag Today 12.35am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am very glad to know you now support the right of Facebook, Twitter etc to ban the likes of Alex Jones and, of course, Donald Trump. Welcome to the club.

The only people who I see attacking that principal are those who themselves have the right to go and support the likes of "Gab".

My own view is that there is little point in participating in an echo chamber of similar views, unless your only purpose is to confirm your biases. That some do here is unfortunate, and I would urge them all to also post their views elsewhere. You won't change minds unless you engage with them.

I abhor extreme right attitudes and don't want to see them ever gaining any traction in my country. I cannot impact that much, but if all I did was complain in an echo chamber, I wouldn't do anything at all.

So I reject the concept, often expressed here, that people like me aren't welcome and should go somewhere else, like the BBS where, apparently, my views are commonplace. That feels like the antithesis of free speech.

How many minds have you changed on HOL? The various posters on here are as malleable as anyone else so your success rate must be pretty high.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall Today 1.40pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

How many minds have you changed on HOL? The various posters on here are as malleable as anyone else so your success rate must be pretty high.

I have no idea, although a complete change, probably none. On a few matters, maybe some. We won't know because they are very unlikely to admit it. It's not the only reason for doing it. You need to feel comfortable with yourself. Not trying isn't an option for me.

I disagree though about the posters here having malleable minds. Some might, but there are others whose minds haven't moved an inch in the last 50 years.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole Today 1.49pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

You won't change anyone's mind on the internet. People don't engage to listen, they come to voice their opinions.

the only benefit, is that it gives readers perspective. A view from another angle.

And to that end, Monty's piece seemed to hit the right balance. It's not just your opinion, but they way in which you express it. He sounded very measured and reasonable in what he said. Some might not agree, but that's OK

 


,.,.,..,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag Today 1.50pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have no idea, although a complete change, probably none. On a few matters, maybe some. We won't know because they are very unlikely to admit it. It's not the only reason for doing it. You need to feel comfortable with yourself. Not trying isn't an option for me.

I disagree though about the posters here having malleable minds. Some might, but there are others whose minds haven't moved an inch in the last 50 years.

And on which subjects has your opinion been changed?

 

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

 

Page 70 of 70 << First< 66 67 68 69 70

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Rafiq