Free Speech

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 14 of 15 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

kingdowieonthewall Sussex, ex-Cronx. 31 Oct 22 6.43pm
Originally posted by Badger11 I see the public are ignoring the police request not to intervene with these idiot eco protestors. Well Mr Plod if you don't want vigilante action then I suggest you try nicking these idiots instead of asking them if they want food and water. No doubt you will be bringing in out door heaters in case the little darlings catch cold. The public are tired of being held to ransom by a bunch of middle class whites (when do you ever see a black eco protestor). Life is hard enough for working people then you are trying to get around London only to be held up whilst the police stand around and do nothing. Quite frankly senior police officers should be sacked for dereliction of duty. well said. i'm fecking sick of 'em. utter w***ers that 'know better'. Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.
Alert a moderator to this post

kingdowieonthewall

Sussex, ex-Cronx. 31 Oct 22 6.43pm

Send a Private Message to kingdowieonthewall

Originally posted by Badger11

I see the public are ignoring the police request not to intervene with these idiot eco protestors.

Well Mr Plod if you don't want vigilante action then I suggest you try nicking these idiots instead of asking them if they want food and water. No doubt you will be bringing in out door heaters in case the little darlings catch cold.

The public are tired of being held to ransom by a bunch of middle class whites (when do you ever see a black eco protestor). Life is hard enough for working people then you are trying to get around London only to be held up whilst the police stand around and do nothing.

Quite frankly senior police officers should be sacked for dereliction of duty.

well said.
i'm fecking sick of 'em.
utter w***ers that 'know better'.

Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents?
Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 31 Oct 22 6.51pm
I assume the recent Dover incident is a similar reaction by a member of the public who is fed up with inaction by the Authorities. Originally posted by Badger11 I see the public are ignoring the police request not to intervene with these idiot eco protestors. Well Mr Plod if you don't want vigilante action then I suggest you try nicking these idiots instead of asking them if they want food and water. No doubt you will be bringing in out door heaters in case the little darlings catch cold. The public are tired of being held to ransom by a bunch of middle class whites (when do you ever see a black eco protestor). Life is hard enough for working people then you are trying to get around London only to be held up whilst the police stand around and do nothing. Quite frankly senior police officers should be sacked for dereliction of duty. hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 31 Oct 22 6.51pm

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

I assume the recent Dover incident is a similar reaction by a member of the public who is fed up with inaction by the Authorities.

Originally posted by Badger11

I see the public are ignoring the police request not to intervene with these idiot eco protestors.

Quite frankly senior police officers should be sacked for dereliction of duty.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Nov 22 2.45am
I think I should push back on this narrative because I've heard it a lot from various on the left/centre on trying to justify the censorious landscape of the last five/ten years online. Not only have I heard the above arguments before, and finding left media narratives on it isn't hard, but I've heard similar narratives made about Hollywood and other televisual media. I'll try to address these points, though I think we have all been here before: Originally posted by SW19 CPFC It is worth noting here that the idea of total free speech across social media platforms is a fantasy, as long as those platforms a) require advertising to make money and b) require massive user bases to remain viable. I don't believe anyone was saying that 'total free speech' was a thing. In fact it's never existed officially. I have some respect for the libertarian viewpoint on 'free speech absolutism' just as we can have respect for many aspects of utopianism. However, that isn't the same as saying it's practical....indeed, like many utopian ideals, more damage is done in trying to create them than in dealing with the practical realities and consequences of human interactions. What was being stated was the criticism of deliberate social engineering in the narrowing of free speech that the left and socially liberal government have endorsed and more importantly legislated and regulated for. That's a very important point....it's not a binary concerning a freedom that's never existed but a commentary on a freedom that's been considerable minimalized....and what the consequences of that have been. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Some great quotes from a recent Verge article on the matter Here are some examples: you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers �brand safety.� That means you have to ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals people to be total assholes. So you can make all the promises about �free speech� you want, but the dull reality is that you still have to ban a bunch of legal speech if you want to make money. 'it turns out that most people do not want to participate in horrible unmoderated internet spaces full of s*ty racists and not-all-men fedora bullies. (This is why Twitter is so small compared to its peers!) What most people want from social media is to have nice experiences and to feel validated all the time. They want to live at Disney World. So if you want more people to join Twitter and actually post tweets, you have to make the experience much, much more pleasant. Which means: moderating more aggressively! Again, every �alternative� social network has learned this lesson the hard way. Like, over and over and over again.' I think SW makes it quite clear where his position is here with these value judgements. However, I think some points can be made on the topic independently of whether we like what someone thinks or not. No advertisers are required to support outlets they have issue with. However, I think SW ignores some points here. When we look at media like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones (when he wasn't banned) the reality is that those shows were and in Carlson's case are advertised on....it's just who those advertisers are. Evidence: [Link] Anyone who knows about 'media matters' understands that they are massively funded and aimed at war with Fox News and other right wing outlets. Rather than SW's contention that advertisers are freely deciding, out of some moral maze, that right wing opinions are unacceptable to them, the rather more nasty reality is that well funded left wing activist groups use lawfare, threats and pressure to frighten advertisers away from their ideological opponents. They use the same tactic that the American religious right used generations ago. In the modern right wing space, which is less national, advertisers are full and plentiful. That very fact kind of negates the contention that it's just a 'brand safety' moral issue. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Parler - banning users Truth social � heavy moderation (eg. posts containing 'abortion is healthcare' being shadow-banned) More on Parler, an amusing exerpt from techdirt 'You may recall that last summer, we mocked how Parler was speed running the content moderation learning curve. It seems that every year a new social media service pops up, insisting that it believes in �free speech� and won�t �censor� anything. And then� reality hits. And it realizes that if you do no moderation at all, your website is a total and complete garbage dump full of spam, p. harassment, abuse and trolling. And just as Parler learned it needed to do some moderation (and its then CEO even bragged about kicking off �leftist trolls�), every new platform learns the same damn thing eventually. Though, amusingly, it seems to happen faster and faster each time.' So context is required when complaining about the lack of free speech on social media platforms. Moderation of content in order to provide a more usable product for audiences is just an inevitable reality. No point moaning about something that is impossible to create, in my view. I think when SW refers to Parler and Truth Social we are talking less about free speech and more about right wing platforms. There are two important aspects to remember here. Firstly that Parler was the fastest growing platform before Apple removed its app from its store...it was popular with users and it was Apple's regulations (which many view as anti-competitive) which did for Parler, not advertisers with moral consciences.....actually that very idea is amusing to me. Secondly Truth Social nor Parler were never 'absolutist free speech' platforms and were never advertised as such. They presented themselves as pro conservative or just more for free speech than Twitter was. In fact, I regard both Parler and Truth Social as rather poor representatives of 'free speech'. I think there is often a conflation between the right and what free speech is. Yes, free speech is far more supported....in the present by the right, however in my youth the left were its champions with really only the religious right (which was far stronger then) as its opponents....but saying that the left were more for free speech back then, than the more prim and proper right of those times, is a fair remembarance....boy has that changed. However, for me I see 'free speech' as independent of the political and more a society issue. I question the increase in restrictions as significant provable downgrades not protections....I point out the considerable scope for abuse of what is and isn't viewed as a 'protection'. Originally posted by SW19 CPFC* So context is required when complaining about the lack of free speech on social media platforms. Moderation of content in order to provide a more usable product for audiences is just an inevitable reality. No point moaning about something that is impossible to create, in my view. I think perhaps you are justifying a 'one size fits all' requirement for social media here that I just differ on. You contended that the market demands that where I think that when you actually look at the market you can see variance that refutes that...Also, I think the laws and regulations need to be considered for their affect on corporate investment, they have been fiddled with considerably since Bill Clinton. I contend that what you are seeing isn't a corporate world with any diversity and that's one that's been deliberately created....the larger the company the larger the pressure to conform. What I think is more the truth is that the larger corporate world is within that space because it is required to be...in many senses they know they are leaving money on the table. There are plenty of advertisers who understand that money is there to be made.....I think the Tucker Carlson point holds this up well as he is the most popular show on news broadcast media yet the attack on advertisers who used it was plain to see....in more normal times his show would not be boycotted by any advertisers. I don't think anyone has an issue with heavily moderated platforms within a market where people are allowed to choose, without political or legal pressure attacking their choices.....Parler for example. I think the area where we might find some agreement is on social media in general and its overall affect upon society. That's a related topic and some might say that similar to p00rn or alcohol, that it serves a natural human need but one that can easily be expressed as an outlet for human vices. There are certainly a lot of rich people who have made a lot of money out of it.....where there is a demand and it's technologically possible, there will be a supply. However, the problem often comes in what is thought of as solutions to these problems......Not that personally I think solutions are ever really possible and that flexible adaptations are more realistic. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2022 3.12am) '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

01 Nov 22 2.45am

I think I should push back on this narrative because I've heard it a lot from various on the left/centre on trying to justify the censorious landscape of the last five/ten years online.

Not only have I heard the above arguments before, and finding left media narratives on it isn't hard, but I've heard similar narratives made about Hollywood and other televisual media.

I'll try to address these points, though I think we have all been here before:

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

It is worth noting here that the idea of total free speech across social media platforms is a fantasy, as long as those platforms a) require advertising to make money and b) require massive user bases to remain viable.

I don't believe anyone was saying that 'total free speech' was a thing. In fact it's never existed officially.

I have some respect for the libertarian viewpoint on 'free speech absolutism' just as we can have respect for many aspects of utopianism. However, that isn't the same as saying it's practical....indeed, like many utopian ideals, more damage is done in trying to create them than in dealing with the practical realities and consequences of human interactions.

What was being stated was the criticism of deliberate social engineering in the narrowing of free speech that the left and socially liberal government have endorsed and more importantly legislated and regulated for.

That's a very important point....it's not a binary concerning a freedom that's never existed but a commentary on a freedom that's been considerable minimalized....and what the consequences of that have been.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Some great quotes from a recent Verge article on the matter

Here are some examples: you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers �brand safety.� That means you have to ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals people to be total assholes. So you can make all the promises about �free speech� you want, but the dull reality is that you still have to ban a bunch of legal speech if you want to make money.

'it turns out that most people do not want to participate in horrible unmoderated internet spaces full of s***ty racists and not-all-men fedora bullies. (This is why Twitter is so small compared to its peers!) What most people want from social media is to have nice experiences and to feel validated all the time. They want to live at Disney World. So if you want more people to join Twitter and actually post tweets, you have to make the experience much, much more pleasant. Which means: moderating more aggressively! Again, every �alternative� social network has learned this lesson the hard way. Like, over and over and over again.'

I think SW makes it quite clear where his position is here with these value judgements. However, I think some points can be made on the topic independently of whether we like what someone thinks or not.

No advertisers are required to support outlets they have issue with. However, I think SW ignores some points here. When we look at media like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones (when he wasn't banned) the reality is that those shows were and in Carlson's case are advertised on....it's just who those advertisers are.

Evidence: [Link]

Anyone who knows about 'media matters' understands that they are massively funded and aimed at war with Fox News and other right wing outlets.

Rather than SW's contention that advertisers are freely deciding, out of some moral maze, that right wing opinions are unacceptable to them, the rather more nasty reality is that well funded left wing activist groups use lawfare, threats and pressure to frighten advertisers away from their ideological opponents. They use the same tactic that the American religious right used generations ago.

In the modern right wing space, which is less national, advertisers are full and plentiful. That very fact kind of negates the contention that it's just a 'brand safety' moral issue.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Parler - banning users

Truth social � heavy moderation (eg. posts containing 'abortion is healthcare' being shadow-banned)

More on Parler, an amusing exerpt from techdirt

'You may recall that last summer, we mocked how Parler was speed running the content moderation learning curve. It seems that every year a new social media service pops up, insisting that it believes in �free speech� and won�t �censor� anything. And then� reality hits. And it realizes that if you do no moderation at all, your website is a total and complete garbage dump full of spam, p***. harassment, abuse and trolling. And just as Parler learned it needed to do some moderation (and its then CEO even bragged about kicking off �leftist trolls�), every new platform learns the same damn thing eventually. Though, amusingly, it seems to happen faster and faster each time.'

So context is required when complaining about the lack of free speech on social media platforms. Moderation of content in order to provide a more usable product for audiences is just an inevitable reality. No point moaning about something that is impossible to create, in my view.

I think when SW refers to Parler and Truth Social we are talking less about free speech and more about right wing platforms.

There are two important aspects to remember here. Firstly that Parler was the fastest growing platform before Apple removed its app from its store...it was popular with users and it was Apple's regulations (which many view as anti-competitive) which did for Parler, not advertisers with moral consciences.....actually that very idea is amusing to me.

Secondly Truth Social nor Parler were never 'absolutist free speech' platforms and were never advertised as such. They presented themselves as pro conservative or just more for free speech than Twitter was.

In fact, I regard both Parler and Truth Social as rather poor representatives of 'free speech'.

I think there is often a conflation between the right and what free speech is. Yes, free speech is far more supported....in the present by the right, however in my youth the left were its champions with really only the religious right (which was far stronger then) as its opponents....but saying that the left were more for free speech back then, than the more prim and proper right of those times, is a fair remembarance....boy has that changed.

However, for me I see 'free speech' as independent of the political and more a society issue. I question the increase in restrictions as significant provable downgrades not protections....I point out the considerable scope for abuse of what is and isn't viewed as a 'protection'.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I think perhaps you are justifying a 'one size fits all' requirement for social media here that I just differ on.

You contended that the market demands that where I think that when you actually look at the market you can see variance that refutes that...Also, I think the laws and regulations need to be considered for their affect on corporate investment, they have been fiddled with considerably since Bill Clinton. I contend that what you are seeing isn't a corporate world with any diversity and that's one that's been deliberately created....the larger the company the larger the pressure to conform.

What I think is more the truth is that the larger corporate world is within that space because it is required to be...in many senses they know they are leaving money on the table.

There are plenty of advertisers who understand that money is there to be made.....I think the Tucker Carlson point holds this up well as he is the most popular show on news broadcast media yet the attack on advertisers who used it was plain to see....in more normal times his show would not be boycotted by any advertisers.

I don't think anyone has an issue with heavily moderated platforms within a market where people are allowed to choose, without political or legal pressure attacking their choices.....Parler for example.

I think the area where we might find some agreement is on social media in general and its overall affect upon society. That's a related topic and some might say that similar to p00rn or alcohol, that it serves a natural human need but one that can easily be expressed as an outlet for human vices. There are certainly a lot of rich people who have made a lot of money out of it.....where there is a demand and it's technologically possible, there will be a supply.

However, the problem often comes in what is thought of as solutions to these problems......Not that personally I think solutions are ever really possible and that flexible adaptations are more realistic.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2022 3.12am)

'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

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Nov 22 9.16am
Fair play Stirling, to be quite honest I wasn't sure what SW19's point was! He said something along the lines of 'moaning about free speech' in response to my post in which I was questioning how free speech should be if it was inspiring some down and out to target the victims of terror attacks! I am guessing, and somewhat interpreted his post (read it very briefly yesterday afternoon - was busy) as the usual defence of the left wing/attack on the right [thinking that's me] as soon as I mentioned them which is very typical but of course completely and willingly ignorant of the context. That may however have just been my lack of interest as I thought, again in response to my post, he went off on a separate tangent where I struggled to see the correlation. IMHO, as things are now, 'free speech' exists only as a concept and probably for good reason therefore my point was twofold: 1. Quite frankly, there are some people whose speech should not be as free as others. Unfortunately with the likes of social media these days affording such freedom to those with sinister or downright dangerous motive allows them to connect to others either similarly minded or easily influenced. There are some platforms on which people encourage those, who are usually very young, on the brink to actually commit suicide now are there not? A prime example of this danger for me. Furthermore, I would strongly assert the world has never seen any great result from the implementation of far left or right politics and these groups see social media as the conduit for communicating to masses. These groups or individuals do need monitoring, censoring, banning, arresting etc however... 2. If this is implemented to whom does the responsibility lie? I like to see myself as quite open-minded and a responder to that which I can either validate or process myself (common sense) however to suggest I have no bias, knowledge of or even a broad interest in absolutely all things is ludicrous - I wouldn't want that job. We'd all just end up with the slating of PL referees, Simpson's quotes, Tim Vine one-liners + other stand up skits and of course Palace friendly material! I also fail to see how when left to a privatised board, if you will, impartiality can be guaranteed without rigorous scrutiny and protocol. If I had any beef it was that it all seemed to be very left leaning and I absolutely reject this moral high-ground the left bizarrely and quite often ironically claim and that SW19 was trying to suggest (Again, didn't and can't be bothered to read whole post with sincerity so may be wrong here). It was merely the posting of a musing from myself neither politically nor sincerely motivated. I was just in shock that somebody was allowed to so freely 'go after' victims of an atrocity online. My final point in all this would be to say that I often thought 'free speech' should be allowed and that people would regulate themselves. I quite strongly believe the vast, vast majority of people are intelligent and good on an individual basis. However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous. The prime example for me still is Nazi Germany. I don't believe individually the Germans were capable of that however via a Propaganda minister and similar methodology that pinnacle of human catastrophe was achieved. That combined with the minority of dangerous individuals really does worry me apropos social media. I do not use it beyond 'Instagram', which I am not sure even qualifies, and on which I have two connections - CPFC of course but also my tattoo guy who insisted I have it to communicate with him and hence the reason I do! I accept I am a staunchly committed Luddite however I do often look upon Social Media with both awe and concern! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Nov 22 9.16am

Fair play Stirling, to be quite honest I wasn't sure what SW19's point was! He said something along the lines of 'moaning about free speech' in response to my post in which I was questioning how free speech should be if it was inspiring some down and out to target the victims of terror attacks! I am guessing, and somewhat interpreted his post (read it very briefly yesterday afternoon - was busy) as the usual defence of the left wing/attack on the right [thinking that's me] as soon as I mentioned them which is very typical but of course completely and willingly ignorant of the context. That may however have just been my lack of interest as I thought, again in response to my post, he went off on a separate tangent where I struggled to see the correlation.

IMHO, as things are now, 'free speech' exists only as a concept and probably for good reason therefore my point was twofold:

1. Quite frankly, there are some people whose speech should not be as free as others. Unfortunately with the likes of social media these days affording such freedom to those with sinister or downright dangerous motive allows them to connect to others either similarly minded or easily influenced. There are some platforms on which people encourage those, who are usually very young, on the brink to actually commit suicide now are there not? A prime example of this danger for me. Furthermore, I would strongly assert the world has never seen any great result from the implementation of far left or right politics and these groups see social media as the conduit for communicating to masses. These groups or individuals do need monitoring, censoring, banning, arresting etc however...

2. If this is implemented to whom does the responsibility lie? I like to see myself as quite open-minded and a responder to that which I can either validate or process myself (common sense) however to suggest I have no bias, knowledge of or even a broad interest in absolutely all things is ludicrous - I wouldn't want that job. We'd all just end up with the slating of PL referees, Simpson's quotes, Tim Vine one-liners + other stand up skits and of course Palace friendly material! I also fail to see how when left to a privatised board, if you will, impartiality can be guaranteed without rigorous scrutiny and protocol. If I had any beef it was that it all seemed to be very left leaning and I absolutely reject this moral high-ground the left bizarrely and quite often ironically claim and that SW19 was trying to suggest (Again, didn't and can't be bothered to read whole post with sincerity so may be wrong here). It was merely the posting of a musing from myself neither politically nor sincerely motivated. I was just in shock that somebody was allowed to so freely 'go after' victims of an atrocity online.

My final point in all this would be to say that I often thought 'free speech' should be allowed and that people would regulate themselves. I quite strongly believe the vast, vast majority of people are intelligent and good on an individual basis. However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous. The prime example for me still is Nazi Germany. I don't believe individually the Germans were capable of that however via a Propaganda minister and similar methodology that pinnacle of human catastrophe was achieved.

That combined with the minority of dangerous individuals really does worry me apropos social media. I do not use it beyond 'Instagram', which I am not sure even qualifies, and on which I have two connections - CPFC of course but also my tattoo guy who insisted I have it to communicate with him and hence the reason I do! I accept I am a staunchly committed Luddite however I do often look upon Social Media with both awe and concern!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 01 Nov 22 9.21am
we are no longer a democracy. And the ideas from the Greek Republic are dead. ... freedom of speech, separation of Church and State, political accountability etc. We are now a new Monarchy, the State Religion is the BBC and all their other Media minions. And it is heresy/treason for the little man to speak out. the fall of Boris/Truss is evidence that now the Media do the anointing of the chosen one. And when they don't like an elected politician ? they have zero respect for the wishes of the Nation. Trump was always crucified by the media. Obama could do little wrong. The loss of 'freedom of speech' puts us back to castrating William Wallace at Tyburn. Don't believe me ? look at Julian Assange or even Tommy Robinson ( you may not like him, but ask yourself why ?). we are now all brainwashed. Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 Nov 2022 9.32am) Eze Peasy at Anfield....
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 01 Nov 22 9.21am

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

we are no longer a democracy. And the ideas from the Greek Republic are dead. ... freedom of speech, separation of Church and State, political accountability etc.

We are now a new Monarchy, the State Religion is the BBC and all their other Media minions. And it is heresy/treason for the little man to speak out.

the fall of Boris/Truss is evidence that now the Media do the anointing of the chosen one. And when they don't like an elected politician ? they have zero respect for the wishes of the Nation. Trump was always crucified by the media. Obama could do little wrong.

The loss of 'freedom of speech' puts us back to castrating William Wallace at Tyburn. Don't believe me ? look at Julian Assange or even Tommy Robinson ( you may not like him, but ask yourself why ?).

we are now all brainwashed.

Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 Nov 2022 9.32am)

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 01 Nov 22 9.37am
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio we are no longer a democracy. And the ideas from the Greek Republic are dead. ... freedom of speech, separation of Church and State, political accountability etc. We are now a new Monarchy, the State Religion is the BBC and all their other Media minions. And it is heresy/treason for the little man to speak out. the fall of Boris/Truss is evidence that now the Media do the anointing of the chosen one. And when they don't like an elected politician ? they have zero respect for the wishes of the Nation. Trump was always crucified by the media. Obama could do little wrong. The loss of 'freedom of speech' puts us back to castrating William Wallace at Tyburn. Don't believe me ? look at Julian Assange or even Tommy Robinson ( you may not like him, but ask yourself why ?). we are now all brainwashed. Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 Nov 2022 9.32am) Pretty sure this has always been the case, though. It's just more powerful and effective now due to constant personal digital delivery Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 01 Nov 22 9.37am

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

we are no longer a democracy. And the ideas from the Greek Republic are dead. ... freedom of speech, separation of Church and State, political accountability etc.

We are now a new Monarchy, the State Religion is the BBC and all their other Media minions. And it is heresy/treason for the little man to speak out.

The loss of 'freedom of speech' puts us back to castrating William Wallace at Tyburn. Don't believe me ? look at Julian Assange or even Tommy Robinson ( you may not like him, but ask yourself why ?).

we are now all brainwashed.

Edited by PalazioVecchio (01 Nov 2022 9.32am)

Pretty sure this has always been the case, though. It's just more powerful and effective now due to constant personal digital delivery

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 01 Nov 22 9.44am
Originally posted by Nicholas91 Fair play Stirling, to be quite honest I wasn't sure what SW19's point was! He said something along the lines of 'moaning about free speech' in response to my post in which I was questioning how free speech should be if it was inspiring some down and out to target the victims of terror attacks! I am guessing, and somewhat interpreted his post (read it very briefly yesterday afternoon - was busy) as the usual defence of the left wing/attack on the right [thinking that's me] as soon as I mentioned them which is very typical but of course completely and willingly ignorant of the context. That may however have just been my lack of interest as I thought, again in response to my post, he went off on a separate tangent where I struggled to see the correlation. IMHO, as things are now, 'free speech' exists only as a concept and probably for good reason therefore my point was twofold: 1. Quite frankly, there are some people whose speech should not be as free as others. Unfortunately with the likes of social media these days affording such freedom to those with sinister or downright dangerous motive allows them to connect to others either similarly minded or easily influenced. There are some platforms on which people encourage those, who are usually very young, on the brink to actually commit suicide now are there not? A prime example of this danger for me. Furthermore, I would strongly assert the world has never seen any great result from the implementation of far left or right politics and these groups see social media as the conduit for communicating to masses. These groups or individuals do need monitoring, censoring, banning, arresting etc however... 2. If this is implemented to whom does the responsibility lie? I like to see myself as quite open-minded and a responder to that which I can either validate or process myself (common sense) however to suggest I have no bias, knowledge of or even a broad interest in absolutely all things is ludicrous - I wouldn't want that job. We'd all just end up with the slating of PL referees, Simpson's quotes, Tim Vine one-liners + other stand up skits and of course Palace friendly material! I also fail to see how when left to a privatised board, if you will, impartiality can be guaranteed without rigorous scrutiny and protocol. If I had any beef it was that it all seemed to be very left leaning and I absolutely reject this moral high-ground the left bizarrely and quite often ironically claim and that SW19 was trying to suggest (Again, didn't and can't be bothered to read whole post with sincerity so may be wrong here). It was merely the posting of a musing from myself neither politically nor sincerely motivated. I was just in shock that somebody was allowed to so freely 'go after' victims of an atrocity online. My final point in all this would be to say that I often thought 'free speech' should be allowed and that people would regulate themselves. I quite strongly believe the vast, vast majority of people are intelligent and good on an individual basis. However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous. The prime example for me still is Nazi Germany. I don't believe individually the Germans were capable of that however via a Propaganda minister and similar methodology that pinnacle of human catastrophe was achieved. That combined with the minority of dangerous individuals really does worry me apropos social media. I do not use it beyond 'Instagram', which I am not sure even qualifies, and on which I have two connections - CPFC of course but also my tattoo guy who insisted I have it to communicate with him and hence the reason I do! I accept I am a staunchly committed Luddite however I do often look upon Social Media with both awe and concern! However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous. Absolutely agree. Which is why I fail to understand how people are surprised or annoyed at the outcome of elections, votes, anything that requires millions of humans to tick a box. Nuance, intelligence, strategy, long-term thinking... all goes out of the window. Best worst option though. Edited by SW19 CPFC (01 Nov 2022 9.45am) Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 01 Nov 22 9.44am

Originally posted by Nicholas91

IMHO, as things are now, 'free speech' exists only as a concept and probably for good reason therefore my point was twofold:

However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous.

Absolutely agree. Which is why I fail to understand how people are surprised or annoyed at the outcome of elections, votes, anything that requires millions of humans to tick a box. Nuance, intelligence, strategy, long-term thinking... all goes out of the window. Best worst option though.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (01 Nov 2022 9.45am)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 01 Nov 22 10.08am
Once upon a time every village (and later pub) had it's "idiot" with their weird ideas who most people ignored. Unfortunately today we have social media and these idiots have learned how to use it and found the idiot in the next village and so on an so forth. They have people who will listen to them which only encourages them to think that their voice is rational and important. Social media puts people in touch with each other it also means that idiots can also get in touch with each other. And then you have the gullible who will believe the idiots rather than their own common sense. Anyway they are free to vent their spleen as the sensible amongst us will continue to ignore them as we do in the pub except that some of them often overstep the mark not just in bad taste but legality. Edited by Badger11 (01 Nov 2022 10.11am) One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 01 Nov 22 10.08am

Once upon a time every village (and later pub) had it's "idiot" with their weird ideas who most people ignored.

Unfortunately today we have social media and these idiots have learned how to use it and found the idiot in the next village and so on an so forth. They have people who will listen to them which only encourages them to think that their voice is rational and important.

Social media puts people in touch with each other it also means that idiots can also get in touch with each other. And then you have the gullible who will believe the idiots rather than their own common sense.

Anyway they are free to vent their spleen as the sensible amongst us will continue to ignore them as we do in the pub except that some of them often overstep the mark not just in bad taste but legality.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Nov 2022 10.11am)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Nov 22 10.21am
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous. Absolutely agree. Which is why I fail to understand how people are surprised or annoyed at the outcome of elections, votes, anything that requires millions of humans to tick a box. Nuance, intelligence, strategy, long-term thinking... all goes out of the window. Best worst option though. Edited by SW19 CPFC (01 Nov 2022 9.45am) Yup! And apologies SW I just reread my own post and may have been slightly unfair towards you, I do use my phone for these things so (very) often fail to articulate myself properly! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Nov 22 10.21am

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (01 Nov 2022 9.45am)

Yup!

And apologies SW I just reread my own post and may have been slightly unfair towards you, I do use my phone for these things so (very) often fail to articulate myself properly!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 01 Nov 22 10.29am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I think I should push back on this narrative because I've heard it a lot from various on the left/centre on trying to justify the censorious landscape of the last five/ten years online. Not only have I heard the above arguments before, and finding left media narratives on it isn't hard, but I've heard similar narratives made about Hollywood and other televisual media. I'll try to address these points, though I think we have all been here before: I think perhaps you are justifying a 'one size fits all' requirement for social media here that I just differ on. You contended that the market demands that where I think that when you actually look at the market you can see variance that refutes that...Also, I think the laws and regulations need to be considered for their affect on corporate investment, they have been fiddled with considerably since Bill Clinton. I contend that what you are seeing isn't a corporate world with any diversity and that's one that's been deliberately created....the larger the company the larger the pressure to conform. What I think is more the truth is that the larger corporate world is within that space because it is required to be...in many senses they know they are leaving money on the table. There are plenty of advertisers who understand that money is there to be made.....I think the Tucker Carlson point holds this up well as he is the most popular show on news broadcast media yet the attack on advertisers who used it was plain to see....in more normal times his show would not be boycotted by any advertisers. I don't think anyone has an issue with heavily moderated platforms within a market where people are allowed to choose, without political or legal pressure attacking their choices.....Parler for example. I think the area where we might find some agreement is on social media in general and its overall affect upon society. That's a related topic and some might say that similar to p00rn or alcohol, that it serves a natural human need but one that can easily be expressed as an outlet for human vices. There are certainly a lot of rich people who have made a lot of money out of it.....where there is a demand and it's technologically possible, there will be a supply. However, the problem often comes in what is thought of as solutions to these problems......Not that personally I think solutions are ever really possible and that flexible adaptations are more realistic. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2022 3.12am) I'd argue that it's minimalised in different ways depending on what platform you're on. Left against right, right against left. Or other reasoning depending on ownership. Although what tends to be ignored (not sure why) a lot in these discussions are the apolitical and centrist group, which are not insignificant. Re. advertisers � if you can find me a concentrated minority platform on either the right or the left that has mainstream brands (plural) advertising that would be interesting. You'd then have to find several more for it not to be an outlier. Twitter is massive, it needs massive revenue to exist. Only massive brands have massive revenue. For all it's supposed left leaning bias the user base is so large that it is not possible for it to be classed as a purely leftist platform as the mass dilutes the concentration � centrism, right wing, left wing. Parler etc. are tiny in comparison and in most cases highly concentrated around one viewpoint. The point you raise about the left previously being champions of free speech, a space now owned by the right is relevant here. It's part reasoning for why big advertisers are more inclined to stay away from such small, concentrated platforms. Right wingers are constantly railing against the erosion of free speech and part of that is testing or going over the boundaries of acceptability simply to prove a point. See twitter posting after Musk bought the platform, for example. This creates high potential for small, concentrated platforms to be significantly less agreeable to big corporate advertising. It's also worth pointing out that it's not just smaller social platforms that big brands have pulled out from before � Diageo, Starbucks and more decided to come off Facebook at one stage due to content moderation issues. To the original point, if you don't have moderation, you won't exist. Anyone claiming otherwise has either failed or learnt the hard way and had to implement it. This is not unique to a certain 'wing'. The reason for the original post was that I found it amusing that new platforms are constantly trying to prove themselves as a sort of social media freeport where everyone is free to do and say whatever they like, using criticism of existing moderated platforms as a reason to exist and promote themselves, but end up turning into moderated platforms anyway. I also don't wholly agree with the notion that mainstream, big corporate brands feel like they're missing out by not being able to advertise in niche spaces. Fox News gets plenty of ad revenue, but this is because it's not a niche space. Until niche becomes popular brands won't bother. Perhaps 8chan/4chan/16chan is/was the closest anyone has got to total free speech and light or no moderation. And I don't think that's somewhere most people, let alone big brands, would want to be � in fact it's a great example of what happens the closer to it you get. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 01 Nov 22 10.29am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I think I should push back on this narrative because I've heard it a lot from various on the left/centre on trying to justify the censorious landscape of the last five/ten years online.

Not only have I heard the above arguments before, and finding left media narratives on it isn't hard, but I've heard similar narratives made about Hollywood and other televisual media.

I'll try to address these points, though I think we have all been here before:

I think perhaps you are justifying a 'one size fits all' requirement for social media here that I just differ on.

What I think is more the truth is that the larger corporate world is within that space because it is required to be...in many senses they know they are leaving money on the table.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2022 3.12am)

I'd argue that it's minimalised in different ways depending on what platform you're on. Left against right, right against left. Or other reasoning depending on ownership. Although what tends to be ignored (not sure why) a lot in these discussions are the apolitical and centrist group, which are not insignificant.

Re. advertisers � if you can find me a concentrated minority platform on either the right or the left that has mainstream brands (plural) advertising that would be interesting. You'd then have to find several more for it not to be an outlier.

Twitter is massive, it needs massive revenue to exist. Only massive brands have massive revenue. For all it's supposed left leaning bias the user base is so large that it is not possible for it to be classed as a purely leftist platform as the mass dilutes the concentration � centrism, right wing, left wing.

Parler etc. are tiny in comparison and in most cases highly concentrated around one viewpoint. The point you raise about the left previously being champions of free speech, a space now owned by the right is relevant here. It's part reasoning for why big advertisers are more inclined to stay away from such small, concentrated platforms. Right wingers are constantly railing against the erosion of free speech and part of that is testing or going over the boundaries of acceptability simply to prove a point. See twitter posting after Musk bought the platform, for example. This creates high potential for small, concentrated platforms to be significantly less agreeable to big corporate advertising.

It's also worth pointing out that it's not just smaller social platforms that big brands have pulled out from before � Diageo, Starbucks and more decided to come off Facebook at one stage due to content moderation issues. To the original point, if you don't have moderation, you won't exist. Anyone claiming otherwise has either failed or learnt the hard way and had to implement it. This is not unique to a certain 'wing'.

The reason for the original post was that I found it amusing that new platforms are constantly trying to prove themselves as a sort of social media freeport where everyone is free to do and say whatever they like, using criticism of existing moderated platforms as a reason to exist and promote themselves, but end up turning into moderated platforms anyway.

I also don't wholly agree with the notion that mainstream, big corporate brands feel like they're missing out by not being able to advertise in niche spaces. Fox News gets plenty of ad revenue, but this is because it's not a niche space. Until niche becomes popular brands won't bother.

Perhaps 8chan/4chan/16chan is/was the closest anyone has got to total free speech and light or no moderation. And I don't think that's somewhere most people, let alone big brands, would want to be � in fact it's a great example of what happens the closer to it you get.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 01 Nov 22 11.20am
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous. Absolutely agree. Which is why I fail to understand how people are surprised or annoyed at the outcome of elections, votes, anything that requires millions of humans to tick a box. Nuance, intelligence, strategy, long-term thinking... all goes out of the window. Best worst option though. Edited by SW19 CPFC (01 Nov 2022 9.45am) Yes we are plumbing new depths in this regard. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 01 Nov 22 11.20am

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

However, when grouped together people are sensationally thick, easily lead and often disastrous.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (01 Nov 2022 9.45am)

Yes we are plumbing new depths in this regard.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Nov 22 12.03pm
Originally posted by YT Yes we are plumbing new depths in this regard. You just have to pipe up with this sort of comment don't you! Flushing away sensible conversation into the gutter. Sick of your toilet humour! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Nov 22 12.03pm

Originally posted by YT

Yes we are plumbing new depths in this regard.

You just have to pipe up with this sort of comment don't you! Flushing away sensible conversation into the gutter. Sick of your toilet humour!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 14 of 15 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Free Speech

Site Map

Sponsors