Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Shame the guy didn't get killed, would be a better lesson for such stunts.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted

From my experience, it certainly is plausible that US Customs agents are Nazi scumbags.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted

Dura lex, sed lex, I guess.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted (edited)

No actual person at Twitter suspended Moscow Mitch's account.   It was a pre-defined algorithm that automated the process of suspending account. 

Twitter set up some conditions and rules that identify abusive behaviors online, and put those conditions and rules into an algorithm and automated process.   Some of those conditions and rules could be making bigoted, racist or sexist comments.   If a user met those conditions and committed those pre-defined abusive behaviors - and it did not matter if he was  "left" or "right", then the algorithm would automatically suspend his account. 

That was what happened to Moscow Mitch.  The only reason why there seems to be a "bias towards conservative" is because it has been conservatives who are frequently meeting those conditions, breaking those rules, and committed those abusive behaviors.  If you do not want Twitter being "biased" against you, then stop being an arse on Twitter.

Edited by ktchong
Posted
1 hour ago, ktchong said:

Twitter set up some conditions and rules that identify abusive behaviors online, and put those conditions and rules into an algorithm and automated process.   Some of those conditions and rules could be making bigoted, racist or sexist comments.   If a user met those conditions and committed those pre-defined abusive behaviors - and it did not matter if he was  "left" or "right", then the algorithm would automatically suspend his account. 

Except that those algorithms suddenly stop working when it's lunatic Sarsour or liberal pedowood star making abusive, racist or xenophobic tweets. Heck, there were cases in which people were banned for retweeting the abusive tweet, but the original tweet stayed on.

166215__front.jpg

Posted
32 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

EBiPyUAXUAARl04.jpg

Well at least one doesn't fake it. I hope he will change the US constitution and rule forever.

  • Haha 1

166215__front.jpg

Posted

"No actual person at Twitter suspended Moscow Mitch's account.   It was a pre-defined algorithm that automated the process of suspending account. 

Twitter set up some conditions and rules that identify abusive behaviors online, and put those conditions and rules into an algorithm and automated process.   Some of those conditions and rules could be making bigoted, racist or sexist comments.   If a user met those conditions and committed those pre-defined abusive behaviors - and it did not matter if he was  "left" or "right", then the algorithm would automatically suspend his account. 

That was what happened to Moscow Mitch.  The only reason why there seems to be a "bias towards conservative" is because it has been conservatives who are frequently meeting those conditions, breaking those rules, and committed those abusive behaviors.  If you do not want Twitter being "biased" against you, then stop being an arse on Twitter."

 

You believe that poppy****? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  • Like 1

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Posted

 Boycott Twitter! I’ve been doing it since there was a twitter. Pretty much every other social media platform too. Well I guess that’s not true. I’ve had a couple of Facebook accounts for specific business ventures I’ve been involved in. The one actually associated with my name is barely used. Just so I can play chess for free. 

 In all seriousness though I really don’t get how abuse from Facebook, Twitter, or any of the rest of that crowd can actually be called censorship in the context of the first amendment. They are not government entities. You are using their bandwidth. For free I might add. That is their sandbox and they can shut you down for any reason or no reason. That does not make it censorship.  Obsidian can tell any of the moderators to ban any of us for any reason whatsoever. It’s their website they can do as they please with it. They can shut the whole forum down. Free-speech is violated when armed agents of the government show up and take you away for writing something they didn’t like on the web. Or in newsprint. Or standing on a soapbox in the park screaming it out.  

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Posted
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

In all seriousness though I really don’t get how abuse from Facebook, Twitter, or any of the rest of that crowd can actually be called censorship in the context of the first amendment. They are not government entities. You are using their bandwidth. For free I might add. That is their sandbox and they can shut you down for any reason or no reason. That does not make it censorship.  Obsidian can tell any of the moderators to ban any of us for any reason whatsoever. It’s their website they can do as they please with it. They can shut the whole forum down. Free-speech is violated when armed agents of the government show up and take you away for writing something they didn’t like on the web. Or in newsprint. Or standing on a soapbox in the park screaming it out.  

Does it have to be illegal or First Amendment violation to be called censorship? I think not. And people have the right to criticize private companies for their policies, call them out about their practices and make demands on changing those. 

166215__front.jpg

Posted
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

 Boycott Twitter! I’ve been doing it since there was a twitter. Pretty much every other social media platform too. Well I guess that’s not true. I’ve had a couple of Facebook accounts for specific business ventures I’ve been involved in. The one actually associated with my name is barely used. Just so I can play chess for free. 

 In all seriousness though I really don’t get how abuse from Facebook, Twitter, or any of the rest of that crowd can actually be called censorship in the context of the first amendment. They are not government entities. You are using their bandwidth. For free I might add. That is their sandbox and they can shut you down for any reason or no reason. That does not make it censorship.  Obsidian can tell any of the moderators to ban any of us for any reason whatsoever. It’s their website they can do as they please with it. They can shut the whole forum down. Free-speech is violated when armed agents of the government show up and take you away for writing something they didn’t like on the web. Or in newsprint. Or standing on a soapbox in the park screaming it out.  

You think they'd just make their own version of Twitter rather than cry about it.

 Related - https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media-executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html

 

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Posted

Feel free to do all your drive-by YT linking here. No need for new threads.

  • Like 2

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...