Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views (bloomberg.com) 428
According to a new Pew Research Center study, 72 percent of those polled (from a sample of 4,594 adults) think it's likely companies such as Facebook and Twitter actively censor political views that they consider objectionable. The study finds that Americans don't trust those companies to be impartial when it comes to partisan politics. Bloomberg reports: Republicans, more than their Democratic counterparts, displayed concern over perceived political bias. Eighty-five percent of Republicans and those who labeled themselves conservative independents said it's likely that social media platforms censor political speech. And 64 percent of Republicans think technology companies support the views of liberals over conservatives. The majority of Democrats, meanwhile, think it's likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints, coming in at 62 percent. But only about a quarter of Democrats worry that these companies support the views of conservatives over liberals.
These days I don't trust ANY company on politics (Score:5, Insightful)
As volatile as politics are now, I wouldn't trust anyone to be "objective" anymore. Shit, even my local donut shop is starting to get too heavy-handed with the politics on their Facebook page.
Re:These days I don't trust ANY company on politic (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate the thought that we may look back fondly one day soon on an earlier era where most businesses welcomed all customers, regardless of their political beliefs. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised to see most Silicon Valley-based social media platforms outright banning all posts supporting Trump by the 2020 elections, combined with a backlash from the right that only ratchets up the anger on both sides.
It's just not healthy for us to take politics this personally. A similar thing happened in the U.S. in the 1850's, with Congressmen literally beating each other on the Senate floor [wikipedia.org]. And it ultimately lead to a civil war.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:These days I don't trust ANY company on politic (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem is politics has gone beyond policy, but to identity.
If you are the tough guy then you should be a republican.
If you are an intellectual then you are a democrat.
If your religious then you are a republican.
If your an atheist then you are a democrat.
It isn’t about policy anymore it is personal. It is about the other side trying to stop your way of life and your values.
Re:These days I don't trust ANY company on politic (Score:5, Interesting)
Social media reinforces homogeneity. Part of it is the echo chamber effect, partly because it is so easy to find people based on your opinions and interests.
When you are 'forced' to interact with neighbours, colleagues etc. even with location and social strata providing some conformity, there's still a greater need to accomodate differences of opinion and even belief. At the same time, being accepted and knowing that you 'belong' even if you don't have exactly the same beliefs and opinions means that there's less pressure to conform.
Finding and knowing your role in a community is a powerful drive. Communication technology has taken our drive to belong and exaggerated it into something unhealthy.
Compromise is no longer as necessary. People are unpractised at it and it takes work to overcome our 'us and them' drive. Easier to simply find a place of like minded people and not deal with 'other'. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the thought that we may look back fondly one day soon on an earlier era where most businesses welcomed all customers, regardless of their political beliefs.
How do you look back on a time which never existed?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The important question isn't "How would you treat Hitler?" The important question is "How would you actually know he was Hitler and not just someone you had mistaken him for?" And it's a pretty important question in an era where everyone thinks they know exactly who Hitler is but, when asked to point him out, they all point to different people.
Will the real Hitler please stand up, please stand up, please stand up...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the question is "why do we keep calling people with different political views Hitler/Nazis?"
I mean, enforcing borders laws + procedures that have been around for years (even pre-Obama) suddenly means the fourth reich.
The answer of course, is that the people saying this are being manipulated by the Democrats, with other people being manipulated by the Republicans.
We shouldn't allow little-Stalinists to censor freedom of speech. EVER.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd always heard this attributed to Winston Churchill.
As for Hitler--I thought everybody knew that he retired to a bed & breakfast in England [youtube.com].
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on politi (Score:2)
As i laughed along at that I could imagine the howls of outrage from Twitter if anyone dared to produce something like that now.
Re: (Score:2)
O RLY? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Straw man.
The examples were provided as a refutation of the 'it is legal' defence.
It states only that "legality is not a guide to morality" and does not make the stronger claim you rebut that 'legality is immoral'. ..".
Not content with your straw man, you go on to parody those you claim to have made it with your "hurt durr,
Please don't. There is always provocation for poor behaviour. It is never an excuse.
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on polit (Score:5, Insightful)
Straw man.
The examples were provided as a refutation of the 'it is legal' defence.
Horseshit. "The examples" were themselves a strawman since nobody ever argued that legal and moral are the same thing. The previous guy merely pointed out that the government is enforcing the law the way they're supposed to, rather than ignoring it the way a certain previous administration did.
You think the law is immoral? Great, start a campaign to change it. Meanwhile the government has a duty to enforce it as it's written.
Re: (Score:2)
That argument is akin to "I was just following orders!" If a law is immoral then it should not be followed or enforced. The Government is not some magical entity, it is composed of individual people who are tasked with doing its work. Of course the problem in that regard is that our country is not some monolithic homogeneous culture where everyone shares the same beliefs in regards to what is right or wrong.
From what I understand of the family separation issue, the law has allowed for the current situation
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on polit (Score:3)
Those the weasel words of a person who supports heinous acts but doesn't want to be held responsible for them. Cowardly and intellectually dishonest. If you think the law is a good one, own it.
What kind of a cunt thinks that its "weasel words" to tell people how to fix something they see as a problem?
I DO think the law is a good one. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but so far nobody has made any serious argument for why it's not good. Hence my "if you think it's immoral, work to change it" statement. You can start by putting together a coherent argument which doesn't just boil down to "hurr durr muh feels".
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on polit (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump only demanded that the existing laws on the treatment of illegal immigrants be enforced. And he inherited these laws from his predecessors. The illegal immigrants bring minor children with them because they work better than a passport. If you want to invade the US all you need to do is bring a child with you. Although over 1/3rd of the minor children being detained crossed the border by themselves. Obama was partial to making executive orders and that is not always a bad thing. Relying on executive orders for the country's immigration policy is not a good solution. The Legislative Branch is the guilty party in the immigration policy debate. The Democrats are crying about the detained children but have not offered a solution to the problem. They are content to use the detained children to attack the President. The Democrats and Republicans that make up the Legislative branch is ultimately responsible for almost every problem the country faces. Immigration, trade, military deployments, and the economy. And the braying public doesn't even understand that the Executive Branch does not have the power to effect the major issues of the day. The President is just the front man. A President cannot dictate laws or even influence the national budget. While every one is focused on the President related investigation the actual culprits are safely out of the spotlight. And the Democrats, Socialists, Communist, Republicans, and Independents are all guilty of forgetting that every action creates a reaction. The Democrat calling for people to harass anyone working for Trump better be ready for a Republican to push back. And for god's sake there is another Presidential election in 2 years and Trump will be gone. Relentlessly hounding everything he says or does just means the next Democrat to become President will face the same type of tactics.
And the post asking if you would you serve Hitler if he came into your business establishment is a trick question. Hitler would have just killed or imprisoned anyone trying to dictate any of his actions.
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on polit (Score:4, Informative)
snip...
Obama was partial to making executive orders and that is not always a bad thing. Relying on executive orders for the country's immigration policy is not a good solution
snip....
If Obama was indeed partial to making executive orders what would that make all the other presidents prior to him in the last hundred years? Wikipedia shows that they either did more executive orders or did more per year spent in office than Obama. Of the more recent presidents, only H.W Bush had less executive orders, but he only spent 1 term in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on politi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on politi (Score:4, Insightful)
That comment was about the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" participants. Here is the transcript:
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group â" excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Trump is saying that some of the Unite the Right protesters were "very fine people" despite their decision to associate and march with people openly displaying swastikas and chanting "blood and soil" while holding their burning torches and wearing 1488 t-shirts.
In any case, the bigger issue was his failure to swiftly and completely condemn the nationalists. If you can't even say "Nazis are bad" or "I dislike people who want to create an ethnostate in the US" then there is a problem. To be fair to Trump, he probably doesn't like those people and doesn't agree with them, but because parts of his base are associated with them or share some of their views he won't directly condemn them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on politi (Score:5, Insightful)
So everyone that choses to march or support black lives matter are responsible for what the more extreme in their group said since they didn't branch off and make their own separate march?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair to Trump, he probably doesn't like those people and doesn't agree with them,
That's being kind to Trump, and unfair to America. The Trump family has a rich history of white supremacy [thenation.com], and ignoring it is doing yourself and the nation a disservice.
Trump probably doesn't like those people, but he probably does agree with them. That's how he can describe Nazis as "fine people" without choking on his tongue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think he wants to make America white, or is his racism just driven by monetary considerations? I don't know enough to say.
I think he cares more about money than about whiteness, it's not like he won't hire brown people, so long as he can pay them sub-subsistence wages. But I do believe he believes that white people are inherently superior.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If it's possible for illegals to obtain what passes for welfare benefits in the US, then perhaps the US benefits system needs to be fixed. In other countries I've lived in, you're required to show proof that you're a citizen or legal resident before the social assistance people will even talk to you for help with anything other than maybe a one-way ticket home (and you'll be expected to pay them back for it).
You conveniently ignore the fact that many of those folks from Central/South America are trying to e
Re: (Score:3)
If it's possible for illegals to obtain what passes for welfare benefits in the US, then perhaps the US benefits system needs to be fixed. In other countries I've lived in, you're required to show proof that you're a citizen or legal resident before the social assistance people will even talk to you for help with anything other than maybe a one-way ticket home
so you support bring refugee children in and then starving them and denying them medical treatment?
I know that's not what your saying but I guarantee that would be the next argument
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on politi (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's possible for illegals to obtain what passes for welfare benefits in the US, then perhaps the US benefits system needs to be fixed
The vast majority of US benefits require that you show citizenship or a green card (permanent, non-citizen resident).
There's a tiny bit of benefits available to everyone, but that's things like emergency room treatment at a hospital. You can't live on them.
However, the vast majority of Republicans believe "welfare" 1) still exists (it ended in the 1990s), 2) is far more generous than it actually is, and 3) that there are more programs than actually exist. They have believed this since the 1980s and are not going to return to reality any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Barring some yuuuge change, we are headed for a civil war or split-up. When too much political energy is wasted on nasty red/blue fights, it may be time to go separate ways. Otherwise, nothing of use will get done on the Federal level.
Why have a Federal gov't if all they do is bicker and redo/undo each others' laws and spending every cycle? Politics is rarely smooth, but this is shifting into destruction. It's watching sausages being destroyed, not made.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it keeps the people who live for the chance to tell someone else how to live something to do that's pretty much harmless. Much better than letting them indulge their desires to tell you what to do...
Re:These days I don't trust ANY company on politic (Score:4, Funny)
Barring some yuuuge change, we are headed for a civil war or split-up.
I'm hoping that Millennials will turn back from the brink when they realize that there isn't an app for civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
when they realize that there isn't an app for civil war.
But there is: Twitter's flash-mob. (or whatever platform you move it to.) It's not just for dancing anymore.
I've read of instant-theft, where a bunch of people show up at a store and minutes later Grab and Go. The store is set up for casual shoplifters, not when half of your customers are running away.
Now with instant communication running multi-point, just convert that to guerrilla warfare. "Will be meeting Aunt Marie at the local power substation at 2AM tomorrow. Bring presents, tell your friends!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Will be meeting Aunt Marie at the local power substation at 2AM tomorrow. Bring presents, tell your friends!" And if enough of the "right" people show up, you've done a BANG up job.
That's pretty easy to counter. All the other side has to do is point out that there's been a rare Pokemon spotted on the other side of town and no one will show up.
Re:These days I don't trust ANY company on politic (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty is getting done at the federal level. Problem is, the left is extremely angry about it. Instead of trying to win votes, they're aggressively attacking anyone who thinks differently from them. See the Bernie-Bro assassination attempt on Scalisle, the attack on Rand Paul, following Sarah Sanders to the next restaurant after asking her to leave, Maxine Waters advocating stalking people, the harassment of the Florida attorney general.... the list goes on. The left, now more than ever, thinks that they're so much better than their opponents that any depraved act is justified to get back on top.
Fact is they're nuts and going insane with rage. While I derive some guilty pleasure from watching youtube videos of far-away left wing cranks going apoplectic; it's not so fun seeing someone I know and like (who has been a generous host to me at several parties) falling apart on facebook. Her world is collapsing because folks she doesn't agree with got elected, and they're starting to play by some of the rules established by the left under Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, there are real dangers and threats to be angry about. For example, now there is an opportunity to appoint a new supreme court judge there is a risk to women's bodily autonomy and to gay people's rights.
On the other hand, progressive and left leaning candidates have been unseating hard right incumbents all over the place. The anger and protest is proving effective it seems.
This round of elections will be extremely interesting to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to hurt Trump, the best strategy would be to ignore him. People with big egos hate that. With each scream against him, you're only making his hairplugs stronger.
You're choosing to play ball on his field, and he's Babe Ruth. But even the Babe can't knock it out of the park if you don't pitch to him. Try buying him hookers instead. The Babe loved those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on polit (Score:3)
Ask Milo why he called for violent assault on the press.
He didn't. He made an offhand barb in private correspondence with reporters who emailed him asking for comment. They then reported his words in "the news". If any violence erupted from that it would be their fault, not his. You might rightly view his words as insulting, rude, or otherwise indicative of a douchebag, but only a moron would see them as "calling for violence".
Had he made the same comment on twitter, or another public forum, or even just egged on his followers in private, that would be a dif
Re: (Score:2)
He did. When asked about it he said it was his "standard response", and other journalists have confirmed that he has sent the same message to them.
He's adopted Trump's attacks on the media and, as he is famous for, taken them to an extreme that gets him attention. He then hand waves them away as not serious, trying to absolve himself of any responsibility for the words he uses.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a professional provocateur who uses Twitter as a weapon. Why anyone pays attention is beyond me.
Oh right, he's President. Ba dum, tsh!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is more the case the algorithm is working normally not censoring. It is just no one really cares on your political belief. So the algorithm rates content no one cares about accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
As volatile as politics are now, I wouldn't trust anyone to be "objective" anymore.
I mean this in the most respectful possible way, but doesn't that make you part of the problem? Polarisation feeds distrust, and distrust feeds polarisation.
For example, at some point we need to agree that there is such a thing as objective reality, and that most big news outlets report it accurately enough most of the time.
Re:These days I don't trust ANY company on politic (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in this case "objective" generally means letting people shoot their mouths off without censoring them for it, even if they're dumbasses who you strongly disagree with--in fact *especially* if they're dumbasses who you strongly disagree with. If every social media company only allows people to speak who agree with them, then all you're going to get is an echo chamber that, like an inbred trailer park, only gets more-and-more stupid, radical, and out-of-touch over time.
Letting the other side speak is how we remind ourselves that the world isn't just comprised of our own fragrant farts.
Re: (Score:2)
Objective in the more broad general sense of "fair," as in "I'm going to give a fair chance to everyone to shoot their stupid pie-holes off, even if they're fucking brain-dead morons who've clearly spend a good percentage of their lives huffing gasoline behind a 7-Eleven." It's the same system we use for voting rights.
Re: These days I don't trust ANY company on politi (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if the facts are wrong?
Then they're not facts, and you refute them with actual facts. Duh.
The pertinent question isn't really "what if they're wrong"; it's "what if they're right". If you have a policy of censoring anyone you believe to be wrong, you aren't even leaving yourself open to the possibility that YOU might be wrong. This is how dictatorships operate. They don't argue with you, they don't consider your position, they just shut you up and lock you away the moment you say anything they don't like.
I would far rather have a marketplace of ideas in which any crank can say whatever stupid thing pops into their mind than a marketplace of ideas where only popular things can be said. The former might be annoying and anarchic, but the latter is far, far more dangerous. All progress ceases when intelligent disagreements aren't even allowed to take place.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they're not facts, and you refute them with actual facts. Duh.
That's not the problem. Politicians love to cherry pick facts that support their ideology. That's what Kellyanne Conway meant by "alternative facts", things that are true but carefully selected to mislead the listener.
As a result people have stopped believing arguments even when they have facts to back them up. They think that it's legitimate to just google some alternative facts that support their views and that makes them right.
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to hide a lie is to bury it in truths.
The great "algorithm" cop-out (Score:3, Insightful)
"Determined by algorithm" doesn't mean the result is impartial. It just means it happened systematically.
Re: (Score:2)
And that system goes way too far. My boss posted something about Lauren Southern (think I have her name right) to Facebook, and everyone that used Facebook from our office was required to submit proof of ID to Facebook in order to keep using our accounts. They not only censor the posters, they also censor everyone at the same IP.
A couple of people couldn't get Facebook to reenable their account. That was a major problem since one was our online marketing manager. Facebook lost out on advertising money s
I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
What about self-censorship? (Score:2)
Reality has a liberal bias (Score:5, Insightful)
This story, which suggests more right-wingers think companies are biased toward left-wing politics reminds me of a fun quote: "Reality has a liberal bias." I suspect, based on politics in the USA at the moment, Republicans are running out of excuses as to why the world doesn't agree with their views. Suspecting censorship and blaming "fake news" seems to be all they have remaining to keep their bubble intact.
It's kind of like watching religious people claim evolution is fake or that you can't test for the existence of God because He needs to be taken on faith. The amount of mental twisting and denial is amazing and horrifying to watch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that the majority of the world really agrees with modern liberal views, I would suggest it's you who are the one living in a bubble. Muslims alone make up 22% of the world's population, and if you think that even a tiny minority of them agree with you on LGBTQ or abortion rights, then you really need to get out more. Reality check: liberals only make up a majority in a few Western European countries.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Harvey Weinstein was running around Hollywood assaulting, harassing, raping women for decades and it was only after Ronan Farrow decided to walk his story away from his own news department (NBC) who had refused to report on it and get his story printed in another magazine that it became so public that the liberals in the entertainment industry couldn't hide it anymore. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into taking any action.
Roman Polanski drugged and raped a teenager and didn't even try to hide
Re: (Score:2)
If the liberals would stop with the group-identity politics and victim narratives
If you'd stop denying their identity and trying to victimize them, that might happen. Abusers always complain about their victims' complaints, and say they're unfair.
Technology & Business Too Far Beyond Avg Perso (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, the issue became palpable in the 1990s with the beginning of the consumer internet age, the massive expansion of telecommunications powers, and the beginnings of the anti-public education campaign. The truth is that the vast majority of people in American have no clue how these businesses work or how their tech works. And they're OK with it because they like what their tech gives them AND they actually like complaining about it. Everyone wants an easy life of luxurious rebellion.
"Yes, I want to be able to say three words to my handheld device and for that device to tell me exactly how to get home... but I HATE that this corporation knows where I live! They have too much power!"
Thus, I can't be surprised when told that people love their Facebook and Twitter with one tongue and speak conspiracy with another. We keep teaching people be exactly like this.
Re: (Score:3)
I would settle for a moment of peace where every "friend" on Facebook or Twitter didn't feel the need to bombard with insipid inspirational quotes and the tiniest of details on every moment of their boring fucking lives. "I just took a shit this morning, and so here's an inspirational quote about shitting that I absolutely need to share with the world," said every friend and relative of mine on Facebook every day.
Re: (Score:3)
You could turn it around on them. Start broadcasting genuinely factual tidbits with meme-worthy inspirational backgrounds.
[Insert hazy sunrise]
"The vast majority of stock investors are equally likely to lose money on an investment as they are to make money. On the other hand, investing in 'index funds' is like investing in the general growth of a market sector and is significantly more predictable in its success."
[Insert cat hanging from branch]
"Gravity is technically still a 'theory' because while we can p
Re: (Score:2)
https://imgur.com/gallery/Hmtt... [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I know how tech works, and I know that algorithmically it is possible to design a map gadget that does not tell google where I live. Hell, even google maps works offline.
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, the issue became palpable in the 1990s with the beginning of the consumer internet age, the massive expansion of telecommunications powers, and the beginnings of the anti-public education campaign.
The sacking of public education began approximately in the 1960s. You're off by three decades.
The dumbing-down of the populace is the most important driver by far. The bulk of the educated populace is the middle class (the upper class is small) so they went after the middle class, not because they don't want them to have any money, but because they don't want them to be educated.
Tech companies aren't biased against Republicans (Score:2, Funny)
Make no mistake, the "Us vs Them" isn't "Tech Company vs Republican" it is and always has been worki
Plainly false (Score:2, Informative)
Tech companies aren't biased against Republicans
How many times has Obama's Twitter account been deleted compared to Trump?
I follow a lot of people who are both liberal and conservative, on Twitter and Facebook. I have see tons more conservatives being hit by things like shadow bans or outright bans on Twitter than I have seen any liberals affected.
It's pretty obvious Twitter hires quite a few people to police abuse on Twitter, and some themselves abuse that power to moderate that which they do not like read
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not aware of a single thing Obama said on Twitter. It was a random disgruntled employee that deleted Trump's twitter, that's hardly a tech company being biased.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of a single thing Obama said on Twitter. It was a random disgruntled employee that deleted Trump's twitter, that's hardly a tech company being biased.
In fact, Trump regularly violates Twitter's policies. If anything, they are biased in favor of Trump. (In actuality, they are biased in favor of anyone who produces clicks, and doubly biased in favor of anyone who keeps them in the news constantly.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have see tons more conservatives being hit by things like shadow bans or outright bans on Twitter than I have seen any liberals affected.
Huh... Maybe because conservatives deserve it ?
It's not liberals who spew their social-darwinist, racist, misogynistic, homophobic garbage all over the web.
It's not liberals who promote and defend values that would have modern civilization revert back to the dark ages, when superstition trumped science, when men and women were constrained in predefined roles, as defined by men only, when the exploitation of the weak by the strong was considered normal.
It's not liberals who are 911-truthers, climate-change d
Re: (Score:2)
It's not liberals who spew their social-darwinist, racist, misogynistic, homophobic garbage all over the web.
It's not liberals who promote and defend values that would have modern civilization revert back to the dark ages, when superstition trumped science, when men and women were constrained in predefined roles, as defined by men only, when the exploitation of the weak by the strong was considered normal.
It's not liberals who are 911-truthers, climate-change deniers, 6000-year-earthers, creationists, moon-landings hoaxers, flat-earthers.
Your complaining about mainstream media and tech companies being biased against conservatives is like cancer cells complaining that the immune system is biased against them compared to the rest of the body cells. Of course mainstream media and tech companies are biased against conservatives. And for anyone who values reality over superstition, collaboration over competition, compassion over heartlessness, collectivism over individualism, civilization over barbarism, this is exactly how it should be.
Thank you! You have stated the case very well indeed. +10,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours certainly does.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? How many times has Obama called people names? How many times has King Orange?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two words (Score:4, Insightful)
Inciting Violence. I'm going to be completely blunt. The reason the right wing (I refuse to call people in favor of radical change "Conservative") get more bans is there's a lot of them hinting at violence.
Oh brutha please.
Leftists literally say "punch a nazi" (meaning their peaceful political opponents, not actual nazis) and mean it, and nobody cares.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Inciting Violence. I'm going to be completely blunt. The reason the right wing (I refuse to call people in favor of radical change "Conservative") get more bans is there's a lot of them hinting at violence. There's a good example right here [youtube.com]. Jones backpedaled as best he could but the meaning was clear. It's so common there's a name for it: Dog Whistling [google.com]
Alex Jones?? Alex Jones is your "example" of a " conservative "? Alex Jones is a nutter fringe conspiracy theorist. Trying to portray him as somehow representing conservatives in general is reasonably taken as one or more of: uninformed, blinded by ideology, dishonest, incompetent, membership in the nutter fringe at a another point.
The radical right has a lot of unhinged people than even the extreme left. There have been no cases of left wing terrorism since the 70s.
By that do you mean none that you are willing to mention? Like this mass political assassination attempt from last year?
Steve Scalise [wikipedia.org]
Stephen Joseph Scalise (/sklis/; born October 6, 1965) is the current United States House of Representatives Majority Whip and representative for Louisiana's 1st congressional district . . . . . On June 14, 2017, Scalise was shot by a far left-wing activist[4][5] at a practice session for the congressional baseball team in Virginia, and was taken to the hospital in critical condition.
Oh, this explains it:
James T. Hodgkins [dailycaller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is some bonus material that jumped out -
Lib Journalist: Conservatives Get Ready, We’re Sending Bombs Soon [westernjournal.com]
Blatant Hate: Comedy Central Writer Wishes Justice Kennedy ‘Had Been Shot’ [westernjournal.com]
For the left, 'Year of the Woman' is all about blocking, assaulting, and attacking them [americanthinker.com]
Not surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
As an American it saddens me to truthfully say that most Americans today are dumbasses. ...
You might enjoy this from a few nights ago. The Daily Show interviews Trump supporters about Space Force [twitter.com]
(Note: The above snippet on Twitter is an excerpt from a longer segment [cc.com] about the recent Trump South Carolina rally.)
Some excerpts from an article [thedailybeast.com] on the segment:
But when Kosta asked a series of Trump supporters what “Space Force” is, all he got were answers like “something we’ve been missing for a long time,” “a little bit of everything” and, in the words of one older gentleman, a “cloud computer.” That same man was worried that “terrorists” might threaten our “freedom” from space. “I think Space Force could help us prevent the next 9/11,” he said.
While NASA is “only going to tell us what they want us to know,” these Trump fans believe that the president will “tell us the truth about what’s out there.”
And then there was the guy who thought the formation of “Space ISIS” was a real possibility. “It doesn’t make a lot of sense and would be wasting a lot of dollars,” he said. “But at the same time, it’s going to be cool.”
Re: (Score:2)
As an American it saddens me to truthfully say that most Americans today are dumbasses.
This isn't a new phenomena.
âoeThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.â - Widely attributed to Winston Churchill.
People by and large have always been dumbarses, the difference is that now their believe that their ignorance is worth as much as anyone's knowledge and this has made them entitled.
Most especially, those who regularly ingest the mental poison that is Fox News are the dumbest of the dumb
Garbage in, garbage out.
I honestly believe western nations are lapsing into a neo-fascism. There's only going to be two solutions, rip it off fast lik
One reason I quit facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
The fringes on both ends of the spectrum are virtually the same, basically militant in their approach. I'm more concerned with the mainstream conservatives willing to sell out their values simply to support the candidate with the R next to his name. Anyone thinking Trump is religious is a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons I quit facebook a few years ago was that I was getting too much political propaganda in my feeds through friends sharing every crack-pot theory.
Sounds like you've got some dumb friends. Any idea why they want to hang out with you?
The fringes on both ends of the spectrum are virtually the same, basically militant in their approach.
I alienated the right-wingers who were following me, now they aren't following me for the most part. I did have to say "run along Nazi" on G+ lately, though. It seems to have worked...
Don't be silly. (Score:2)
They absolutely do... (Score:2)
...if your political views involve things like blatant racism and overt calls for genocide. In most countries that sort of stuff is legally considered hate speech, but it seems to be a moderate-right position in the US these days.
If you want the truth... (Score:4, Insightful)
and really the truth - not one sided political noise - you've got to examine multiple news sources. If all you listen to is MSNBC or FOX then you're only going to get opposite ends of the spectrum. The exact same news story will be reported through a political lens, skewed this way or that to advance a given agenda.
Me? I listen to NPR and I watch FOX and I browse various news sites on the interweb. Somewhere in all that lies the truth. When I hear news I am skeptical. I ask myself what agenda are they trying to sell. And EVERYONE has an agenda. Everyone.
So the trick is to recognize where the news reporting ends and the editorial begins. In the old days, Walter Cronkite would announce "and now for tonight's editorial..." so you knew that what you were about to hear was opinion. Today it is all interspersed so it can be difficult to tell where the reporting ends and the opinion begins.
My fellow Americans (Score:3)
don't be so fucking stupid.
History will show (Score:2)
What side of US politics got talked about as having the support of social media brands.
What accounts got banned for their political views.
I know they HAVE done (Score:2)
Hello group. My name is Martin, and I use Facebook. I have absolutely caught them censoring political content, though not in ages. They literally removed link content from my posts after the fact (the links were correctly thumbnailed and attached), and ONLY political content. I checked the links from my history and the pages were still active.
I don't know that they are still doing this, but they still by default dick around with which posts they actually show you. You have to manually go to everyone's strea
Re: (Score:2)
Only Cowards Censor.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah! Fuck the "most Americans", they almost gave us Hillary!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they almost gave us Hillary!
Why is this marked funny? I voted for DT because he WASN'T Hillary. We've already had 8 years of Clinton and *I've* had him as a relative leader for an extra 12.
e-NOUGH already.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
8 Miserable Years of Prosperity.
Re: (Score:2)
I am #1 with platyhelminthes.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be "not many." Abolishing it would instantly disenfranchise 90% of the states as presidential elections would be effectively decided by NYC and LA/SFO.
bingo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Abolishing it would instantly disenfranchise 90% of the states
90% of the states are already effectively disenfranchised. A Republican in CA effectively can not vote for President. Same with a Democrat in TX.
presidential elections would be effectively decided by NYC and LA/SFO
Population of Los Angeles County: 10M
Population of San Francisco County: 870K
Population of the counties that make up New York City: 14.5M
Population of the United States: 325.7M
So, your argument is 7.8% of the population would have complete control over presidential elections, and that would be bad.
Population of Ohio: 11.6M
Population of Florida: 20.9M
11.6% of the
Re: (Score:2)
One you debunk and mock, the other is not speech as well the criminal things you're talking about are generally pictures or videos.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you upset about? Those are already protected.
"Nazism" beliefs and speech aren't illegal, and if a platform wants to claim they don't inject their opinions into their forum, they too are obligated against performing legal censorship (which is a thing, yes). Private platforms aren't obligated to make that first claim, of course. They just tend like the traffic that it (or more easily, an inconsistent illusion of it) brings.
"Child porn" that is speech-related (which is the only context pertinent to ou
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Slashdotters are not at all interested in your reindeer games and would quite happily watch the whole bloody lot of yas take a very long stroll down a very short pier.