Author Topic: The Trump Candidacy (Read 437592 times)

star seed 7 · « **Reply #5100 on:** October 19, 2016, 09:11:33 AM »

Quote from: stunted on October 19, 2016, 08:58:53 AM

Because they present themselves as unbiased.

Share before Facebook deletes this!!!!

catastrophe · « **Reply #5101 on:** October 19, 2016, 09:36:02 AM »

That is the answer, BTW. People are also concerned about Facebook and Twitter because they have become such widely utilized media for individual speech. Even though they're not government run, it feels like censorship when some content is promoted over others. This is a valid concern given that they are not forthcoming in explaining how or why certain things are promoted (or hidden) over others.

stunted · « **Reply #5102 on:** October 19, 2016, 09:54:55 AM »

you guys might not know, but dilbert guy does a live periscope. he's on now!!

https://www.periscope.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1OwxWrgAnbpJQ

8manpick · « **Reply #5103 on:** October 19, 2016, 09:58:18 AM »

Private companies curating content! Who knew?

stunted · « **Reply #5104 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:00:10 AM »

Quote from: 8manpick on October 19, 2016, 09:58:18 AM

i won't listen to people who answer my question, everything just goes straight over my head

8manpick · « **Reply #5105 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:02:35 AM »

I mean, I understand your answer, it just reflects stupidity and/or willful ignorance on the part of people who hold that viewpoint.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #5106 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:04:07 AM »

Why can't I read about wild liberal conspiracies on drudge?

Censorship

stunted · « **Reply #5107 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:05:01 AM »

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/788742941061689344

stunted · « **Reply #5108 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:14:15 AM »

Quote from: 8manpick on October 19, 2016, 10:02:35 AM

I mean, I understand your answer, it just reflects stupidity and/or willful ignorance on the part of people who hold that viewpoint.

it's going down a dark path when this private company which happens to reach everyone in the states, claims to be unbiased, when it's actions speak otherwise.

if they want to go for clinton, that is fine, but then they wouldn't be as big as they are.

not saying they do, i'm sure a lot of it is groups of people reporting posts that end up deleted.

DQ12 · « **Reply #5109 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:30:12 AM »

is there an example of twitter/facebook being biased or censoring in some way that i missed?

i don't have a problem with them promoting speech they prefer, but i don't think it's appropriate for them to censor political speech they disagree with that otherwise abides by whatever's in their TOS.

steve dave · « **Reply #5110 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:34:39 AM »

stunz, do you think twitter shadow banned dilbert like he's claiming?

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #5111 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:40:17 AM »

Quote from: 8manpick on October 19, 2016, 09:58:18 AM

Private companies curating content! Who knew?

Not private.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #5112 on:** October 19, 2016, 10:41:59 AM »

Quote from: Dlew12 on October 19, 2016, 10:30:12 AM

is there an example of twitter/facebook being biased or censoring in some way that i missed?

How can we know what you missed?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #5113 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:01:11 AM »

Quote from: stunted on October 19, 2016, 10:05:01 AM

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/788742941061689344

The existence of an actual Hitler who rose to power in the past sort of disproves his whole theory that if 40% of the country can't see Trump as some new Hitler, then you can be sure he isn't one.

I don't see Trump as Hitler, fwiw. Just a racist buffoon.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #5114 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:05:58 AM »

Quote from: Dlew12 on October 19, 2016, 10:30:12 AM

is there an example of twitter/facebook being biased or censoring in some way that i missed?

i don't have a problem with them promoting speech they prefer, but i don't think it's appropriate for them to censor political speech they disagree with that otherwise abides by whatever's in their TOS.

They allegedly mess with the "trending stories" stuff.

I don't think there has ever been *credible* talk of censorship beyond the tos

steve dave · « **Reply #5115 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:11:37 AM »

huskguy crap trends 24/7/365 here so I'd prefer they just do away with local trending garbage

DQ12 · « **Reply #5116 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:17:59 AM »

Quote from: Emo EMAW on October 19, 2016, 10:41:59 AM

Quote from: Dlew12 on October 19, 2016, 10:30:12 AM
is there an example of twitter/facebook being biased or censoring in some way that i missed?

How can we know what you missed?

assume that I've missed every story about twitter/facebook censoring political speech

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #5117 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:31:48 AM »

Quote from: Dlew12 on October 19, 2016, 11:17:59 AM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on October 19, 2016, 10:41:59 AM
Quote from: Dlew12 on October 19, 2016, 10:30:12 AM
is there an example of twitter/facebook being biased or censoring in some way that i missed?

How can we know what you missed?
assume that I've missed every story about twitter/facebook censoring political speech

This was the big one. You'll have to do some clicking, links and such, to form a more complete understanding and opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/technology/conservatives-accuse-facebook-of-political-bias.html

DQ12 · « **Reply #5118 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:34:50 AM »

that's not really censorship though. i have no problem with that.

stunted · « **Reply #5119 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:44:34 AM »

Quote from: steve dave on October 19, 2016, 10:34:39 AM

stunz, do you think twitter shadow banned dilbert like he's claiming?

no, it's probably people reporting his posts that triggered (heh) something automated.

i'm also not sure what he's after in that article. sometimes he's tricky, he writes a lot of stuff he doesn't think and throws in a ton of mind tricks. some also call it 3d chess.

EMAWican · « **Reply #5120 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:56:10 AM »

Quote from: Dlew12 on October 19, 2016, 11:34:50 AM

that's not really censorship though. i have no problem with that.

Big example: http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/19/technology/twitter-suspends-milo-yiannopoulos/

Another one:

Another:

IIRC James O'Keefe's account was suspended as well.

Panjandrum · « **Reply #5121 on:** October 19, 2016, 11:59:26 AM »

Milo is just a really nasty troll. Twitter was justified in removing him.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #5122 on:** October 19, 2016, 12:06:24 PM »

Quote from: steve dave on October 19, 2016, 10:34:39 AM

stunz, do you think twitter shadow banned dilbert like he's claiming?

why wouldn't he persuade twitter to un-shadow ban him?

stunted · « **Reply #5123 on:** October 19, 2016, 12:10:00 PM »

i think that's what we're about to witness

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #5124 on:** October 19, 2016, 12:22:06 PM »

was he actually banned or just in his head?