Twitter purge backfires...

[TidaLWaveZ]

16 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

i think we are in a time where things must be done to prevent giant corporations from having complete control over information, i think these companies should  be seen the same way that we see electricity and water providers, they must not dictate how you use it unless its a crime somehow, if nothing is done to uphold free speech truth wont last long and the only thing left will be propaganda 

I swear when facebook required a university email it was awesome.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Canada EH said:

 

 Twitter LOL who uses Twitter?

You know what funny, USA has interferred with foreign government elections and specifically Russias elections all the time.

But Twitter can do as it pleases I guess.

If they think people are Russian operatives then what a joke Twitter is. Guess Twitter is Democrap!

Facebook is pretty bad too. I was looking up some livestreams for the election found a CNN one which had Hillary Clinton winning 99% of the time, then switched over to another one which had Donald Trump winning to the same degree . . I don't watch American news after that. 

Since like 2016 social media has gotten so political I hardly go on it anymore, mainly just to keep in touch with friends. Just look at MTV and you will see what its become  (Though it gives me hope that anyone can get a job). 

[Delicieuxz]

Here's an example of the message that people who are having their accounts locked are receiving:

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/419563-twitter-ban-russian-bots/

 

 

 

Personally, I find it sketchy that Twitter is asking people for their mobile numbers to unlock their accounts. Twitter could be using this Russophobic bot story as a cover for gathering the person identification of those who post dissident comments. Coz, to unlock an account, people are informing Twitter exactly who they are via their phone number, and then Twitter could be sharing that information with the CIA / US gov't, just as thousands of US companies do directly share information with the CIA. And if people posted particularly incensing comments, while being a US citizen, handing their phone number over might subject them to targeted surveillance of their phone conversation and texts.

 

That's the type of stuff that the Snowden and WikiLeaks disclosures on the NSA and CIA have revealed is going on all over the place, lately.

 

And Twitter is in the business of selling its user's personal data to whoever will pay for it. Getting the private phone number of Twitter users is sure to enable additional business opportunities for Twitter, through the selling of those number together with who they belong to. As a Twitter software engineer said in the recent Twitter undercover Veritas video, Twitter has to be able to prove that your data belongs to you, in order to be able to sell it. Well, attaching your personal phone number to your name and all your other Twitter data gives Twitter all the more proof, and therefore all the more selling opportunities.

[PocketNerd]

Wait... you trust RT more than CNN or BBC?

But RT is LITERALLY RUSSIAN STATE NEWS!

[Mihle]

For me RT and CNN < BBC < NRK

[Misanthrope]

I've been seeing many complains about this on Twitter, but mostly only among conservatives, alt righters, etc. Seems to accurately detect bot followers.

 

Anyway I lost 1 so I guess one Russian bot followed me, Nazdrovia my robot comrade, you will be missed *poors one out in the ground*

[SansVarnic]

-= Thread Cleaned =-

 

So as Mentioned a great many number of times;

Political Discussion is not allowed ...

Please do refrain from continuing to turn this thread into a political discussion.

 

If you cannot contribute ... do not comment. Easy.

[AresKrieger]

5 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

In today's news

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/375008-florida-school-shooting-survivor-cnn-provided-scripted-question

 

https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/shooting-survivor-claims-cnn-scripted-questions-for-town-hall-meeting/

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/shooting-survivor-cnn-denied-question-employing-veterans-armed-security-guards-gave-scripted-question/

 

https://www.newsmax.com/us/shooting-survivors-cnn-town-hall/2018/02/22/id/844784/

 

http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/student-cnn-gave-me-scripted-questions/

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/02/22/parkland-jrotc-hero-skips-cnn-townhall-network-scripted-questions-answers-605701

Reminds me of that "protest" CNN covered where a black women urged the "protesters" to stop pillaging the inner city, they then conveniently cut out the part where she told them to loot the suburbs instead.

 

They sicken me immensely as their actions seemingly have malicious intent rather than a simply a bias spin

 

Simply put if people want Twitter to be punished for their inept and insidious censorship the'll have to boycott it or better yet flood it with garbage oh wait too late 

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, PocketNerd said:

Wait... you trust RT more than CNN or BBC?

But RT is LITERALLY RUSSIAN STATE NEWS!

Yeah.....CNN is just that trustworthy.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, PocketNerd said:

Wait... you trust RT more than CNN or BBC?

But RT is LITERALLY RUSSIAN STATE NEWS!

RT is funded by the Russian government in the same manner that the BBC is funded by the UK government. If that's your argument for not tuning into RT, then it doesn't make sense that you'd tune into the BBC, either, because it's the same situation - almost: There is more government control over the BBC's programming than there is over English RT's.

 

The BBC is governed by the BBC Board, which is a 13-member body of which 12 of its members were directly appointed by the British government, while the remaining person was appointed by the chair-person of the BBC, who, themselves, was directly appointed by the British government.

 

Also, some former BBC personnel now work at RT, and word from one of them (mentioned in a clip years ago) is that the BBC does pre-show prep to ensure that hosts won't contradict government policy on certain subjects - but that there's nothing like that at RT.

 

So, BBC is LITERALLY MORE STATE NEWS THAN RT, and if that concerns you, then it makes sense that you would trust RT more than the BBC.

 

The Russian state doesn't decide English RT's programming (which is produced and presented by former employees of BBC, NYT, CNN, NBC, Newsweek...), whereas the UK government has a major hand in directing the BBC's programming.

 

 

 

Also, either RT or the BBC are far more trust-worthy than CNN, which isn't real news, but does for-entertainment-and-propaganda dramatic parodies of news.

 

My favourite "CNN green screen compilation" video isn't on YouTube anymore, but you can still look at lots of individual clips of CNN faking news broadcasts. Watching Anderson Cooper acting and pretending to be in Iraq in a film studio is actually more entertaining than I guess that him actually being there would be.

 

There's also this funny interview CNN did, where the news presenters were standing in the same parking lot about 20 feet away from each other, and pretending they were doing a satellite interview.

 

 

Also, check this out:

How about this beauty?:

 

CNN does fake interviews with its own employees posing as civilians:

 

... and stages fake protests:

 

CNN always has the cut-the-broadcast button at the ready, in case a guest starts saying something truthful:

 

An award-winning former CNN investigator says that CNN is state-funded: https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/cnn-whistleblower-says-obama-admin-pays-media-for-censorship-and-propaganda/

 

And there is a multitude of more videos revealing CNN's fakery on YouTube that anyone can watch till they're sick of it. If you tune in to CNN, then you might as well be getting your news from Jerry Springer.

 

Yeah, I'd definitely tune in to RT over CNN, any day. So, getting back to your question:

 

Quote

Wait... you trust RT more than CNN or BBC?

 

Absolutely. 

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip-

To be fair, I don't watch any of them for News specifically.

But yeah, I did learn a little about RT today.

[Ertman]

9 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

. ...
Since like 2016 social media has gotten so political I hardly go on it anymore, mainly just to keep in touch with friends. Just look at MTV and you will see what its become  (Though it gives me hope that anyone can get a job). 

I don’t think it’s just social media, but society as a whole, and has been ramping up over the last two decades.

 

There has always been politics in society, but it’s not even about issues, it’s all about the brand. People have stopped having constructive discussions and started to hate others that don’t subscribe to the same brand far more now than before. The political brand identity is irrationally argued to the point of almost being delusional.

[Selah]

16 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Woah, just to be super clear, I'm not accusing anybody of anything, the right wing thing was merely an example, sorry for any confusion.

 

Internet free speech is a myth, the vast majority of websites have rules about what you can and cannot say while you are on those sites and in a lot of cases those rules are more strictly enforced than in the real world.

 

For example you could go stand on your street corner with a megaphone and shout about how great ISIS are as an organisation and nobody could stop you (assuming you weren't recruiting or glorifying terrorism which are separate offences) but go onto any website and create a post about how great ISIS are and you'll be doing well if your account is still live within the hour.

 

The point of free speech is to be able to voice your opinion without fear of repercussion, that doesn't exist on the internet.

NO. Americains have always been wrong about their own laws. "freedom of speech" is shortened for "freedom of speech against oppression for critiquing heads of state."

 

you're not protected for your special snowflake opinions whatever they may be.

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, Selah said:

NO. Americains have always been wrong about their own laws. "freedom of speech" is shortened for "freedom of speech against oppression for critiquing heads of state."

 

you're not protected for your special snowflake opinions whatever they may be.

Not sure where you've had this information from but it's demonstrably wrong, the wording of the first amendment is, and I quote

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As long as it's not illegal then the government cannot stop you from saying it, private entities on the other hand can.

[TidaLWaveZ]

13 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

Reminds me of that "protest" CNN covered where a black women urged the "protesters" to stop pillaging the inner city, they then conveniently cut out the part where she told them to loot the suburbs instead.

 

They sicken me immensely as their actions seemingly have malicious intent rather than a simply a bias spin

 

Simply put if people want Twitter to be punished for their inept and insidious censorship the'll have to boycott it or better yet flood it with garbage oh wait too late 

[Selah]

9 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Not sure where you've had this information from but it's demonstrably wrong, the wording of the first amendment is, and I quote

As long as it's not illegal then the government cannot stop you from saying it, private entities on the other hand can.

So I'm right.

 

You're confusing freedom of speech from oppression with the convention of human rights.

 

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "

Congress will not make a law uplifting or promoting any one religion or another.

 

" Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

Congress will not make a law against the exercising of any religion and it's practices.

 

" or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press "

During the colonial era any form of critiques or 'harsh' opinions on the crown were criminalized and charged.

 

" or the right of the people peaceably to assemble "

Gatherings above a certain size even inside a private dwelling were restricted except in such cases where the family exceeded the size therein.

 

" to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

petitions for representation and communication in effort for "betterment" were ignored categorically and the colonies were not given a voice within their government.

 

"Abridging" in this sense and context is continued throughout the last three quotes. It effectively means

'curtail (rights or privileges).'

 

 

Unfortunately for you and most others what that means is that you are not restricted by law from "expressing" yourself. You are however restricted from the language in which you use. If by your definition 'freedom of speech' was the blanket term you seem to believe it is then there would be no sanctions or cites against libel, slander, obscenity,, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secret violation, NDA breeches, rights to privacy, rights to be forgotten, public security sectors, and perjury itself.

 

"freedom of speech" was ratified along with / in part to "the harming principles" which state the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others and their property. Since "charged speech" has been criminalized multiple times as a method to incite others to action at their own detriment you cannot legally 'troll' someone and get away with it since you're creating an intent to cause harm to a persons whether it be physical or mental in nature... which operates under the legal term "anguish".

 

Ergo... you're wrong.

 

 

 

edit: granted you might be mistakenly thinking of the freedom to express which is ratified under the UDHC yet it still has the same restrictions (and even more) as the freedom of speech. The reason why many people aren't arrested or fiend for their off colour expressions or methodology for expressing themselves is because they're just not worth it. There's bigger fish to fry.

 

Furthermore the freedom of expression is only giving the defining protections as to: the right to seek information and ideas; the right to receive information and ideas; the right to impart information and ideas.

 

You're only protected under the defining factor of expressing ones interpretations on laws, codes, information, facts, historical events, current happenings (events), political 'leanings'. Should you stray from "expressing" yourself in any of the above ways then you are in 'violation' of the freedom of expression and therefore no longer under it's protection and may be prosecuted/fined/charged should your speech warrant criminal or otherwise harmful activity under the impression of a law enforcement individual.

[AshleyAshes]

ITT: Americans get an education on how the 1st amendment only applies to actions taken by the government, something I'm super sure they are supposed to learn in high school.

[Master Disaster]

55 minutes ago, Selah said:

So I'm right.

 

You're confusing freedom of speech from oppression with the convention of human rights.

 

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "

Congress will not make a law uplifting or promoting any one religion or another.

 

" Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

Congress will not make a law against the exercising of any religion and it's practices.

 

" or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press "

During the colonial era any form of critiques or 'harsh' opinions on the crown were criminalized and charged.

 

" or the right of the people peaceably to assemble "

Gatherings above a certain size even inside a private dwelling were restricted except in such cases where the family exceeded the size therein.

 

" to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

petitions for representation and communication in effort for "betterment" were ignored categorically and the colonies were not given a voice within their government.

 

"Abridging" in this sense and context is continued throughout the last three quotes. It effectively means

'curtail (rights or privileges).'

 

 

Unfortunately for you and most others what that means is that you are not restricted by law from "expressing" yourself. You are however restricted from the language in which you use. If by your definition 'freedom of speech' was the blanket term you seem to believe it is then there would be no sanctions or cites against libel, slander, obscenity,, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secret violation, NDA breeches, rights to privacy, rights to be forgotten, public security sectors, and perjury itself.

 

"freedom of speech" was ratified along with / in part to "the harming principles" which state the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others and their property. Since "charged speech" has been criminalized multiple times as a method to incite others to action at their own detriment you cannot legally 'troll' someone and get away with it since you're creating an intent to cause harm to a persons whether it be physical or mental in nature... which operates under the legal term "anguish".

 

Ergo... you're wrong.

 

 

 

edit: granted you might be mistakenly thinking of the freedom to express which is ratified under the UDHC yet it still has the same restrictions (and even more) as the freedom of speech. The reason why many people aren't arrested or fiend for their off colour expressions or methodology for expressing themselves is because they're just not worth it. There's bigger fish to fry.

 

Furthermore the freedom of expression is only giving the defining protections as to: the right to seek information and ideas; the right to receive information and ideas; the right to impart information and ideas.

 

You're only protected under the defining factor of expressing ones interpretations on laws, codes, information, facts, historical events, current happenings (events), political 'leanings'. Should you stray from "expressing" yourself in any of the above ways then you are in 'violation' of the freedom of expression and therefore no longer under it's protection and may be prosecuted/fined/charged should your speech warrant criminal or otherwise harmful activity under the impression of a law enforcement individual.

And I can shoot this entire post down as nonsense with a single character....

 

;

 

Learn the difference between a semi colon and a comma then get back to me please.

 

Besides which I don't think anybody has ever said US residents are not restricted by law in what you can and can't say, in actuality I even said previously that if what you are saying breaks any laws you can be arrested for it.

 

What you've essentially done is parrot everything we've already said back to us.

 

Granted I may have confused freedom of speech with freedom of expression but that's just arguing semantics. The overall point remains the same.

[Energycore]

You guys had been warned not to make it political and didn't listen.

 

~Locked