831–840 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well clearly the FBI don't find the Taliban bad enough for some reasons...
Or… it turns out that the FBI has specific mandates and they include things like “counter election disinformation” and it doesn’t include things like “report every bad guy on Twitter.” This is only confusing starting from your own incorrect premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? They have no “rights” to use Twitter. This is also not even remotely controversial. Or put another way: the government cannot coerce Twitter or any other platform to carry someone else’s speech. Note however the government is free to ask Twitter to carry people’s speech, as Trump did almost daily for 4+ years whining about so and so getting banned or de-boosted etc.
> What? They have no “rights” to use Twitter. This is also not even remotely controversial. > Or put another way: the government cannot coerce Twitter or any other platform to carry someone else’s speech. You're making a straw man that's not what I said... The government can't ask or suggest or apply undue pressure to Twitter to ban content. Social media has been sued for this successfully to get people unbanned. The…
At least that’s how it works under US law. I get the impression you’re not so familiar with American law though?
Yes they can ask and suggest removal. They cannot coerce but we have no reason to believe they did. I already linked to a long list of case law establishing this. Have a good rest of your weekend!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? Using the term whataboutism doesn't even make sense here. He asked me to list political speech that was censored, which I did. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard.
If that disagreement were censored, would you know about it? Getting fired is not a 1st amendment violation. The 1st amendment only covers protection from the government (with a lot of gray ground for "disorderly conduct" laws, but I digress)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Orwellian does not just mean changing terms or using euphemisms. It is about terms that make the expression of undesirable thoughts actually impossible. Do any of the scare-quoted terms do this? I can't see any.
> Orwellian does not just mean changing terms or using euphemisms. It is about terms that make the expression of undesirable thoughts actually impossible. Do any of the scare-quoted terms do this? I can't see any. Per [1]: "Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the context. People have been suspended from Twitter from saying things like " transwomen are actually men so stop letting them compete in women's sports, it's not safe or fair for actual women ", which isn't hate speech, doesn't target an individual, and is a legitimate political opinion, so in theory should be fine. Yet bans are handed out anyway.
I don't believe that. I know several conservatives who posted that shit all the time and didn't get banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or… it turns out that the FBI has specific mandates and they include things like “counter election disinformation” and it doesn’t include things like “report every bad guy on Twitter.” This is only confusing starting from your own incorrect premise.
The FBI don't have "mandates" against the Talibans? That doesn't seem to make sense...
Honestly it’s not very fruitful arguing this stuff with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the basics of the American system. There are plenty of resources online to learn about all this stuff if you’re interested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well clearly the FBI don't find the Taliban bad enough for some reasons...
Or… it turns out that the FBI has specific mandates and they include things like “counter election disinformation” and it doesn’t include things like “report every bad guy on Twitter.” This is only confusing starting from your own incorrect premise.
But it doesn't outrage you because you're in agreement with the shit they're shoveling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or… it turns out that the FBI has specific mandates and they include things like “counter election disinformation” and it doesn’t include things like “report every bad guy on Twitter.” This is only confusing starting from your own incorrect premise.
No. The FBI is prioritizing certain things and not prioritizing others. They're doing this for political reasons, which should outrage everyone. But it doesn't outrage you because you're in agreement with the shit they're shoveling.
Lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not talking about the overall scope of the program. Obviously the Patriot Act is much broader. I’m talking about the double standard of those supporting the FBI. The same people cheering on the FBI now would have flipped out if the FBI was engaged in the same communications with Twitter about imams preaching radical Islam. The same people justifying Twitter working with the FBI to respond to supposed “radicalizat…
> The same people cheering on the FBI now would have flipped out if the FBI was engaged in the same communications with Twitter about imams preaching radical Islam Citation needed. The vast majority of the complaints during that era were due to portraying all Muslims as radical or focusing the efforts on Muslims without applying the same standards to the far more numerous (in the U.S., anyway) Christian extremists ma…
The disclosure here is that Twitter didn’t have “clear rules which are fairly applied.” It was filtered through people who believed wacky things—for example, ones so blinded by anti-Christian bias they think there is any comparison between Christian “extremism” and the global problem of Islamic radicalism.