Social Media Trickery

Townhall.com ^ | August 22, 2018 | John Stossel

[Da Coyote]

Heh, information panel indeed. I’d bet that I could give an elementary atmospheric absorption quiz to the perps of this “panel” to see how much they really know about CO2 absorption spectra, other gasses that absorb in the IR region, and some extinction lengths, and we’d get around a 1% pass rate.

[AAABEST]

“Information panels”... to be applied subjectively and arbitrarily... according to left-coasters trying to interfere in an election.

[Travis McGee]

[DiogenesLamp]

Here’s more!

[dforest]

Do good people realize yet what is going to have to happen to remain free? It is not pretty or anything we could have ever wanted.

[exDemMom]

I’d bet that I could give an elementary atmospheric absorption quiz to the perps of this “panel” to see how much they really know about CO2 absorption spectra, other gasses that absorb in the IR region, and some extinction lengths, and we’d get around a 1% pass rate.

Gee, I've studied that stuff, and I can't be sure I'd actually pass your quiz. It would be impossible for a non-scientist.

[palmer]

Thanks, that’s a good writeup and I’ve always like Stossel. It’s going to be difficult to regulate the social media sites that alter content like he described. If we disallowed alterations they would put the propaganda somewhere else that would be technically allowed. It would be whackamole to try to keep up with that even if we had the government on our side, which it won’t be.

[semimojo]

So now it’s not enough that they have to carry speech that they don’t agree with, they can’t even give their own opinion?

[a fool in paradise]

>>Private media platforms have every right to decide who can use them. But the platforms are wrong to shut down people with whom they disagree.

Bake the damn cake. None of their publicly stated policies are violated.

Also call the ‘fickless’ FEC as these are actions designed to influence elections by supressing something someone has to say. How much is this contribution worth to the Democrats?

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Dennis Prager made an interesting point the other day. He said if these sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. came out and said the ONLY speech they wanted on their sites would be from the Left, well, okey dokey then (though that would be ultimately awkward for the ones that are publicly traded), but yet they continue to push the narrative that they are not suppressing any speech, are neutral and objective - which is a lie and fraud.

 

 

[a fool in paradise]

Even still during an election year even commercial broadcasters have to offer a challenger equal time if they have a candidate on the air.

[semimojo]

It’s going to be difficult to regulate the social media sites that alter content like he described.

I don’t get what you mean about altering content.

All I see is that they provided a link to Wikipedia.

Now, if he’s complaining about the nature of Wiki I get it.

[usconservative]

Do good people realize yet what is going to have to happen to remain free? It is not pretty or anything we could have ever wanted.

See my tagline. I've had it for over 12 years now.

[usconservative]

Do good people realize yet what is going to have to happen to remain free? It is not pretty or anything we could have ever wanted.

See my tagline. I've had it for over 12 years now.

[I want the USA back]

Social media are run by leftists. They are using their facilities to suppress truth and promote lies.

[dsc]

Great meme, but what black person is willing to shake hands with a honkey-tonk redneck ofay gray dude these days?

[lapsus calami]

 

 

What's happening with the aforementioned sites is they are performing in-kind services in support of agenda driven political groups by attacking, defaming and deplatforming those who are not in agreement with those groups - they have discarded objectivity and aligned with and are now part of a specific political apparatus. There's been people running around this site posting stuff that it's 'their site, their rules' blah blah blah. Maybe once upon a time under normal circumstances - but these are not normal circumstances, not any more. That ship has long sailed.

 

 

[a fool in paradise]

Again, none of the so-called violations violate their rules. If they want to blame fraudulent reporting of violations by leftist users, isn’t that akin to “swatting” by registering false complaints? Is it enough to only restore content by Prager U that was banned or should the harasser see his own account banned?

There are attempts to monetize increased visibility, since only one side has to pay to restore their exposure, isn’t that a shakedown racket?

[lapsus calami]

 

 

their rules

 

One of the constructs they hide behind while committing their suppression and purges, all written in careful legalese.

 

 

There are attempts to monetize increased visibility, since only one side has to pay to restore their exposure, isn’t that a shakedown racket?

 

If not securities fraud. Interesting thing is that we have not heard any proactive stirring from investors and advertisers along that vein, so that is either an acceptable official policy or any thought of such action has itself been suppressed. If they had been operating against the deep state agenda, people would have been getting the Cohen/Manafort treatment left and right - you can bet your net worth on that.