Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why censorship is practiced on social media.


Hawken

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Not everyone watches Youtube.

Only 2.49 billion subscribers. :w00t:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hawken said:

And I suppose you get your "alleged" facts from the corporate media where it's apparent they praise one side while being critical of the other. No fair reporting.

That is where you are wrong.  Don't look in the mirror and  suppose I do the same things many of your acquaintances do  but with other sources.   You cannot get facts from mainstream media, YouTube  influence peddlers are no better even if they offer "Alternative facts".  Never trust a site that teases with forbidden knowledge or  "This is what they don't want you to know," are you were not supposed to see this.  Its all click bait.  Few people make a good living reporting facts as do those who tell an enticing story. 

You want to know what sanctions are doing to Russia?  You can't believe our press releases or Russia's.  You have to look at financial data.  Value of the ruble against other countries, oil exports, GDP, spending.  For example, Russia has had a blip up in their GDP, they and their supporters brag about it as proof sanctions are not working..  But it is traced to moving to a wartime economy.  People are employed making tanks, artillery shells and aircraft.  They are not repairing heating in Moscow or other major cities.  None of that will have a long term benefit to their economy.

Same with China, you have to search for data.  And so it goes.

Research is called that because you have to look around, scour, and search for the facts.  None of the infotainment  talking heads feed it to you.  Their opinion is value added.  It earns them millions of dollars and keeps the clicks coming in. 

Personally, I look for number sites because I spent 35 years analyzing metallurgical data for trends and process improvements.  I made a pretty good living doing that by increasing profit for the company I worked for by sticking to facts.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Not everyone watches Youtube.

Give us some context about what's there and what you want to discuss.

Just press play.  It is embedded into the post.  It is a 3 minute video... good grief.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

That is where you are wrong.  Don't look in the mirror and  suppose I do the same things many of your acquaintances do  but with other sources.   You cannot get facts from mainstream media, YouTube  influence peddlers are no better even if they offer "Alternative facts".  Never trust a site that teases with forbidden knowledge or  "This is what they don't want you to know," are you were not supposed to see this.  Its all click bait.  Few people make a good living reporting facts as do those who tell an enticing story. 

You want to know what sanctions are doing to Russia?  You can't believe our press releases or Russia's.  You have to look at financial data.  Value of the ruble against other countries, oil exports, GDP, spending.  For example, Russia has had a blip up in their GDP, they and their supporters brag about it as proof sanctions are not working..  But it is traced to moving to a wartime economy.  People are employed making tanks, artillery shells and aircraft.  They are not repairing heating in Moscow or other major cities.  None of that will have a long term benefit to their economy.

Same with China, you have to search for data.  And so it goes.

Research is called that because you have to look around, scour, and search for the facts.  None of the infotainment  talking heads feed it to you.  Their opinion is value added.  It earns them millions of dollars and keeps the clicks coming in. 

Personally, I look for number sites because I spent 35 years analyzing metallurgical data for trends and process improvements.  I made a pretty good living doing that by increasing profit for the company I worked for by sticking to facts.

 

Then I assume you do research on financial data and other data which helps you make a good decision on who you vote for in elections and vote

based on Logic rather than Emotion without media influence. Am I correct?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

Just press play.  It is embedded into the post.  It is a 3 minute video... good grief.

It is common courtesy when posting a video to a forum such as this to include a summary what it is about.

Not everyone viewing the forum is using a device, or in a position, whereby they can watch and listen to a video.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hawken said:

 

Then I assume you do research on financial data and other data which helps you make a good decision on who you vote for in elections and vote

based on Logic rather than Emotion without media influence. Am I correct?

Yes you got me.  I do care about people and justice and social concerns, but primarily  I operate from self interest and  benefit to my family.  I have been tracking my IRA and 401k for 40 years. I got interested in the economies of Russia, China, India, and the EU for that reason.   I am not brilliant, or a financial wizard, but I have done OK.   A little hint here, the stock market began flattening out in Trump's 2nd year before covid was even a thing. 

Did you know by the way that Mexico has surpassed China and is now our #1 trading partner.  Consider the benefits of a supply chain that is far shorter, runs with truck or rail  and can distribute through multiple hubs to avoid the congestion of mega ports like Long Beach.  Also consider Mexico buys a lot from us and aligns better with our aims than China. The border is more than people sneaking across, it needs to be controlled, yet not impede the goods and services that cross it.  If fear of immigrants drives policy, it will not be good for economies.

That is how I view the competing policies of Trump and Biden, money in my account, wealth to pass to my children and a country stable enough to enjoy it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Just press play.  It is embedded into the post.  It is a 3 minute video... good grief.

The video is someone else's thoughts and opinions.  The guy posting the link should at least say whether he agrees with it or disagrees and why.  We can't discuss the topic with the author of the Youtube video after all.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2024 at 3:09 PM, OverSword said:

The video is about having one source (the government, media outlet, etc.) control a narrative, and having alternate narratives censored.  You have no way of verifying if what you are being told is the truth ,therefore censorship is bad.  It give a few examples of some instances where posts were removed by media at the behest of government such as the Hunter Biden laptop and people's social media posts concerning adverse affects of the Covid vaccine experienced by them.

You seem to be forgetting the nut jobs screaming from the rooftops that Covid vaccinations were a govt conspiracy, and masking doesn't help. Well, at least your not fence sitting anymore. You've fully embraced the stupid. Including not being able to differentiate fact from fiction.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

You seem to be forgetting the nut jobs screaming from the rooftops that Covid vaccinations were a govt conspiracy, and masking doesn't help. Well, at least your not fence sitting anymore. You've fully embraced the stupid. Including not being able to differentiate fact from fiction.

Except the nut jobs screaming masking didnt help and vaccinations had issues were right...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Except the nut jobs screaming masking didnt help and vaccinations had issues were right...

The masks did help. Proven, and no vaccine ever made is 100% efficient for every person. 

So no, the not jobs were not right. They were just nut jobs. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

You seem to be forgetting the nut jobs screaming from the rooftops that Covid vaccinations were a govt conspiracy, and masking doesn't help. Well, at least your not fence sitting anymore. You've fully embraced the stupid. Including not being able to differentiate fact from fiction.

As is their right to do so, and should be.  I am fully vaccinated which was my choice but others have the right not to be and to say why, right or wrong.  Rights are very important to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone point to a left leaning post they believe should be banned for any reason?  I mean, there are plenty of posts saying the moderation is biased, but show us something from the left that should be deleted.

  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

As is their right to do so, and should be.  I am fully vaccinated which was my choice but others have the right not to be and to say why, right or wrong.  Rights are very important to me.

Even if it means children die for the nutjobs beliefs, right? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Can anyone point to a left leaning post they believe should be banned for any reason?  I mean, there are plenty of posts saying the moderation is biased, but show us something from the left that should be deleted.

Conservatives generally want less moderation, not more. To get an accurate answer you're better off flipping the question: can anyone point to a right leaning post that SHOULDN'T be banned? Arguably the answer is a strong yes. At the end of the day we just want equal moderation. UM is great with an awesome moderation team that is fair to all, but many of the larger tech companies don't have the same level of impartiality,  and as many of these companies are based in Silicone Valley, which largely leans left, it's sad but unsurprising reality that such a double standard of moderation has occurred. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Even if it means children die for the nutjobs beliefs, right? 

That is how the left feels but it is their right.  We are all different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Conservatives generally want less moderation, not more. To get an accurate answer you're better off flipping the question: can anyone point to a right leaning post that SHOULDN'T be banned? Arguably the answer is a strong yes. At the end of the day we just want equal moderation. UM is great with an awesome moderation team that is fair to all, but many of the larger tech companies don't have the same level of impartiality,  and as many of these companies are based in Silicone Valley, which largely leans left, it's sad but unsurprising reality that such a double standard of moderation has occurred. 

I am kind of curious.  We can agree that Saru has been good with moderation.  It would be interesting to see what all here has been banned based off political leaning percentage wise.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2024 at 6:52 AM, Paranoid Android said:

At the end of the day we just want equal moderation.

And you also want to be the arbiter of what 'equal moderation' is.  Conservatives are typically also very gung-ho about property rights and the rights of business owners to control how their property is used, why does that vanish when we talk about 'banned' comments on social media?  Matter of fact I'm pretty confident this would be the response of conservatives if X or a site decided it didn't want left-leaning comments, speaking of potential 'double standards'. 

Shouldn't the marketplace handle this, speaking of what conservatives typically believe?  Go ahead and create your own social media site where you can allow whatever comments you want, stop expecting other people and businesses to do your work for you.

On 2/29/2024 at 9:12 AM, Gromdor said:

UM is great with an awesome moderation team that is fair to all

It does, but it is not 'fair' in allowing all topics to be discussed. UM doesn't allow talking about personal use of drugs, that's cool; some sites don't allow posts with anti-vax points, why isn't that also cool?  Same principle at play.  The public forum/square I don't think is relevant, that needs a lot more argumentation to justify and given the user distribution among various sites is not needed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And you also want to be the arbiter of what 'equal moderation' is. 

At the end of the day all I want is consistency! If I could go onto a platform and know that whether I am a conservative or a liberal, I'll receive equal treatment then that's a huge plus. To use UM again as an example, there are some topics that aren't allowed to be discussed here (you mentioned drugs later in the post), but the point is we know what those topics are and the moderation team is fair in applying the rules. Whether it's a right winger or a left winger, the rules are there for all. 

I don't have the same faith in the Facebook moderators, for example. I fully expect Facebook moderation to favour left wing causes and censor right wing ones. 

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Conservatives are typically also very gung-ho about property rights and the rights of business owners to control how their property is used, why does that vanish when we talk about 'banned' comments on social media? 

Social media platforms advertise themselves as the modern equivalent of the town square. When these companies then censor ideas that they don't want, it is the equivalent of removing free speech from the town square. 

Right now, there are no sufficient laws that exist to address social media companies. Our respective countries need to sit down and create new legislation to address social media. Yes, these companeis are private entities, but they also perform the role of the town square and have benefited from legislation that has been around since the 90s, the internet has evolved faster than the laws that were originally written and new legislation is needed to reflect the role that social media plays in modern society. 

  

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Matter of fact I'm pretty confident this would be the response of conservatives if X or a site decided it didn't want left-leaning comments, speaking of potential 'double standards'. 

I can't speak for all conservatives, but if Musk started removing people for no reason other than "I feel like it" or even "I don't like this opinion so I'll get my mods/system to delete these comments". then they would abandon TwiX. Musk would simply be replacing one echo chamber with another. If Musk hypothetically did that, that's all it would accomplish - a different echo chamber. And that's just as bad for public discourse as left wing social media companies doing it. Maybe it's the nature of politics that all things like this will eventually fall into an echo chamber of some kind, but if so I think that's an indictment on our species and society. 

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Shouldn't the marketplace handle this, speaking of what conservatives typically believe?  Go ahead and create your own social media site where you can allow whatever comments you want, stop expecting other people and businesses to do your work for you.

Conservatives did create conservative social media platforms. Parler and Gab spring immediately to mind. After a concerted misinformation and disinformation campaign by the left wing mainstream media, Amazon and Google removed both apps from their stores, refusing to host them on places as simple as the Google Play Store. IIRC, Parler got a lot of bad publicity for all the things people there were saying about January 6, even though independent comparisons suggested that Twitter at the time was just as likely to host the same content, they got bad publicity as right wing echo chambers and Big Tech blocked them. 

Then when Musk decided to buy the left wing Twitter, more misinformation and disinformation campaigns were held by the mainstream media to demonise Musk's ownership (recall the now-infamous BBC interview where the journalist literally said "I've seen an increase in hate speech on Twitter with my own eyes", and when Musk asked for an example, he said "I don't use Twitter anymore, this is what I've heard others say", and Musk rightfully pointed out to the poor man that if he doesn't use Twitter anymore, how can he have seen the increase in hate speech with his own eyes - these are the stories that give glimpses into how the media is trying to craft a narrative, with left wing reporters going into interviews like this with preconceived notions). 

It's BS hit pieces by the left wing media companies that cause these problems, and it's happened enough for me to call BS on those telling us to get our own platforms. The powers that be will NEVER let conservative platforms get away with what the left wing platforms do. 

 

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It does, but it is not 'fair' in allowing all topics to be discussed. UM doesn't allow talking about personal use of drugs, that's cool; some sites don't allow posts with anti-vax points, why isn't that also cool?  Same principle at play.  The public forum/square I don't think is relevant, that needs a lot more argumentation to justify and given the user distribution among various sites is not needed.

 

I guess this is covered in what I said earlier about social media platforms presenting themselves as town squares. To end this post where I started, I guess the clearest thing I can say about this is that we just want consistency. That's certainly what I would be happy to settle with. 

 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2024 at 7:33 PM, Agent0range said:

Can anyone point to a left leaning post they believe should be banned for any reason?  I mean, there are plenty of posts saying the moderation is biased, but show us something from the left that should be deleted.

Nothing legal should be banned or deleted. If you don't like it ignore.  Simple.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2024 at 9:06 PM, Hankenhunter said:

Even if it means children die for the nutjobs beliefs, right? 

Unless you can prove their liability legally then yes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Unless you can prove their liability legally then yes

Good to know. It explains a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hankenhunter said:

Good to know. It explains a lot.

It's what laws are for.  You want everyone to bow to how you live your life make it law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's what laws are for.  You want everyone to bow to how you live your life make it law.

And as long as they benefit you it's okay the way it is. Very selfish view. You have corrupt judges applying the law according to the political party they belong to. That the law you're talking about? Your legal system is a farce when one can openly ignore the law when one has enough money, or belongs to a openly corrupt political party. I'm not surprised you support it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

And as long as they benefit you it's okay the way it is. Very selfish view. You have corrupt judges applying the law according to the political party they belong to. That the law you're talking about? Your legal system is a farce when one can openly ignore the law when one has enough money, or belongs to a openly corrupt political party. I'm not surprised you support it.

First how does having a bunch of unvaccinated people running around benefit me?  Second you are saying about laws "I like" exactly what I said about the laws being legislated in your country to curtail free speech.  You're being a hypocrite.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OverSword said:

First how does having a bunch of unvaccinated people running around benefit me?  Second you are saying about laws "I like" exactly what I said about the laws being legislated in your country to curtail free speech.  You're being a hypocrite.

Nope, just pointing out reality. You're an anarchistic libertarian living in a Socialist state/city. Talk about double standards. Your pulpit is built on it. Laws are ment to be changed when they're ineffective. It's called evolving. Don't like it? Move to southern states with the rest of the bootstrappers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.