Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

[CoinKillerL]

maybe we'll finally get rid of Facebook and Youtube SJWs! Great move Trump!

 

[Xzi]

maybe we'll finally get rid of Facebook and Youtube SJWs! Great move Trump!

Ah, see. This man knows a blatantly political move when he sees one. Thus the reason any smart social media company will simply ignore the Trump administration here.

 

[notimp]

Page 5. Has anyone actually looked at the reporting form?

This isnt really anything. It doesnt even have a domain.

Much to do about nothing. As a sign - interesting at least - but what they'll get is a cross section of angry folks and politically motivated reports, they probably would have been able to get internally if they cared.

Nothing about it is public - and selection probably will be quite partial.
What actually would be interesting is a statistical analysis in some form (what are facebooks decision trees), what we'll get will probably be some gotcha's.

If we get more, great - but the site doesnt even look like as if this is a half baked effort. More like an unmotivated study project.


Sorry, judging by appearance.

edit: First reaction by gab:

"Great we'll send you a dataset of 1 Mio accounts banned." Well - saw that one coming.

 

[piratesephiroth]

"Anti-establishment," rofl. Anti-establishment leaders don't cut the corporate tax rate in half, attempt to get abortion banned, push for an uneccessary war with Iran, declare the children of gay couples 'non-citizens,' etc. Not only is Trump a pawn of the Republican establishment, he's also pawn to a number of foreign government establishments. Such a fucking joke to call a lifelong East-coast elitist "anti-establishment."

friggin drumpf!

 

[Taleweaver]

Yeeeey! More divide and conquer techniques! Because surely whenever someone is banned ANYWHERE, it should be reported and the banners put to shame. Of course there is NO WAY that anyone is being censored/banned for being toxic, harassing, (sexually) intimidating, xenophobic, a spambot and/or flat out retarded.

If it wasn't for the five pages of text, I'd say: "I'll start", but hey...better late than never.

"Dear mr. or mrs. from the anti censorship committee,

I'm making a report on this site because I feel I'm unjustly treated. According to the law, I have the right of free speech and should be able to express my opinion, especially if I'm being asked to do so. However, as of late, I'm being harassed by this bully who is making it very clear that my position - no matter how much according to law - is deemed "immoral" and "irrelevant". Because of his position, he constantly delays my right to speak until further notice. I sincerely hope you'll take proper action against this individual, as this behavior results in me being portrayed as "a traitor", despite me fully acting according to the very standards of the law.

Kind regards,

Don McGahn"

 

[FAST6191]

(sexually) intimidating

*Sniggers heartily*

Anyway I already went. Still no problems with someone taking a few minutes to set up a site to try to note social meeja companies being arseholes, or at least being massive hypocrites when they claim they are all about the free, free expression and discussion of ideas, or trying to hide behind various legal shields when it is convenient for them and others for very different purposes when not. If it helps them get to the point where they become a corpse in the corner that I can laugh at a la myspace, bebo and whatever else then so much the better.

I find the recent trend towards not having p2p, distributed, mutually mirrored and self run servers for things to be disturbing, especially when we almost once had them (certainly had them for text which is trivially turned into HTML and thus all that such things give us) and now we are left with good old IRC, whatever remains of XMPP, and usenet if it is not banned or nerfed because someone once heard a [insert bogeymen of choice] might once have had an account or the few providers remaining consolidated. Zero sympathy if someone/some company tied themselves to such a service and could not extricate when their time in favour was no more. With them being unquestionably a content publisher/controller from where I sit I am not especially bothered by them having some kind of political sway or trying to effect some change -- most people that push away from neutrality and objectivity don't get very far and accelerates a nice collapse. What ideals their actions seem to betray, or perhaps portray, I find to be intellectually abhorrent (though the study of how such ideals form and propagate is a fascinating one, one I shall likely be pondering for years to come), and as mentioned sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant.

In the end if you are not paying for the product then you are the product. So many seem to have forgotten that.

 

[Foxi4]

I agree on the former, but the latter is a bit of a contradiction if your 'principles' dictate that the reforms are done correctly. Trump has no fucking clue when it comes to technology on any scale, and I dare say neither does anybody in his entire administration. We can't have fucking buffoons setting the rules governing the internet, or odds are that things will be even worse and more restrictive than before.

Arbitrary gatekeeping, nobody in the political sphere knows anything about IT, besides McAfee, which would be a funny pick for the saviour of the Internet. On a more serious note, you can keep taking digs at Trump all you want, I can't wait to see the result of this program.

Your approach to this is very interesting because not 5 minutes ago liberals argued that a Christian baker has to bake a cake for a gay wedding despite religious objections because upon becoming a business he has agreed to serve the public without discriminating his customer base on whatever grounds, and now I hear liberals arguing the exact opposite. Hmm. Makes me think. Gets my noggin' joggin'. Really toasts my almonds. Could it be possible that, perhaps, removing right-wing voices from the public square on the Internet's biggest websites with the widest reach is politically expedient and pretending to be anti-interventionist free marketeers is worth it in this particular moment in time? Who knows? I surely wouldn't be cynical enough to say that out loud.

 

[zomborg]

none of that has anything to do with this trump tantrum about having less followers than obama?
your what if doesn't make anyone the target of any algorithm.
unless your 'cross' is burning in someones frontyard of course.

no one said that most conservatives are racist.
the point is that most racists are self-indentifying as conservative (or try to obfuscate their racism as conservatism) and on a political level, they mainly do support conservatives. there's a huge difference between the two statements.
the problem being, the right side of politics doesn't seem to have any issue recruiting their politicians from that cespool of obvious racists. because it ensures that the otherwise voting-lazy racist votes for their side.

no idea what your 'average black fellow citizens' really have to do with it either. being friendly and being racist don't necessarily exclude each other. most racists clearly don't present themselves as openly racist when they're out and about, because they know there usually are social repercussions for that.

and institutionalized racism can still be a thing and will affect people of color even if we could wish every actual racist to the moon tomorrow. that's how institutions work and how for example hiring practises get entrenched, or the idea that it's safer to just shoot a black guy because you, as a trained policeman, feel he's much more likely to pull a gun on you than a white guy.

because racism is more than just angry people openly shouting insults at people of color.

Ok, I will admit you have a point, there definitely are racists out there in 2019 and there may be a higher rate of them in the conservative community vs the left.
But is it also possible that in recent years racism has become a buzzword? Isn't it at least feasible that people are using the word as a sword and shield in today's society? Such as, when, in the heat of debate, the person on the losing side suddenly plays the racism card to bring the debate to a halt.
It has been an effective tactic when someone is losing in a war of words.

Today's culture is one of offense. Everyone is running around crying and whining about racism, hate speech, micro aggressions, homophobia, Islamophobia, sexism and on and on. Today people are too easily offended. They are looking for reasons to be offended. People are too busy trying to find a reason to be offended to even be an effective citizen. Today's youth and many of slightly older people are too thin skinned and can't even withstand constructive criticism.
A generation or 2 ago a young man's father would have told him to suck it up, get out of his pity pool and get over it.
If from 1941-1945(WWII) we had the current generations military /fighting age men from ages 16-25. Not talking about currently enlisted men but your average unenlisted young American male of 2019, we would currently be under German occupation. I'm ashamed. It is absurd and it is pathetic.

You don't like the way things are going in America today? You want to change it? Then saddle up, be a real man and ride. Get out there and learn how this country works, get educated in politics and run for office.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

[notimp]

It is not. Racism is racism.

If you use that word, you have a reason to use it. Also, btw, which dog race is best?

 

[Deleted_413010]

I couldn't give two shits what Trump says. I take everything he says and claims with a grain of salt. He's being censored because he's an incompetent dickhead who's going to lead America into fucking WW3. If I was Twitter I would have banned his ass years ago and I wouldn't give a shit if I get fired.

 

[cots]

So you've been censored. Now the Government wants you to report it. "What will they do?" "What can they do?" I'm not sure this is a road I want to go down. I mean, technically, our Government Representatives are supposed to look out for our best interests, but I rarely see that happening. They look out for their own best interests before ours so I'm not sure what type of crap they will try to pull - I mean, they could block sites, take down sites, arrest the owners and go after the users. I'm not sure I'll be narking out anyone using this site.

Now - lets go through a few things here.

- Do they employ journalists?
- Do they produce news stories or journalism?
- Do they adhere to a media codex?
- Do they refer to themselves as mass media?
- Do they employ behavioral psychologists?
- Are they paid by their consumers?

It can be argued for as well?

Now, what editorial responsibility were they willing to take so far?
- will fix it in algorithms (keyword filters, as far as we've seen so far)
- we'll make our censors in the philippines look over "all the content"
- we'll only push newsstories _ourselves_ (different from actual word of mounth which still can propagate freely (friends of friends)), if one of the major news networks pushed it

Now they deserve concerns about having their press freedoms upheld? As an ad company? Are you mad?

Haha, Liberal News Media explained. Perfect example of CNN or ABC. What a joke.

 

[notimp]

For everyone reading along, cots is misunderstanding the quote again.

In his mind adding liberal in front of stuff makes it "the enemy".

Haha media doesnt employ behavioral psychologists, and facebook does. He's such a buffoon. They do to make you spend more time on their platform btw. Give your feeds some push and pull.

 

[SG854]

So you've been censored. Now the Government wants you to report it. "What will they do?" "What can they do?" I'm not sure this is a road I want to go down. I mean, technically, our Government Representatives are supposed to look out for our best interests, but I rarely see that happening. They look out for their own best interests before ours so I'm not sure what type of crap they will try to pull - I mean, they could block sites, take down sites, arrest the owners and go after the users. I'm not sure I'll be narking out anyone using this site.


Haha, Liberal News Media explained. Perfect example of CNN or ABC. What a joke.

Usually the Republican argument is don’t give regulation powers to Gov because what if a Dems controls the Gov then you’ll give regulation powers to Dems and they’ll censor people.


This argument doesn’t really hold because Gov can not regulate speech no matter what (unless you use speech to call for violence) because of the 1st Amendment.


Packingham v. North Carolina case shows that after North Carolina passed a law to restrict registered sex offenders from using social media that the supreme court then later unanimously voted that kind of speech constraint is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment law that gov can not restrict access to the public square. Gov can’t pass laws to restrict speech access so Conservative argument doesn’t hold.



This also sets precedent that the Supreme Court views social media as a public square. Most people use social media to debate now a days because you reach a wider audience that way. Hardly anyone is going to go to a local event to hear debates at a town hall, it’s all on social media now because it’s easier, so most political discourse is on social media. The Supreme Court views Social Media as the modern public square, and it can be regulated like any other public square if we pass laws.

 

[FAST6191]

It is not. Racism is racism.

Really? Because I have seen all sorts of nonsense be called racism that isn't (whatever the fuck cultural appropriation is if it is even a concept that can exist, "Islamophobia" is apparently a racist act when I was of the understanding it is a religion, one neither universally/near universally practised by a single "race", and in fact widespread among several, and thus completely different, that being "colour blind" is bad despite that literally being what most people were taught to do and it generally being said to be a good plan -- judge a person by their character and actions and all that)) and all sorts of things that are racism be said not to be (the whole "must be of a more dominant race" aka the prejudice+power model).

 

[notimp]

Racist.

Ok, not. But the point is kind of that people at least in my generation, dont throw the term around lightheartedly. So its an accusation, that usually is provoked, and usually sticks.

So what right wing folks did to get around that is to find different ways to tap into that 'primal thing' by slightly reframing the viewing point.

So instead of being racist, you are now for "nativism" where everyone should stay in the country they are from, and instead of being against people from asia minor, you are now just a religious critic.

In the more common use of those terms, those are codes. Sucessfully doing what they are created for and in some societies you apparently can now use them again (not in my cycles) - but still rhetoric codes.

If someone throws that (racist) at me - although no one has to this day - even if mistakenly, I stay silent - dont escalate, and dont come back with "but its only islam criticism I meant".

Different set of rules with people discussing internal modes and traditions of lets say islam, but for general use - no, thats one of the terms thats actually emotionally loaded for a reason. In my humble opinion, dont try to "take it back". (Clerks 2 video, I'm not allowed to post in here.. Would be a good reference that acts out an explanation. )

 

[Subtle Demise]

How many government subsidies does it take to make it not a private company anymore?
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/facebook

 

[osaka35]

How would you feel if "A Modest Proposal" was prefaced with a mandatory disclaimer that it's satire?

If you had people giving out recipes for how to best cook food that tasted like humans, the "evidence" for why it really was the healthiest diet and we should start eating people, and groups gathered every wednesday to have a human-taste-alike cook-offs, and they all used that book as their document of faith....yes. Yes i'd be good with a disclaimer it was satire.

I think it comes down to is, how much responsibility does social media have to filter hate speech, false speech, and manipulative speech? Any? How limited by the government are they to filter spam? I think it's a lot greyer of a situation than most folks recognize. Got to agree on the problem, then try and find a solution. Are you of the mind the only problem social media would have is limiting speech? Are there any other speech concerns as far as you're concerned? Should the consequences or results of virally wrong and manipulative information be addressed?

 

[Foxi4]

If you had people giving out recipes for how to best cook food that tasted like humans, the "evidence" for why it really was the healthiest diet and we should start eating people, and groups gathered every wednesday to have a human-taste-alike cook-offs, and they all used that book as their document of faith....yes. Yes i'd be good with a disclaimer it was satire.

I think it comes down to is, how much responsibility does social media have to filter hate speech, false speech, and manipulative speech? Any? How limited by the government are they to filter spam? I think it's a lot greyer of a situation than most folks recognize. Got to agree on the problem, then try and find a solution. Are you of the mind the only problem social media would have is limiting speech? Are there any other speech concerns as far as you're concerned? Should the consequences or results of virally wrong and manipulative information be addressed?

Not if it's not illegal, no. If it's so wrong and easily disproven, surely you can argue against it on the free market of ideas, no?

 

[Clydefrosch]

Ok, I will admit you have a point, there definitely are racists out there in 2019 and there may be a higher rate of them in the conservative community vs the left.
But is it also possible that in recent years racism has become a buzzword? Isn't it at least feasible that people are using the word as a sword and shield in today's society? Such as, when, in the heat of debate, the person on the losing side suddenly plays the racism card to bring the debate to a halt.
It has been an effective tactic when someone is losing in a war of words.

Today's culture is one of offense. Everyone is running around crying and whining about racism, hate speech, micro aggressions, homophobia, Islamophobia, sexism and on and on. Today people are too easily offended. They are looking for reasons to be offended. People are too busy trying to find a reason to be offended to even be an effective citizen. Today's youth and many of slightly older people are too thin skinned and can't even withstand constructive criticism.
A generation or 2 ago a young man's father would have told him to suck it up, get out of his pity pool and get over it.
If from 1941-1945(WWII) we had the current generations military /fighting age men from ages 16-25. Not talking about currently enlisted men but your average unenlisted young American male of 2019, we would currently be under German occupation. I'm ashamed. It is absurd and it is pathetic.

You don't like the way things are going in America today? You want to change it? Then saddle up, be a real man and ride. Get out there and learn how this country works, get educated in politics and run for office.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Racism just being a buzzword and the situation being blown out of proportions is certainly the case racists have been making in public for decades.
It has never been true. But it's kind of unveiling whenever you hear it.

the other stuff sounds borderline insane again, you keep on arguing within these 'what if' fantasy hypotheticals that aren't reality to make your case.
those are not arguments.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Really? Because I have seen all sorts of nonsense be called racism that isn't (whatever the fuck cultural appropriation is if it is even a concept that can exist, "Islamophobia" is apparently a racist act when I was of the understanding it is a religion, one neither universally/near universally practised by a single "race", and in fact widespread among several, and thus completely different, that being "colour blind" is bad despite that literally being what most people were taught to do and it generally being said to be a good plan -- judge a person by their character and actions and all that)) and all sorts of things that are racism be said not to be (the whole "must be of a more dominant race" aka the prejudice+power model).

yes, people have been using 'racism' as a shorthand for a group of ideals and behaviors that almost always go hand in hand with racism. like hate or 'fear' of religions, for example. because people often channel their hate of religion x as a response to visual cues, like someone 'looking like one of them terrorists with the brown skin and the white clothing and the turban and the beard and all that'. or having big noses.

people being lazy and unwilling to explain 50 other words and a dozen mechanisms for random hate based on superficialities (that often at their core do have very clear race based hatred anyways), when racism does very much suffice to get the point across, doesn't change the reality that it is very much still a thing and that it affects people in so many ways.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

If you had people giving out recipes for how to best cook food that tasted like humans, the "evidence" for why it really was the healthiest diet and we should start eating people, and groups gathered every wednesday to have a human-taste-alike cook-offs, and they all used that book as their document of faith....yes. Yes i'd be good with a disclaimer it was satire.

I think it comes down to is, how much responsibility does social media have to filter hate speech, false speech, and manipulative speech? Any? How limited by the government are they to filter spam? I think it's a lot greyer of a situation than most folks recognize. Got to agree on the problem, then try and find a solution. Are you of the mind the only problem social media would have is limiting speech? Are there any other speech concerns as far as you're concerned? Should the consequences or results of virally wrong and manipulative information be addressed?

There’s been an interesting discussion around YouTube’s fact checking feature a while ago.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/youtube...ure-for-conspiracy-theory-hoax-videos.533228/