See, they really do try to control what you see, read and think.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2024, 05:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Your opinion is incorrect

[SunsetBengal]

(06-21-2024, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: being informed is not considered important, having the correct opinions, and not diverting from them, is what's important.  A good example being the ignorant children protesting the war in Gaza.  Most of them can't identify what river or sea is being mentioned in their chant.  Most have no idea that Hamas' charter calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.  Most have no idea that Hamas is rabidly anti LGBTQ.  All they know is that this is the current correct thing and they're on board.

If we actually started ridiculing people who are wholly ignorant, regardless of whether they're on "our side" or not we might start making some headway.  A little social shaming can be a good thing.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-21-2024, 11:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, there's several issues with that:
1) Is it the government's job to be the arbiter of truth?  I suspect the people that wrote the 1st Amendment would disagree.  It's more than a slippery slope when the government suppresses free speech "to protect the public".

2) Good information is out there if people care to search for it.  Perhaps the real problem with disinformation is the "4th Estate" has completely lost trust and credibility.

3) Whether Jimbob yells on the corner or posts a tweet, the loudness/reach of free speech has never been a criteria, to my knowledge, to infringe on free speech.  Agree or disagree, one of the reasons Musk cites for buying Twitter is he feels it's very much an extension of free speech in the modern world, and shouldn't be a platform for state run media.

This sounds a lot like the old "nanny state" arguments.  How we went from that old meme "I read it on the internet, it must be true" to moderating OPINIONS that may differ from the view held by the government - which has access to all kind of media, including direct communication to the people is beyond me.  

Can't say I remember people demanding US Weekly and The Enquirer be moderated for misinformation.  And they were right there front and center at the grocery checkout line.  Yet somehow most people knew most of those stories were sensationalized garbage.  But no doubt those rags had many avid readers that believed much of the stories.

Stupid people are always going to stupid. The rest of us don't need the government to protect us from their ignorant beliefs.

1. No. But they are responsible for defending the nation. I’d imagine the people who showed up at our capitol looking to hang the VP, carrying a flag that wasn’t the American flag, who were looking to take hostages, and overthrow the will of the people fit the criteria of people we defend against.

2. I wonder if that’s because a party leader has been sewing distrust every chance he gets in the media for over 8 years now?

3. Your first amendment right doesn’t require a business to give you a platform.

4. I don’t think the tabloids became a national security threat. If there was a mob of Elvis supporters who stormed the capitol and were looking to overthrow our government and the tabloids were participating in and promoting false messaging that caused the danger. They might have a problem.



How come I’m not allowed to exercise my first amendment and yell fire in a crowded theater?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-21-2024, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What about when a GOP POTUS is in office?  They get to use the same "defense of the nation" excuse, right?



Misinformation like the Hunter Biden laptop or the Ashley Biden diary?  How about misinformation like the Steele dossier?  Can you begin to see how your whole argument starts to fall apart the minute you examine it even a little closely?



The problem being when the government leans on said businesses to censor what they want censored.


Sure.  You'll also find it on on TwitterX, FaceBook, TikTok, Instagram and Reddit.  As an adult it's your responsibility to vet sources and claims.  I don't want the government in the deciding what's officially true and can be repeated game.  If the myriad lies about Covid don't convince you of this then nothing will.  Ever.

Yes they do. That’s one of the main reasons why I would prefer to not have a conman felon who loves authoritarians in charge.

Illegally acquired personal information. What about it? Some companies decided to not risk airing out someone’s stolen personal information. I think most of it wound up on the internet anyway. The Steele dossier wasn’t illegally acquired personal information it was somebodies opposition research that hit the internet as unverified allegations.

The government has more resources than any of us. If there is a rapidly spreading new disease causing our health care system to get pushed to the brink and morgues to overflow with dead bodies. Then the group with all the resources and data who are also charged with national security should probably try their best to provide the answers they believe are correct right?

I thought ivermectin use exploded because of its mention in social medias. Pretty sure that wasn’t a word of mouth phenomena. Again who was censored and who did it?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(06-21-2024, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If we actually started ridiculing people who are wholly ignorant, regardless of whether they're on "our side" or not we might start making some headway.  A little social shaming can be a good thing.

If I do that here, some crybaby contacts a mod and I get suspended for a week.

Which is funny, because I post about once a week.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-21-2024, 08:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 1. No. But they are responsible for defending the nation. I’d imagine the people who showed up at our capitol looking to hang the VP, carrying a flag that wasn’t the American flag,  who were looking to take hostages, and overthrow the will of the people fit the criteria of people we defend against.


Where was it said that they were looking to take hostages?

2. I wonder if that’s because a party leader has been sewing distrust every chance he gets in the media for over 8 years now?

I'm glad that you seem comfortable with the MSM, because if the tables turn, you're going to learn to distrust it the same as others.

3. Your first amendment right doesn’t require a business to give you a platform.

WTF? That is extraneous info, why put it in a post?

4. I don’t think the tabloids became a national security threat. If there was a mob of Elvis supporters who stormed the capitol and were looking to overthrow our government and the tabloids were participating in and promoting false messaging that caused the danger. They might have a problem.

The tabloids have always had a strong following in the US, I mean they are at every grocery checkout counter...

How come I’m not allowed to exercise my first amendment and yell fire in a crowded theater?

Because you might be a dumbass and not understand the meaning of that ruling...

..

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-22-2024, 04:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

1. Some of us utilize critical thinking skills. I guess you think the zip ties and body armor were for arts and crafts that day?

2. The owner of faux the Murdoch family spreads shit around the globe. I learned to distrust them years ago when I used critical thinking skills and figured out very little was actually news. My beliefs were reinforced when they settled a lawsuit and paid multi millions for lying. I know some people who can’t consume enough of their garbage though.

3. We are talking about free speech and social media. Jfc

4. And when is the last time the safety and security of our country was threatened by a mob of idiots that believed everything the tabloids told them?

5. Try thinking and doing a little research every once in awhile. And not just getting snippy because you didn’t have a faux article to fall back on to help explain the “facts” for you. Free speech has limits when it poses a direct threat to public safety. That’s not some new rule to target the poor little conservatives.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2024, 04:20 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If I do that here, some crybaby contacts a mod and I get suspended for a week.

Which is funny, because I post about once a week.

I can't really speak to that as I'm not aware of the post(s) in question.  As someone who is known the walk that tightrope I certainly can't criticize.  It doesn't change my point, as I was speaking more generally.

[HarleyDog]

(06-22-2024, 04:20 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If I do that here, some crybaby contacts a mod and I get suspended for a week.

Which is funny, because I post about once a week.

This is over dramatic. If you were suspended you deserved it and probably had a warning prior. We are not jerks. We don't target. You are your own moderator. But if you decide to walk out of the lines and get suspended, then that's on you, not us. 

Moderate yourself, so nobody else has to.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-24-2024, 06:27 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: This is over dramatic. If you were suspended you deserved it and probably had a warning prior. We are not jerks. We don't target. You are your own moderator. But if you decide to walk out of the lines and get suspended, then that's on you, not us. 

Moderate yourself, so nobody else has to.

That's right, HD. We have this thing called the Code of Conduct that every member must read and agree to prior to membership being granted. Apparently some members don't read it as well as others.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-24-2024, 08:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's right, HD. We have this thing called the Code of Conduct that every member must read and agree to prior to membership being granted. Apparently some members don't read it as well as others.

It's a pronoun thing.