Who cares about free speech?

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/smoking-gun-documents-prove-facebook-censored-americans-behalf-white-house-jim-jordan-says

Long read, but to summarize, Joe Biden's staff forced Facebook and Instagram to remove content. Each day we. learn more and more Democrats want to control free speech versus supporting free speech they don't agree with on social platforms.

We know from the Twitter (now "X") Biden white house all made them censor free speech.

Regardless of party, this should alarm you.

[treee]

You know what would really put a chilling effect on speech on the internet? Making platforms liable for what their user's post. Does that sound familiar to you at all?

[SunsetBengal]

(07-27-2023, 08:02 PM)treee Wrote: You know what would really put a chilling effect on speech on the internet? Making platforms liable for what their user's post. Does that sound familiar to you at all?

Yes, yes it would.  However I'm going to project that it would lead to something like what we see in the totalitarian, State run media Nations.  Every time we, or our representatives vote in new laws, we give up a little more of those freedoms that our founding fathers based the bill of rights to our constitution upon.

[Luvnit2]

(07-27-2023, 08:02 PM)treee Wrote: You know what would really put a chilling effect on speech on the internet? Making platforms liable for what their user's post. Does that sound familiar to you at all?

The great thing about free speech is anyone can say anything they want with the exception of threats of violence. In this forum rules are established for personal attacks and the social media have their own set of rules.

But, it is a major problem when 2 weeks prior to a election social media is told by the F.B.I. to censor discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop. It was the same F.B.I. who verified the authenticity of the HB laptop in early 2019 and knew it was legit.

So when Republicans say they feel the Democrats stole the election, it is not about counting ballots. It is interference by our justice department censoring free speech and keeping independents in the dark about the laptop being legit.

Time will tell, but a lot of people have said if they knew the laptop was legit, they vote for Trump over Biden.

[Lucidus]

(07-27-2023, 07:47 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/media/smoking-gun-documents-prove-facebook-censored-americans-behalf-white-house-jim-jordan-says

Long read, but to summarize, Joe Biden's staff forced Facebook and Instagram to remove content. Each day we. learn more and more Democrats want to control free speech versus supporting free speech they don't agree with on social platforms.

We know from the Twitter (now "X") Biden white house all made them censor free speech.

Regardless of party, this should alarm you.

Rolling Stone had an article earlier this year that basically just confirmed what everyone should have already known ---

WHEN THE WHITE House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a ***** ass *****” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.

That exchange — revealed during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter by Rep. Gerry Connolly — and others like it are nowhere to be found in Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” releases, which have focused almost exclusively on requests from Democrats and the feds to the social media company. The newly empowered Republican majority in the House of Representatives is now devoting significant resources and time to investigating this supposed “collusion” between liberal politicians and Twitter. Some Republicans even believe the release of the “Twitter Files” is the “tip of the spear” of their crusade against the alleged liberal bias of Big Tech.

But former Trump administration officials and Twitter employees tell Rolling Stone that the White House’s Teigen tweet demand was hardly an isolated incident: The Trump administration and its allied Republicans in Congress routinely asked Twitter to take down posts they objected to — the exact behavior that they’re claiming makes President Biden, the Democrats, and Twitter complicit in an anti-free speech conspiracy to muzzle conservatives online.

“It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”

In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.

[GMDino]

Everyone who knows what free speech is versus what is on Twitter?  

[basballguy]

(07-27-2023, 08:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The great thing about free speech is anyone can say anything they want with the exception of threats of violence. In this forum rules are established for personal attacks and the social media have their own set of rules.

Haha the rules here should be extended to Jungle Noise. Some of those guys are way worse to each other than we are here lol.

[Dill]

(07-27-2023, 08:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The great thing about free speech is anyone can say anything they want with the exception of threats of violence. In this forum rules are established for personal attacks and the social media have their own set of rules.

But, it is a major problem when 2 weeks prior to a election social media is told by the F.B.I. to censor discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop. It was the same F.B.I. who verified the authenticity of the HB laptop in early 2019 and knew it was legit.

So when Republicans say they feel the Democrats stole the election, it is not about counting ballots. It is interference by our justice department censoring free speech and keeping independents in the dark about the laptop being legit.

Time will tell, but a lot of people have said if they knew the laptop was legit, they vote for Trump over Biden.

Good thread topic, Luvnit. And if we all adhere to the bolded, good discussion will follow.

I've discussed earlier how the "election fraud" claim has morphed from ballot and machine manipulation to the HB Laptop as something which
"fixed" the election. 

But I don't really think that laptop was an issue uppermost in people's minds, or would have been even if declared "authentic." Independents decided the race for Biden, and apparently topmost in their minds was Trump's handling of the pandemic. And even two years later nothing definitively against Joe has come from the laptop. Anyway, why would people suddenly choose Biden over Trump if "corruption" or "foreign influence" were really a priority? 

I've posted on this before. Hard to tell from what open sources I've read so far, but it seems entirely possible that the FBI might have verified Hunter had owned the laptop, but not everything on the drive. Remember, it had a number of disinformation op red flags, not least the timing and connection to Giuliani and Russian cohorts. 

There's another angle an free speech that we might discuss--Presidential speech. There are many things a president is not really "free" to speak of, since a president's loose lips literally could sink ships and worse. Do we want to deposit knowledge of such things in a candidate who might not respect classification boundaries? 

I'd don't mind "whattabout" responses, but later. Right now I'd just like to know if people think that presidential ability to separate official speech from private should be a concern when selecting the CinC.

[Dill]

(07-28-2023, 10:16 AM)basballguy Wrote: Haha the rules here should be extended to Jungle Noise.  Some of those guys are way worse to each other than we are here lol.

Guessing BB likes Anime!  

[Dill]

(07-27-2023, 08:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, yes it would.  However I'm going to project that it would lead to something like what we see in the totalitarian, State run media Nations.  Every time we, or our representatives vote in new laws, we give up a little more of those freedoms that our founding fathers based the bill of rights to our constitution upon.

We live in such a complex society though. 

And communications technology advances, it often outstrips the law
--and sometimes people profit from that and want to keep it that way.

Comparing the Founders' era to the present, think of how weapons technology has advanced. 
Can't see Jefferson worrying much if every home has a couple of muskets. If you wanted to be
a mass shooter back then, how many would you get before you got got by your neighbors? 

Once automatic weapons and machine guns can be mass produced relatively cheaply,
the situation changes dramatically and lethally. 

It's kind of like that now with technology. It's become dangerous in a way that people could not
have suspected even 40 years ago. 

[GMDino]

Free speech man is at it again. pic.twitter.com/BbvfQEjVf0

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) July 31, 2023

 

[basballguy]

(07-31-2023, 01:59 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Free speech man is at it again. pic.twitter.com/BbvfQEjVf0

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) July 31, 2023

 

let's see

no story, no link...just a twitter link of an image of text where nothing can be validated but we can form an opinion based on the headline only.

Par for the course.  

Please link substantive material.  

Edit: Maybe that's not completely fair...you do usually provide content...not sure why you didn't in this case.

[GMDino]

(07-31-2023, 03:27 PM)basballguy Wrote: let's see

no story, no link...just a twitter link of an image of text where nothing can be validated but we can form an opinion based on the headline only.

Par for the course.  

Please link substantive material.  

Edit:  Maybe that's not completely fair...you do usually provide content...not sure why you didn't in this case.

I was busy...thought maybe people find it on their own.

Here ya go!

It's behind a paywall though.

Here's another:  https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/31/musks-twitter/x-threatens-suit-against-nonprofit-studying-hate-speech.html

https://t.co/6uT7wCH3Ha

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) July 31, 2023

It's behind a paywall though.


Here's another:  https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/31/musks-twitter/x-threatens-suit-against-nonprofit-studying-hate-speech.html

Quote:Twitter, now X, threatens suit against nonprofit studying hate speech and misinformation
PUBLISHED MON, JUL 31 202310:54 AM EDTUPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
[/url]Hayden Field[url=https://twitter.com/@haydenfield]@HAYDENFIELD
SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email


KEY POINTS

• On July 20, X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, sent a letter to the Center for Countering Digital Hate threatening to sue the British research nonprofit.
• X Corp. alleged that the CCDH made “inflammatory, outrageous, and false or misleading assertions about Twitter” and suggested it conspired “to drive advertisers off Twitter by smearing the company and its owner.”
• This month, Elon Musk said that the social media platform’s cash flow remains negative amid a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue.
  

Jaap Arriens | Nurphoto | Getty Images
Elon Musk’s latest legal adversary: a nonprofit that studies hate speech and misinformation on social media.

On July 20, X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, sent a letter to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, or CCDH, threatening to sue the British research nonprofit. It alleged that the CCDH made “inflammatory, outrageous, and false or misleading assertions about Twitter” and suggested it conspired “to drive advertisers off Twitter by smearing the company and its owner.”

The letter follows CCDH research published in June, which studied the propagation of hate speech on the social media platform since Musk’s buyout. In one report looking at 100 different accounts subscribed to Twitter Blue, CCDH found that X Corp. failed to act on 99% of hate posted by the subscribers and questioned whether the social media platform’s algorithm boosts “toxic tweets.”

Other CCDH research found that the social media company failed to act on 89% of anti-Jewish hate speech and 97% of anti-Muslim hate speech on the platform.

A spokesperson for X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This month, Musk said that the social media platform’s cash flow remains negative amid a nearly 50% drop in advertising revenue.

In a release, Imran Ahmed, CEO of the CCDH, said that Musk’s actions attempt to “silence honest criticism and independent research.”

“Advertisers are fleeing his platform for one clear reason: Elon Musk has supported the proliferation of hate and racism on it, and he doesn’t care to stop it,” Ahmed said, adding, “This should be the last time anyone dares to claim Musk is a ‘free speech absolutist.’”

The letter from X Corp. to CCDH is one of a handful of legal threats or actions by the company in recent months.

In May, X Corp. sent a letter to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella alleging that the tech giant abused its access to Twitter data and used it “for unauthorized uses and purposes.” In July, the company threatened to sue Meta over its new Threads app, alleging “systematic, willful, and unlawful misappropriation of Twitter’s trade secrets and other intellectual property.” Also in July, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the corporate law firm that prevented Musk from backing out of his $44 billion Twitter buyout.

[basballguy]

Ok so what we have here is a group that is well known for its extreme bias to the left...was slandering a company under the guise of eliminating hate speech and now they're getting sued for it? Actions have consequences....(FOX, right?)

It'll play out and court and we'll see what's actually true.

[Dill]

(07-31-2023, 04:05 PM)basballguy Wrote: Ok so what we have here is a group that is well known for its extreme bias to the left...was slandering a company under the guise of eliminating hate speech and now they're getting sued for it?  Actions have consequences....(FOX, right?)

It'll play out and court and we'll see what's actually true.

What is the well known bias of people who post anti-Jewish hate speech? 

I'm with you on the bolded. 

Let's find out what the legal process reveals--Musk is slandering a research company and seeking to restrict their speech,

or maybe CCDH is slandering X corp by publicizing its tolerance for hate speech coercing it into restricting the 

free speech of haters. More public discussion about this would be good.

[basballguy]

(08-01-2023, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: What is the well known bias of people who post anti-Jewish hate speech? 

I'm with you on the bolded. 

Let's find out what the legal process reveals--Musk is slandering a research company and seeking to restrict their speech,

or maybe CCDH is slandering X corp by publicizing its tolerance for hate speech coercing it into restricting the 

free speech of haters. More public discussion about this would be good.

I like how you continuously sneak in back handed slants on your comments.

come on Dill....you know very damn well the position of X is they're doing everything they can to eliminate hate speech (as per the company). 

I don't know who's side is in the right...you seemed to have already formed an opinion and have assumed one entity is just lying.  

[Dill]

(08-01-2023, 07:36 PM)basballguy Wrote: I like how you continuously sneak in back handed slants on your comments.

come on Dill....you know very damn well the position of X is they're doing everything they can to eliminate hate speech (as per the company). 

I don't know who's side is in the right...you seemed to have already formed an opinion and have assumed one entity is just lying.  

Actually I don't "know very well" the bolded. That's why I said let the legal process play out.
If CCDH is faking their research we'll find out. 

I didn't jump into this topic assigning one group a "well known leftist bias" and accuse it of "slandering" a company under some "guise,"
while knowing X was "doing everything they can to eliminate hate speech." Clearly you don't expect that honest broker to "face consequences." 

Yet you suspect I'm the one who's already formed an opinion and "assumed one entity is just lying." 

[basballguy]

(08-01-2023, 08:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually I don't "know very well" the bolded. That's why I said let the legal process play out.
If CCDH is faking their research we'll find out. 

I didn't jump into this topic assigning one group a "well known leftist bias" and accuse it of "slandering" a company under some "guise,"
while knowing X was "doing everything they can to eliminate hate speech." Clearly you don't expect that honest broker to "face consequences." 

Yet you suspect I'm the one who's already formed an opinion and "assumed one entity is just lying." 

So then are you saying you only try to understand one side of the argument?

I didn’t “assign” anyone anything. That site is designated extreme left bias by independent sites. I’m not biting on the fact that this random extremist site that is saying “twitter is bad”. I’m refusing to hold judgment.

I’m also not the one accusing it of slander, X is… yet you know this and instead choose to deflect.

For one that claims they try to see all sides of an argument you’re really missing it on this one.

[Luvnit2]

(07-27-2023, 09:01 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Rolling Stone had an article earlier this year that basically just confirmed what everyone should have already known ---

WHEN THE WHITE House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a ***** ass *****” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.

That exchange — revealed during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter by Rep. Gerry Connolly — and others like it are nowhere to be found in Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” releases, which have focused almost exclusively on requests from Democrats and the feds to the social media company. The newly empowered Republican majority in the House of Representatives is now devoting significant resources and time to investigating this supposed “collusion” between liberal politicians and Twitter. Some Republicans even believe the release of the “Twitter Files” is the “tip of the spear” of their crusade against the alleged liberal bias of Big Tech.

But former Trump administration officials and Twitter employees tell Rolling Stone that the White House’s Teigen tweet demand was hardly an isolated incident: The Trump administration and its allied Republicans in Congress routinely asked Twitter to take down posts they objected to — the exact behavior that they’re claiming makes President Biden, the Democrats, and Twitter complicit in an anti-free speech conspiracy to muzzle conservatives online.

“It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”

In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.

In your heart of hearts you believe the WH asking Twitter to take down a Tiegan tweet is the same as the WH telling Twitter, Facebook and Instagram a lie so they remove Hunter Biden laptop stories. They lied and said disinformation.

Now we have Facebook files also showing our government intervening to eliminate free speech.

[Dill]

(08-02-2023, 03:17 AM)basballguy Wrote: So then are you saying you only try to understand one side of the argument?  

Sure, if that's what you get from statements like 

"Let's find out what the legal process reveals," and  "Actually I don't "know very well" . . . . That's why I said let the legal process play out."

(08-02-2023, 03:17 AM)basballguy Wrote: I didn’t “assign” anyone anything.  That site is designated extreme left bias by independent sites.  I’m not biting on the fact that this random extremist site that is saying “twitter is bad”.  I’m refusing to hold judgment.

I’m also not the one accusing it of slander, X is… yet you know this and instead choose to deflect.  

For one that claims they try to see all sides of an argument you’re really missing it on this one.

I don't know if I've ever claimed to see all sides of an argument, but I do strive to read all of them carefully.

I want to make sure what you mean here. You are judging the CCDH site to be in the wrong? You are not refusing to withhold judgment?

Your first statement on the subject was 

"Ok so what we have here is a group that is well known for its extreme bias to the left...was slandering a company under the guise of eliminating hate speech and now they're getting sued for it?  Actions have consequences....(FOX, right?)"

Sounds like you are saying CCDH was "slandering" X--saying something untrue and defamatory about it-- and under the "guise" of eliminating hate speech. 

"Slandering" is the real goal and the hate speech critique is just a "guise" used to get there. Have I misunderstood? That is the CCDH "side" of the argument?

Why would slandering be more important than stopping hate speech for this group?

To me you attribute knowledge that X and Musk are doing everything they can to eliminate hate speech. I repeat, I do not know any such thing.
Why do you think I do, or the X is doing everything it can. On Musk's say so? 

If CCDH can actually show that Twitter is not responding to hate speech, I'll not be in favor of Musk's suit.