REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
1st Amendment Scotus
- Thread starter StuAzole
- Start date
Do they claim to be neutral? I mean, some platforms (Truth Social, e.g.) are intended to not be neutral at all. Does it matter?
Did he? Or is simply stating controversial opinions that get him reported? I've listened to some of his stuff, and while he is certainly hyperbolic, he doesn't spout anything bigoted.
When did he get banned? He said this on Rogan in 2020. I can't find any evidence of him getting banned before then.
I've seen this first hand on instagram with some fitness podcast hosts I listen to. They are not spouting bigotry, they just question narratives. If you want to find their handle you have to type in every single letter before their name appears. That is clearly manipulated, and I can't wait to hear your mental gymnasticated explanation for why.
Go to 3:45 and 7:00 mark to hear it directly from the horse's mouth. These are not carefully clipped 3 second soundbites, these are several minute long conversations.
Queuing "BUH JAMES OQUEEF!" in 3 . . . . 2 . .. . 1 . . .
I'm assuming Poole got banned because you used him as an example. I dgaf about Tim Poole or his history
once again, you make a claim without any substantiation...another long running gripe of yours...I would have thought that since you seem to take it so seriously that you'd actually have some material examples beyond some fitness influencer who's name doesn't auto-populate for you holy fk .... how am I supposed to perform ANY gymnastics when you've said exactly nothing that can be responded to?
and, in the end, your standard of evidence is A JAMES O'KEEFE VIDEO
here's Ars Technica's take on that fkn pile of dogshit
Did Twitter engineers just admit to shadow-banning conservatives? Nope
An engineer's plan to "ban a way of talking" didn't refer to conservatives.
arstechnica.com
maximum outrage with minimum factual premise
Again, nothing is racist or bigoted to people like you and ifailalot.
Convenient excuse for endless goalpost moving and controlling narratives. In 2020 you were called a bigot simply for saying that violent protests are unproductive. When you move the goalposts that much, there is not even a starting point for any kind of honest discussion- which is exactly what the extremes in society want.
Luckily, IT IS NOT UP TO YOU two assholes to decide.
Societal norms are changing and you are losing your fucking mind and calling it "goalposts".
It's delicious to watch.
So you did make a direct comparison. Ok.Yes, to the subset of the population I am talking about, i.e. those who live on a few dollars a day where having a free communication service is a big deal to them, you idiot
If you ever owned a cell phone in a developing country you would see how expensive it gets when you pay as you go, and if it's expensive for me then it's obviously really tough for the people who live there.
See comment above. As in it is not important to most of us where owning a cell phone is not a major drag on our finances. I was clear from the very start that I was talking about a certain segment of the world population you dishonest fook.
Holy fook, can you read?
Now explain wtf does WhatsApp got to do with social networks "censorship".
If the examples I used actually broke the TOCs by saying something racist, they would've been banned already. Instead the platforms use shadow banning to hide inconvenient and controversial content.
That's rich, coming from the biggest asshole here
So saying that "violent protesting is counterproductive" is racist now?
The goalposts are moved by the most insane among us, and they use it as a means of enforcing their narratives.
Lie, deflect, build a strawman, backpedal, change topics.If the examples I used actually broke the TOCs by saying something racist, they would've been banned already. Instead the platforms use shadow banning to hide inconvenient and controversial content.
That's rich, coming from the biggest asshole here
So saying that "violent protesting is counterproductive" is racist now?
The goalposts are moved by the most insane among us, and they use it as a means of enforcing their narratives.
The usual. You're fucking useless.
I don't care about him either, he was simply an example.
And how am I supposed to come up with "proof" when the platforms don't show their cards
Eventually you hear enough anecdotes and it adds up. If every other idiot account autopopulates, it's kind of suspicious when it doesn't for a certain account.I've heard plenty of stories like the one I mentioned. Joe Rogan had an enormous overnight increase in Twitter followers that was disproportional to normal activity after Elon started the officially process to take over.
With several minute long monologues directly from employees who acknowledge that shadow banning is a thing. DARP
Hit piece that cherry picks some easily knocked down strawmen while ignoring the actual shadow banning comments that they admitted to. DARP DARP
You already admitted they are within their rights to shadow ban being a private company, why are you still bitching?I don't care about him either, he was simply an example.
And how am I supposed to come up with "proof" when the platforms don't show their cards
I've heard plenty of stories like the one I mentioned. Joe Rogan had an enormous overnight increase in Twitter followers that was disproportional to normal activity after Elon started the officially process to take over.
With several minute long monologues directly from employees who acknowledge that shadow banning is a thing. DARP
Hit piece that cherry picks some easily knocked down strawmen while ignoring the actual shadow banning comments. DARP DARP
Bring back the days of scammers who relied on chain mail, dubious ads in the back of magazines/comics, street cons, telephone calls, and door to door salesmen.
You responded to a post discussing WhatsApp and it’s use. I agree with grapie’s statement that led to my post. You’re crazy.
Getting people to admit that shadow banning and preferential enforcement is a thing . . . . Thanks for confirming that it is
I feel like I need to start insulting you to get a discussion going lol.Getting people to admit that shadow banning and preferential enforcement is a thing . . . . Thanks for confirming that it is
Does it matter if social media platforms aren't neutral? Do they claim to be? What about ones that are clearly not intended to be neutral?
Nope, just your persecution complexGetting people to admit that shadow banning and preferential enforcement is a thing . . . . Thanks for confirming that it is
no. that's not how this works. a shadow ban is still a ban. if someone was banned, they should make a case for why it was a wrongful ban...post the explanation from twitter.And how am I supposed to come up with "proof" when the platforms don't show their cards
I mean, my god, for all the references you make to unfair social media shadow bans I really thought there'd be more of a there there.
serious question...wtf are you trying to say here?
(elon has not begun sh!t, be tee dubs)
false. it's james o'keefe...you're using hidden camera video from James o'keefe as your evidence of this wide ranging conspiracy against conservative voices on Twitter.
that's fkn ridiculous, man.
straight dog sh!t.
and then he called the Ars Technica rebuttal of the James o'keefe video a "hit piece"
ho lee phuc
bro, you don't got sh!t. please stop whinging about it all the time. it's not a fkn thing.
jesus
"anecdotes" + fitness influencer's account doesn't autopopulate fast enough + project veritas = lolno
Feel free
Where it should be a concern is when there is a dominant player that gets all of the traffic and may be the only source of information for a certain demographic. For example, if a certain Presidential candidate is critical of big tech, there is nothing stopping them from juicing the algorithms and favoring false content in order to influence an election. This is where bias in the information space, especially with highly vertically integrated tech giants, becomes problem.
We saw how quickly millions on the left, and many here, changed their tune on this issue when Elon was expected to buy Twitter.
To be clear, I don't have a solution and I'm not saying the issue should be treated one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that it is a complicated issue.
Huh? So shadow banning is a thing? Thanks for proving my point.
The whole point of the shadow ban is to make it so that person can't complain about being banned and draw attention to the issue. It's a passive aggressive way of solving the problem.
If these companies were to actually publish why they ban people and post the specific words that were in conflict with the TOCs, it would go a long way in making the case that they aren't biased. But they never will, because they clearly are.
So everything he's ever posted is a lie
Plenty of established media outlets have been caught in blatant lies and fabrications as well. Nowhere does he address the more egregious points that were directly spoken by the engineers.
You said above that a shadow ban is a ban, so you are kind of contradicting yourself here.
Last edited: