1st Amendment Scotus

hammies

Duke status
Apr 8, 2006
15,587
14,214
113
All I know is if SCOTUS says social media has to take all posters I am going on Truth Social and posting, "Donald Trump is a big fat ugly piece of sh!t."
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,204
22,752
113
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.
why are you trying to play games?

these are demonstrable claims, yet they are never quantifiably demonstrated.

I can think multiple ways one could test and validate...yet no one ever does it...it's because playing the victim IS the play here...it's the claim...not wether or not it's actually happening. this is stupid victim mentality nonsense from the fuck your feelings crew.

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.
"clearly"....no. I love how you talk like this is all a foregone conclusion apropos no evidence.

So everything he's ever posted is a lie :unsure: :roflmao: Plenty of established media outlets have been caught in blatant lies and fabrications as well.
objection. relevance?

Nowhere does he address the more egregious points that were directly spoken by the engineers.
which points were those? what are the statements you think are irrefutable proof of literally *anything* let alone some widespread conspiracy to suppress conservative voices by liberal tech NPCs?

it's a selectively edited hidden cam video from right wing degen James O'keefe...that's your smoking gun. and you see nothing wrong with that given his well-established track record.....

woof
 
  • Love
Reactions: plasticbertrand

Sharky

Phil Edwards status
Feb 25, 2006
6,828
9,059
113
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.
Door to door salesmen could be kind of entertaining. Through the screen door, "Sir, I have this 120 pound starving pitbull behind me who obviously wants to eat you, and I'm feeling kind of faint, weak even... my grip is starting to slip..."

The best one was we were sitting around one day and we could see Mormon's coming up the street on their bikes going door to door. Bets started happening. Someone said something like "I can get rid of them with no threats inside of five seconds." Bet was on. So my friend took a sharpie, drew a pentagram/satanic sh!t on his chest, took off all his clothes and answered the door naked. Proudly so even.

It was probably under two seconds.

Now, everybody go back to "everyone is an asshole except me."
 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
25,927
14,713
113
A Beach
why are you trying to play games?

these are demonstrable claims, yet they are never quantifiably demonstrated.
Even The Atlantic admits shadow banning is "A Thing"
"But shadowbanning is a thing, and while it can be hard to prove, it is not impossible. Some evidence comes from code, such as the recently defunct website shadowban.eu, which let Twitter users determine whether their replies were being hidden or their handles were appearing in searches and search autofill. A French study crawled more than 2.5 million Twitter profiles and found that nearly one in 40 had been shadowbanned in these ways."

DARP
which points were those? what are the statements you think are irrefutable proof of literally *anything* let alone some widespread conspiracy to suppress conservative voices by liberal tech NPCs?
At the 7 minute mark, Abhinav Vadrevu specifically says "one strategy in shadowbanning" and goes into the strategies associated with it. Which basically admits that it is a practice employed by at least some platforms. All the author of your link does is say that there is no political bias- he doesn't say that it doesn't exist. Double DARP DARP
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plasticbertrand

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,721
15,939
113
Even The Atlantic admits shadow banning is "A Thing"
"But shadowbanning is a thing, and while it can be hard to prove, it is not impossible. Some evidence comes from code, such as the recently defunct website shadowban.eu, which let Twitter users determine whether their replies were being hidden or their handles were appearing in searches and search autofill. A French study crawled more than 2.5 million Twitter profiles and found that nearly one in 40 had been shadowbanned in these ways."

DARP

At the 7 minute mark, Abhinav Vadrevu specifically says "one strategy in shadowbanning" and goes into the strategies associated with it. Which basically admits that it is a practice employed by at least some platforms. All the author of your link does is say that there is no political bias- he doesn't say that it doesn't exist. Double DARP DARP
Still whining huh? "Wah shadow bans are unfair"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,214
14,030
113
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.
Whatsapp has nothing to do with what were discussing here. Absolutely fucking nothing.

It's a distraction he created to change the topic.

As usual, you can't follow the thread of the conversation.

But you're always up for a good gotcha fail.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,214
14,030
113
I feel like I need to start insulting you to get a discussion going lol.

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?
Seriously.

Grapeboi is the biggest waste of time.

Unless you are into his circular arguments.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: grapedrink

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,244
9,454
113
Feel free :roflmao: :beer:


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.
I get what you're saying, but neutrality needs to be a thing (or not) from the beginning don't you think? Twitter has always had algorithms that steer content, and everyone knows that. So it's never been a completely neutral platform. And like all companies, they have a right to be political - it's in the 1st Amendment. So why would it be unfair if they decided to steer discourse?

I think the problem I have with the idea that these tech platforms need to stay out of things is that most people are picking and choosing which sites they want regulated, and it's always on the big guys. Twitter - yes. Facebook - yes. Truth Social? LinkedIn? Reddit? erBB?

If you make every site neutral, there's no reason anyone will create a new space, and there'd be nothing to distinguish between any of them at all. Social media would die.
 

Random Guy

Duke status
Jan 16, 2002
32,005
6,132
113
can someone give me a tl/dr on all this?
grapedrink is trying to point out that ____________
and team lib is trying to say _____________
I was reading some, but maybe taking a step back and giving a high level synopsis of both sides would help get some clarity and possibly even help find common ground
 

crustBrother

Kelly Slater status
Apr 23, 2001
9,078
5,159
113
can someone give me a tl/dr on all this?
grapedrink is trying to point out that ____________
and team lib is trying to say _____________
I was reading some, but maybe taking a step back and giving a high level synopsis of both sides would help get some clarity and possibly even help find common ground
things are changing and people have opinions about that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Doof

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
28,244
9,454
113
can someone give me a tl/dr on all this?
grapedrink is trying to point out that ____________
and team lib is trying to say _____________
I was reading some, but maybe taking a step back and giving a high level synopsis of both sides would help get some clarity and possibly even help find common ground
Well, I started this thread because I find the SCOTUS case interesting. Trying to impose liability on youtube for something someone else saw and then did is a tough one. And it seems to run counter to the idea of some that social media should be regulated like a utility.

Grapedrink seems to understand these are private companies but doesn't like that they are sneaky with their involvement (shadow banning). PB disagrees. Then the called each other names.
 

Kento

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
68,679
20,888
113
The Bar
OK, what the hell is WhatsApp anyways?

Messaging, social media, etc.?

I love when there is a brouhaha over something I have barely even heard of. :roflmao:
 
  • Love
Reactions: grapedrink