patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Yes, of course. Editing is exactly like genocide. Or at least political assassination.

Editing is supposed to happen in media orgs. FB and GOOG have always stood on the position that they are just "platforms".

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Editing

I do not get what editing has to do with banning from platform because someone dislikes what is being said. May be next time someone will dislike criticism of new war US will start in Middle East, or any criticism of US Army, or criticism of police "heroes in Blue" beating up another CRIMINAL!TRESPASSING!MINORITY!, resulting in BANNING THESE EVIL PACIFISTS FROM ALL MEDIA. We can also remember how Bill Maher was banned from ABC, or how now there are attempts to ban him from HBO.

Patrick says

divide the working class with identity politics

Like characterizing someone as either Right or Left, and using that characterization to summarily dismiss everything they say?

The importation of foreign workers by the hundreds of thousands dilutes the power to negotiate wages by American workers. This is likely well known to some of the greedy employers, while others don't think about it if they are hiring guys to pick strawberries.

The interesting history of the rights provided by the Magna Carta is that after a plague killed so many workers off, the workers had bargaining power with the landowner class and royalty. The reason they had any power or rights was their own numbers had decreased in relation to the work the others wanted them to perform.

The history of information having no filters now is also interesting; this is why newspapers are going the way of the Dodo bird, why do I want to pay to read a reporter's "eye witness" story when I can just watch a free Youtube shot on scene?

The same people who want to curtail your speech, your rights, your wages, want to take more of your money so they can remain in power. The power of being in any office is intoxicating.

As far as outrageous lunacy goes, Alex Jones isn't bad at all.

Keep in mind the History Channel pushes the idea that Manchu Picchu was built by Aliens in episode after episode of Programming.

Patrick says

The left first banned Infowars, and then restricted access to Alex Jones...

You using the same internet as me? I typed in infowars.com and it came up just fine. ISP problems perhaps?

What we have here is what's known as a slippery slope.
www.youtube.com/embed/kSVbekE2t-Q

EUROPEANS DEFEAT AI BOTS IN THE MEME WARS!

Rocketmanjoe says

just wondering your source for this information? I also have no problem getting to the Infowars site

To be downranked into oblivion by the indexing monopoly (aka Google) is to lose your source of new visitors.

When this is done for political reasons, it really is censorship.

NuttBoxer says

Like characterizing someone as either Right or Left, and using that characterization to summarily dismiss everything they say?

Censorship is the core feature of the left. It is their defining characteristic now: they suppress alternative points of view with self-righteous shouts of racism, etc. And they use their power to prevent the public from hearing about the alternative points of view, via Facebook, Google, Amazon, control of the press and Hollywood, etc.

Can you think of any way that the right is censoring political speech lately?

But also, please find a quote where I summarily dismiss everything said by the left. I don't do that. I want everyone to be free to express their sincere non-violent opinions without getting banned, fired, or charged with a crime. Currently, only the left is free to speak without those consequences, and even then only if they adhere strictly to the tenets of the leftist religion. James Damore for example was in no way a right-winger. But he questioned the religion in a compelling way, using facts. So he had to be fired.

Free speech is in dire straits lately.

DASKAA says

Editing is supposed to happen in media orgs. FB and GOOG have always stood on the position that they are just "platforms".

If you edit content for political reasons, you are no longer a platform. You become a publisher, gaining liability for what you publish.

clambo says

The importation of foreign workers by the hundreds of thousands dilutes the power to negotiate wages by American workers.

This is the real issue.

This is why you may lose your job if you criticize illegals.

This is why we no longer have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech dilutes the power of the ruling class to suppress wages for the poorest US citizens. Same situation in Europe with Muslim migrants. They suppress wages and divide the working class. And that is profitable to our globalist owners.

Money -> power -> suppression of speech -> more money -> more power -> more suppression

Patrick says

DASKAA says

Editing is supposed to happen in media orgs. FB and GOOG have always stood on the position that they are just "platforms".

If you edit content for political reasons, you are no longer a platform. You become a publisher, gaining liability for what you publish.

Xactly. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Alex Jones should be the editor of the New York Times

Like Sarah Jeong?

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/08/02/new-york-times-hires-apparent-racist-editorial-board/

Rocketmanjoe says

Jones got banned from Twitter for violating it's abusive behavior policy.

Nope, he got banned because he disagrees with our owners. That was his crime.

Rocketmanjoe says

If people don't agree with it they are free not to use the service

Nope, not free in a de facto sense. See the comic above:

https://patrick.net/post/1318899?0#comment-1535124

Herdingcats says

Then why don't Trump supporters call him out on his hiring of foreign workers?

Does he hire illegals?

Rocketmanjoe says

DASKAA says

If you edit content for political reasons, you are no longer a platform. You become a publisher, gaining liability for what you publish.

Xactly. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately editing and banning are not synonymous.

Somebody in this thread implied they are the same. (I don't see much difference myself either).

personal

Social media shouldn't be used to manipulate the masses in either direction. Sure it's tricky to have truth police. But maybe it's not THAT tricky to know when some comission or something defines something as an outright lie or at least nothing more than a fucked up rumor.

Examples:

1) John McCain had half black child with some woman, now an adopted daughter

2) Hillary CLinton routinely murders people for political reasons

3) Barrack Obama wasn't born in AMerica and is a Muslim in favor of Jihad in America

4) Donald Trump paid prostitutes in Russia to piss on him or eachother, and there are videos of this, being the reason he has to kiss Putin's ass.

5) Hillary's liberal friends have been running child prostitute rings out of a Pizza shop in D.C.

People can speculate, but it should be acknowledged that it's speculation, and probably BS rumor when it happens.

And let's face it. If you allow all kinds of bullshit propaganda and lies, it favors the eventual success of a right wing authoriatarian dictatotrship. Why ?

Because there are so many right wingers that will believe any kind of silly nonsense about "teh libruls." Anf too much right wing money in a system in which money is power to spread more of it. This has been proven repeatedly. Where as on the left, there are a lot of voices that are sort of like McCains voice in the famous situation with the lady calling Obama an Arab. There's not much integrity and human decency in politics. But there's way more on the left than the right.

In theory, it might be nice to keep it wide open. But we've been learning what that leads to.

Too much fucking noise from algorithms flooding the internet with garbage, lies, inculding on Patrick.net.

Is that really what you want ?You know AI will be able to overwhelm us with bullshit 24 7 if you're goiung to just keep it the wild wild west.

Come up with a solution instead of arguing for something that's impossible.


Maybe humans get some form of ID that allows them to represent themselves as a real person on the internet. This doesn't foil troll shops in Russia or eastern Europe, but it would at least make it hard for computer algorithms to overwhelm the discussion. You know, that is, if there is a real discussion happening.

Maybe it's not that hard to see, that eventually there are regulations and oversight of social media that need to happen. The question isn't whether it should happen. The question is how to do it in a relatively positive and free way.

Rocketmanjoe says

Jones got banned from Twitter for violating it's abusive behavior policy. Do you consider abusive behavior non-violent?

Since when is grilling a public figure "Bullying".

Rubbish.

Jones treated the CNN guy Oliver Whatshisface... the way politicians and pundits ought to be treated by reporters generally.

Getting in his face, being a little dismissive/insulting, demanding answers.

You ever see British or Irish or Aussie TV at work on a interviewee? Jordan Peterson with that Channel 4 Gal... Stephen Sackur...

Rocketmanjoe says

Apparently these companies feel their policies had been violated. What is your solution? Government control? All social media? What controls should the government put on patrick.net?

We just found out that Google Executives gave Left-wing activists groups bumps in the search engine and pumped up hashtags for users that fit certain criterion. No denialist BS - unlike a smearjob NYT/WaPo Column it names the email author and position.

They had a mournful conversation after the President was elected, vowing somebody like him would never be elected again and they need to develop machine learning and AI to stop it from happening again.

That they thought they needed to help the forces of progress. They display 80-90% of all search results in the world (inc. the USA). Now they're building a censored Chinese internet.

So it's pretty clear what their intent of more machine learning/AI really is - to be deployed against their perceived political opponents.

But all the Big Tech firms claim only to be Platforms - when they edit like a very biased Publisher

The same people who didn't want Comcast charging them extra for Youtube or Facebook, are now telling us Youtube and Facebook should have the power to completely ban users and content creators according to Opaque Standards. But a browse of #VerifiedHate - @VerifiedHate who did no more than retweet anti-white, anti-male, anti-straight tweets from "blue check" verified Twitter accounts, was banned but the quoted accounts remain - is proof of bias.

Rocketmanjoe says

So then what do you propose to be done? I am not hearing any solutions. How do you propose to force YouTube and Facebook to not ban users that they feel violated their policies?

I hinted at it. Enforcement of open, obvious criterion - like no CP. No calls to violence. Standard stuff

Anything beyond that makes you a Publisher, not a Platform.

That means you can be sued over the content.

@Rocketmanjoe please point out any instance of a political point of view that was censored on patrick.net, ever.

Didn't think so.

But also, is patrick.net a monopoly, or do you have easy alternatives to patrick.net?

Thought so.

Patrick says

But also, is patrick.net a monopoly, or anywhere close to it? Do you have easy alternatives to patrick.net?

Are you implying there is no alternative to Google or YouTube?

Pretty sure I can watch Alex Jones whenever I want whether he's on YouTube or not.

LeonDurham says

Patrick says

But also, is patrick.net a monopoly, or anywhere close to it? Do you have easy alternatives to patrick.net?

Are you implying there is no alternative to Google or YouTube?

Pretty sure I can watch Alex Jones whenever I want whether he's on YouTube or not.

I can install solar panels on my roof and Tesla Powerwall in my garage and cut the power line but this doesn't mean PG&E is not a fucking monopoly. And the great fuckin state of California agrees and regulates the fucking thing as a fucking monopoly it is.

DASKAA says

I can install solar panels on my roof and Tesla Powerwall in my garage and cut the power line but this doesn't mean PG&E is not a fucking monopoly. And the great fuckin state of California agrees and regulates the fucking thing as a fucking monopoly it is.

lol-the government CREATED and enforced that monopoly. Not exactly the same thing.

President Donald Trump's Presidency is a real world demonstration of ___________________________________________________



Patrick says

How countries go backwards

But not in the way he means, when he says MAWA, or MAGA.

Yes, I would think deleting anyone that points out the political bias of the moderators would qualify as censorship.

It's Patrick's site, so he can run it however he wants, but at least be honest about what the site has become.

Comparing a stand alone website to Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube is absurd.

It's like saying "So there's only Walmart Supercenters for groceries within an hour drive. But there is Ray's Pizzeria, Papa Johns, and Pizza Hut, so there is no food monopoly. "

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Comparing a stand alone website to Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube is absurd.

Who is doing that?

Patrick says

But also, is patrick.net a monopoly, or anywhere close to it? Do you have easy alternatives to patrick.net?

Typing infowars.com is not an easy alternative to typing facebook.com? Is the w missing on your keyboard?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Comparing a stand alone website to Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube is absurd.

It's like saying "So there's only Walmart Supercenters for groceries within an hour drive. But there is Ray's Pizzeria, Papa Johns, and Pizza Hut, so there is no food monopoly. "

Comparing a grocery store to restaurants is even more absurd.

LeonDurham says

DASKAA says

I can install solar panels on my roof and Tesla Powerwall in my garage and cut the power line but this doesn't mean PG&E is not a fucking monopoly. And the great fuckin state of California agrees and regulates the fucking thing as a fucking monopoly it is.

lol-the government CREATED and enforced that monopoly. Not exactly the same thing.

Nope, government did not "create that monopoly" it grew onto one by itself.

Aphroman says

Patrick.net as a Free Speech site

You're still very free to give whatever opinion you want, just not free to deliberately insult the other users.

No one wants to visit a site where they will be personally attacked for their honest opinion. People prefer a site where they can have a polite and friendly discussion on every possible topic. At least I do.

You may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.

NuttBoxer says

Like characterizing someone as either Right or Left, and using that characterization to summarily dismiss everything they say?

Nobody moderate is quoted or their words remembered even and especially on Patnet. Only the most ridiculous positions are noticed in this hyper information sphere.

Patrick says

You may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.

Good. The moderation, while a noble idea, has utterly failed in the implementation.