Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,047
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

25 Jun 2019, 2:27 pm

Smooth. What do you guys think - will this stick or just roll under the bridge based on political persuasions?


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


snook
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 25 Jun 2019
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 39

25 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm

they look more and more untrustworthy day by day .. I feel like they might need to take acting classes .



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

25 Jun 2019, 7:59 pm

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

25 Jun 2019, 8:07 pm

Would it be illegal for a person to do the following on a national election day in a presidential election year with the deliberate purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected?

Put up signs on major thoroughfares in strongly Democratic areas saying specific voting locations are closed or changed to a bogus location, etc.

I don't know the answer, but I can assume doing something like the above would be illegal?

If it would be illegal, why is it OK for Google to wield their power in an attempt to influence a presidential election?



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

25 Jun 2019, 8:22 pm

Magna wrote:
Would it be illegal for a person to do the following on a national election day in a presidential election year with the deliberate purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected?

Put up signs on major thoroughfares in strongly Democratic areas saying specific voting locations are closed or changed to a bogus location, etc.

I don't know the answer, but I can assume doing something like the above would be illegal?

Laws may vary from place to place, but generally that would be an illegal type of electoral fraud, yes. Similar to an old trick of calling people and telling them the date of the election has been changed.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

25 Jun 2019, 8:26 pm

Then why is it OK or legal for Google to attempt to influence an election by filtering, censoring, blocking or otherwise stopping political content that is and will be posted on the internet?



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,047
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

25 Jun 2019, 8:27 pm

Magna wrote:
Would it be illegal for a person to do the following on a national election day in a presidential election year with the deliberate purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected?

Put up signs on major thoroughfares in strongly Democratic areas saying specific voting locations are closed or changed to a bogus location, etc.

I don't know the answer, but I can assume doing something like the above would be illegal?

If it would be illegal, why is it OK for Google to wield their power in an attempt to influence a presidential election?

Well sure, but they know with unironic certainty that they're right - so much so that they wouldn't want to go in front of congress and explain themselves because they'd just get heckled with that pesky politics thing.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 25 Jun 2019, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

25 Jun 2019, 8:28 pm

In a related case from earlier this month, Project Veritas exposed the fact that Pinterest was deplatforming and suppressing conservative posters, and now other sites have tried to suppress that report itself.

Reddit Suspends Users Who Post Project Veritas Videos

Tech platforms are wiping any evidence of the Project Veritas video exposing Pinterest censorship.

Twitter and YouTube have both taken down mentions of the Project Veritas Pinterest exposé in the past week since its release. Now, Reddit is suspending users who breathe a word of the video. The video is also banned from being shared on Reddit, according to several users who cannot upload the video to the platform anymore.

A user was suspended after posting a link to Project Veritas’ video. The platform claimed that by posting the link, the user had shared “personal information.” As such, he was now permanently suspended.

Another account posted: “It looks like it is impossible to post a link to projectveritas on reddit. Even after adding an automod auto approval rule or manually trying to approve a link to that domain it is set right back to be removed.”

Project Veritas released a video with information leaked from an insider detailing the kind of censorship that Pinterest, a image based social media platform, was engaging in. Pinterest had de-platformed the pro-life group LiveAction, categorized pro-life images as pornography in its algorithm, and had filtered out the word “Christian” in the search bar. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was classified as a “white supremacist” by the employees at Pinterest as well.


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techw ... tas-videos


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

26 Jun 2019, 12:43 am

I haven't gone into the legals weeds on the topic, but a lot of this turns on how online services are defined and how they define themselves -- as publishers or as more like common carriers -- and the legal protections they enjoy. Currently they have some of the immunities of a common carrier, but they behave like publishers. That conflict has to be resolved.


After the video was released, Congressman Louie Gohmert rang the alarm bells saying that it is about time Congress acted to put an end to this interference in our elections.

Rep. Gohmert (R-TX) responded to the undercover sting and said Google needs to be stripped of its section 230 immunity and to be “properly pursued by class action lawsuits by those they have knowingly harmed.”

Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”


https://lidblog.com/google-execs-hiding/

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


soonla
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 26 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

26 Jun 2019, 11:43 am

u hear them , "we need to censor to stop trump for ourselves" "we need coding lessons in rural areas so we can prevent our own fall" "we need to solve the bay area housing problems so we can prevent our own fall" ...

Thats how they are. Its always them. Them. Them. Like a cohort of big children. The most selfish and petulant individuals in this world. No feelings for americans or people from all all over the world. No one votes for them anymore.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

26 Jun 2019, 8:12 pm

The big tech players are now all circling the wagons to protect Google and are deleting and deplatforming Project Veritas -- because they know they are all complicit and will be a target next.

BREAKING @Vimeo has REMOVED Project Veritas saying: "You cannot upload videos that are hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory." Perhaps we embarrassed @Google but NOTHING we said was hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory. They're trying to erase us from the internet.

https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/sta ... 0543131648

It's pretty surprising they haven't been banned by Twitter yet. That will be coming.


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

27 Jun 2019, 7:34 pm

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

27 Jun 2019, 9:10 pm

In related news, it's getting difficult to distinguish Google from the Chinese Communist dictatorship.


Unofficial HK protest anthem “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” banned on Chinese streaming platform
"Do You Hear the People Sing?" from Les Mis has become similarly difficult to find

After it became the unofficial anthem of Hong Kong’s anti-extradition movement, netizens have discovered that the hymn “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” has been banned by several Chinese music streaming platforms.

When users recently searched for the hymn on QQ Music, they received a message saying that there were no matching results. Other Chinese music streaming platforms, including Kuwo, Xiami, and NetEase, also did not carry the song.


http://shanghaiist.com/2019/06/24/unoff ... -platform/


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,047
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Jun 2019, 3:46 pm

Bret Weinstein just posted this:


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


SocOfAutism
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,720

01 Jul 2019, 8:51 am

The problem is that most search engines are using Google to drive their search results. So it has a bigger influence on our daily lives than we may think.

Berkshire Hathaway recently bought the major newspaper used in my region, the newspaper I remember my grandmother devotedly reading at 5am every morning before she went to work. She told me her father read the newspaper cover to cover every day and it was important to stay informed. Berkshire Hathaway is owner by Warren Buffet, the third wealthiest man in the world. A person who makes his political affiliations known.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

The paper has now changed, and every “news” article is oozing with opinion. It’s worthless. I’m ashamed of our paper now. The only honest newspaper we have here is a paper privately published by some local black leaders, but it mostly covers black community issues. I wish they would expand.

More and more of us are now relying on word of mouth to get our news. Knowing a person who lives in another place and is our eyes on the ground, you know? How sad is that?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,569
Location: Reading, England

03 Jul 2019, 1:52 pm

Not surprised to see our resident far-righters parroting fake news, but if you want to position yourself as a free-thinking intellectual then look up the truth about the issues you are concerned by rather than just believing talking heads. That's the bare minimum of being an intellectual.

There's a good article on the topic here. In summary:

YouTube, Reddit, and so forth all have policies preventing people from having their identities revealed (doxxing) without their consent. This doesn't apply to public figures, and there are some loopholes for newsworthiness, but the people involved here are not public figures. When "undercover footage" is shown on the news, they blur out the faces of people who are not public figures for exactly this reason.

The news story here isn't "the internet doesn't like right-wing people" - it's "Project Veritas doesn't think the rules should apply to right-wing people, and some conservative lawmakers think that attacking tech companies is beneficial to them".

Now, I have been assured many times that Mr Weinstein is a fair and rigorous man who doesn't have a dog in this fight, so I'm sure he covers this at length in his video, concludes that this isn't censorship, and tells Ted Cruz to grow up.