Elon Musk

[ncRover]

Nc

Can you give me an example of someone being banned for expressing "unacceptable views"? As opposed to people being banned for abuse or threats?

Regarding Objective Truth. Do you agree that the example I posted is a flat out lie, passed off as a truth? Someone claiming that he has evidence that Truss texted "Done it" to Blinken minutes after the Russian pipeline was blown up and that he knows this because he has seen the hacked messages from Truss's phone. A lie, agreed?

Do you agree that the stuff that Musk pushed about the Pelosi assassination attempt was a lie?

Only, for me, this elephant needs to be eaten one slice at a time. You take the position that it's too hard to tell truth from lies, you have given up the fight. For me, you start by identifying clear and unarguable falsehood, and you ban those who propagate them.

If that's too difficult to swallow, imagine you owned a newspaper. Imagine you had clear evidence that one of your journalists was regularly lying in print. Would you sack her?

Alex Berenson is a more high profile example. There are many more but due to its nature, shadow banning is hard to definitively prove.

Yes BST I accept that is a lie and I know that lying is wrong. But that’s not my point.

I used those examples to show that in recent years, an inconvenient alternative view gets labelled as disinformation. You won’t see it because of your worldview being different to mine.

Social media giants in recent years have seen themselves as the agents of social progress. But that means different things to different people.

Once you set the precedent to remove “disinformation”, you can change the definition of words such as “safety” and “harm” to remove just about anything you don’t like.

It’s a slippery slope. Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau are examples of the start of this new form of creeping authoritarianism (you won’t have noticed it as you were cheering it on) . Imagine if they could have set the rules for Twitter?

Trudeau labelled those protesting against him as holding “unacceptable views” and also lazily labelled them as misogynistic and racist. He removed their bank accounts while trying to force them to have a medical procedure to keep their jobs. Did that not ring alarm bells for you?
 

[ncRover]

I’d rather people didn’t post falsehoods online of course.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-infected-people-with-taste-for-conspiracy-theories-tmz0g369z?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1666862108

The response of the last 2 years has made people MORE sceptical so that this is the result. As mentioned above, there will always be easily led people who lack critical thinking skills. Be more transparent and open in media and government and it gives less ammunition to these types.

[ncRover]

If Twitter had been the town square throughout history, heretics would have been more effectively silenced and we’d likely still believe the earth was flat.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"Social media giants in recent years have seen themselves as the agents of social progress."

I'm sorry but this just takes the biscuit.

Have you not seen the way Facebook facilitated the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingia in Myanmar? Or claims of massive election fraud and intercommunal violence in East Africa? Or the propagation of The Great Replacement rubbish that has led to numerous fat right terrorist atrocities.

Berenson by the way is a perfect case in point of someone (temporarily) banned from Twitter for posting out and out lies repeatedly, which will have led to more people dying than if he'd shut the f**k up.

Here's a thought experiment. During WWII, if a prominent celebrity had gone on the radio every night insisting that the blackout had no effect on the ability of Luftwaffe bombers to target their attacks, and that therefore it was fine to leave your windows uncovered, would you have defended their right to say what they wanted?

[BillyStubbsTears]

If Twitter had been the town square throughout history, heretics would have been more effectively silenced and we’d likely still believe the earth was flat.

Point of fact.

The proof that the earth was round wasn't developed by heretics in a town square meeting. I'm really not sure what your point is here.

We make progress in our understanding of how the world works through the Scientific Method.

We observe the world.

We develop hypotheses on underlying principles, based on those observations.

We use those hypotheses to make predictions of how the world ought to work in hitherto unseen circumstances.

We try to observe those circumstances.

We see if the hypotheses broadly work. If they do, we think the hypotheses have merit. If they don't, we go back and rethink from the start.

That's how Objective Truth gets established.

The overwhelming majority of "heretics" don't engage with that process because it is f**king hard work. They shout out what they want to be true and drown out any evidence to the contrary.

An uncontrolled, unrefereed Town Square in the modern world is an anarchical mess with 2 billion people shouting what they want to be true, and always able to find some persuasive gobshit telling them what they want to hear. It's the road to social disintegration, and we are a good few miles down it already.

[Bristol Red Rover]

If Twitter had been the town square throughout history, heretics would have been more effectively silenced and we’d likely still believe the earth was flat.

Point of fact.

The proof that the earth was round wasn't developed by heretics in a town square meeting. I'm really not sure what your point is here.

We make progress in our understanding of how the world works through the Scientific Method.

We observe the world.

We develop hypotheses on underlying principles, based on those observations.

We use those hypotheses to make predictions of how the world ought to work in hitherto unseen circumstances.

We try to observe those circumstances.

We see if the hypotheses broadly work. If they do, we think the hypotheses have merit. If they don't, we go back and rethink from the start.

That's how Objective Truth gets established.

The overwhelming majority of "heretics" don't engage with that process because it is f**king hard work. They shout out what they want to be true and drown out any evidence to the contrary.

An uncontrolled, unrefereed Town Square in the modern world is an anarchical mess with 2 billion people shouting what they want to be true, and always able to find some persuasive gobshit telling them what they want to hear. It's the road to social disintegration, and we are a good few miles down it already.

Fair point. How about the one where the earth is the centre of the universe?

[BillyStubbsTears]

If Twitter had been the town square throughout history, heretics would have been more effectively silenced and we’d likely still believe the earth was flat.

Point of fact.

The proof that the earth was round wasn't developed by heretics in a town square meeting. I'm really not sure what your point is here.

We make progress in our understanding of how the world works through the Scientific Method.

We observe the world.

We develop hypotheses on underlying principles, based on those observations.

We use those hypotheses to make predictions of how the world ought to work in hitherto unseen circumstances.

We try to observe those circumstances.

We see if the hypotheses broadly work. If they do, we think the hypotheses have merit. If they don't, we go back and rethink from the start.

That's how Objective Truth gets established.

The overwhelming majority of "heretics" don't engage with that process because it is f**king hard work. They shout out what they want to be true and drown out any evidence to the contrary.

An uncontrolled, unrefereed Town Square in the modern world is an anarchical mess with 2 billion people shouting what they want to be true, and always able to find some persuasive gobshit telling them what they want to hear. It's the road to social disintegration, and we are a good few miles down it already.

Fair point. How about the one where the earth is the centre of the universe?

I genuinely haven't got a clue what you are on about.

[ncRover]

If Twitter had been the town square throughout history, heretics would have been more effectively silenced and we’d likely still believe the earth was flat.

Point of fact.

The proof that the earth was round wasn't developed by heretics in a town square meeting. I'm really not sure what your point is here.

We make progress in our understanding of how the world works through the Scientific Method.

We observe the world.

We develop hypotheses on underlying principles, based on those observations.

We use those hypotheses to make predictions of how the world ought to work in hitherto unseen circumstances.

We try to observe those circumstances.

We see if the hypotheses broadly work. If they do, we think the hypotheses have merit. If they don't, we go back and rethink from the start.

That's how Objective Truth gets established.

The overwhelming majority of "heretics" don't engage with that process because it is f**king hard work. They shout out what they want to be true and drown out any evidence to the contrary.

An uncontrolled, unrefereed Town Square in the modern world is an anarchical mess with 2 billion people shouting what they want to be true, and always able to find some persuasive gobshit telling them what they want to hear. It's the road to social disintegration, and we are a good few miles down it already.

Fair point. How about the one where the earth is the centre of the universe?

I genuinely haven't got a clue what you are on about.

Copernicus?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Yup. It's outside of BSTs chosen subject era of 1932-45, so I should have explained more

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copernicus was THE textbook example of someone following the Scientific Method! He didn't decide that the earth went round the sun on a whim, with no evidence.

He didn't deliberately misrepresent all the evidence to the contrary and repeatedly lie about it.

Please tell me you're not trying to draw a line linking Copernicus and Berenson!

[ncRover]

"Social media giants in recent years have seen themselves as the agents of social progress."

I'm sorry but this just takes the biscuit.

Have you not seen the way Facebook facilitated the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingia in Myanmar? Or claims of massive election fraud and intercommunal violence in East Africa? Or the propagation of The Great Replacement rubbish that has led to numerous fat right terrorist atrocities.

Berenson by the way is a perfect case in point of someone (temporarily) banned from Twitter for posting out and out lies repeatedly, which will have led to more people dying than if he'd shut the f**k up.

Here's a thought experiment. During WWII, if a prominent celebrity had gone on the radio every night insisting that the blackout had no effect on the ability of Luftwaffe bombers to target their attacks, and that therefore it was fine to leave your windows uncovered, would you have defended their right to say what they wanted?

Yes I’ve heard that analogy. Agree to disagree on covid as we won’t get anywhere. A podcast I follow on Twitter got shadow banned for calling out gender ideology stuff btw.

This is about Twitter and it’s influence on western society. But I’d be interested to see where social media have propagated the Great Replacement Theory if you have links? Also please follow up on my other previous points regarding Trudeau and Hunter Biden story suppression.

Do you think people who openly espouse communist ideology on Twitter should be banned? They are on there.

[ncRover]

Copernicus was THE textbook example of someone following the Scientific Method! He didn't decide that the earth went round the sun on a whim, with no evidence.

He didn't deliberately misrepresent all the evidence to the contrary and repeatedly lie about it.

Please tell me you're not trying to draw a line linking Copernicus and Berenson!

I’m not. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Berenson has said either, you just asked for an example.

Wasn’t Copernicus thrown in jail?

[ncRover]

Another big moment that made people question the social media sponsored government narrative was when meeting up in lockdown was bad but BLM protests were fine.

Had it been anti-lockdown protests, they would have labelled granny killers and conspiracy theorists.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"Social media giants in recent years have seen themselves as the agents of social progress."

I'm sorry but this just takes the biscuit.

Have you not seen the way Facebook facilitated the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingia in Myanmar? Or claims of massive election fraud and intercommunal violence in East Africa? Or the propagation of The Great Replacement rubbish that has led to numerous fat right terrorist atrocities.

Berenson by the way is a perfect case in point of someone (temporarily) banned from Twitter for posting out and out lies repeatedly, which will have led to more people dying than if he'd shut the f**k up.

Here's a thought experiment. During WWII, if a prominent celebrity had gone on the radio every night insisting that the blackout had no effect on the ability of Luftwaffe bombers to target their attacks, and that therefore it was fine to leave your windows uncovered, would you have defended their right to say what they wanted?

Yes I’ve heard that analogy. Agree to disagree on covid as we won’t get anywhere. A podcast I follow on Twitter got shadow banned for calling out gender ideology stuff btw.

This is about Twitter and it’s influence on western society. But I’d be interested to see where social media have propagated the Great Replacement Theory if you have links? Also please follow up on my other previous points regarding Trudeau and Hunter Biden story suppression.

Do you think people who openly espouse communist ideology on Twitter should be banned? They are on there.

1) I'll repeat. Berenson did NOT get banned from Twitter for having an OPINION that was considered unacceptable. He was banned for repeatedly lying on matters of Objective Truth. You want to take this on with examples, I'm happy to.

2) Twitter has never "shadow banned" any account. You're repeating a conspiracy theory right here and now in this thread.

3) "Social media" doesn't propagate anything. People using it do.

Here's one example of a candidate for the US Congress openly applauding A Fox News presenter for supporting the Great Replacement Theory.
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1441807874053885952

4) No I don't think people should be banned for espousing Communism, any more than I think far-right activists should be banned for being far-right. Those are perfectly acceptable stances to take, even if I vehemently disagree with both. I think people should be barred from social media when they clearly and unarguably and repeatedly post lies and don't retract them. I'm talking about the sort that Berenson posted repeatedly, where he would, for example, quote a COVID study as having said X when the very authors of the study refuted that. That is precisely what my OP was about with respect to Musk promoting a clear and obvious lie (from a source which has previously claimed that Hillary Clinton died in 2016 and was replaced by a body double).

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way Nc, your claim to be balanced and politically neutral has some work to do when you are posting stuff like this.

"the social media sponsored government narrative". What on earth is that supposed to mean?

[belton rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

[wilts rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

[belton rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

Who’s joking about it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

I suspect you're wasting your time in trying to get Belton to engage on a substantive point Wilts. But good luck if you want to go down that rabbit hole. I stopped when I realised there was a common theme of him choosing to interpret everything I ever posted in the very worst possible light, start arguments based on that and then insist it was his right to do that. Looks like not much has changed in the 18 months since I stopped engaging with him.

[belton rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

I suspect you're wasting your time in trying to get Belton to engage on a substantive point Wilts. But good luck if you want to go down that rabbit hole. I stopped when I realised there was a common theme of him choosing to interpret everything I ever posted in the very worst possible light, start arguments based on that and then insist it was his right to do that. Looks like not much has changed in the 18 months since I stopped engaging with him.

You are even counting the months, lol.

Here’s a thought for you, Billy: have a go at letting people decide things for themselves.

[wilts rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

I suspect you're wasting your time in trying to get Belton to engage on a substantive point Wilts. But good luck if you want to go down that rabbit hole. I stopped when I realised there was a common theme of him choosing to interpret everything I ever posted in the very worst possible light, start arguments based on that and then insist it was his right to do that. Looks like not much has changed in the 18 months since I stopped engaging with him.

To be honest my post was not really aimed at Belton. His post was just useful in me being able to make my point/set my argument by.

From memory I have had quite a few arguments with Belton, one or two heated, but we have always agreed to disagree amically in the end. I'm sure Belton will put me right if I am mistaken.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.
As you've probably noticed, I've had plenty of heated arguments myself. No problem with that.

My issue with Belton was his continued insistence over many months to read the very worst into everything I ever posted. Culminating in him bizarrely concluding that I was heaping abuse on a very dignified old man I'd heard on the radio mourning his wife who had died of COVID.

I've no idea why Belton did it. I asked him times without number to stop it, but he insisted it was his right to interpret my words how he chose.

You, quite literally, cannot argue with that. So I now ignore him, unless someone else quotes him. When, invariably he is having a dig at me.

It's really very sad.

[belton rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

I suspect you're wasting your time in trying to get Belton to engage on a substantive point Wilts. But good luck if you want to go down that rabbit hole. I stopped when I realised there was a common theme of him choosing to interpret everything I ever posted in the very worst possible light, start arguments based on that and then insist it was his right to do that. Looks like not much has changed in the 18 months since I stopped engaging with him.

To be honest my post was not really aimed at Belton. His post was just useful in me being able to make my point/set my argument by.

From memory I have had quite a few arguments with Belton, one or two heated, but we have always agreed to disagree amically in the end. I'm sure Belton will put me right if I am mistaken.

Thank you, Wilts. I appreciate that you aren’t drawn into Billy’s attempt to force his opinion of me on everyone else.

Unfortunately for Billy, since he pretended to block me, the only way he can have another unnecessary pop at me without looking like a complete fool, is when someone else quotes me.
Invariably, as with you this evening, he does just that.
After 18 months (by Billy’s counting), he appears to have a bit of an obsession with me.

Back on topic, I don’t want hatred and lies spreading on any platform, by anyone, but it is impossible to police unless these platforms are closed to everyone.

[belton rover]

Wilts.
As you've probably noticed, I've had plenty of heated arguments myself. No problem with that.

My issue with Belton was his continued insistence over many months to read the very worst into everything I ever posted. Culminating in him bizarrely concluding that I was heaping abuse on a very dignified old man I'd heard on the radio mourning his wife who had died of COVID.

I've no idea why Belton did it. I asked him times without number to stop it, but he insisted it was his right to interpret my words how he chose.

You, quite literally, cannot argue with that. So I now ignore him, unless someone else quotes him. When, invariably he is having a dig at me.

It's really very sad.

Billy, I have only ever commented on what you have written. You then always used the ‘I didn’t mean that’ but you keep on saying it.
As I remember, you used the poor man’s plight to have a go at, wait for it, the Tory government, yet he stood against everything you were banging on about at the time. It was shameful, indefensible behaviour and your only option to try to save face was to block me. The fact that your behaviour still bothers you is very telling.
If you really think that my posts are invariably about you, then you are even further up your own arse than I could ever imagine.

[wilts rover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

Should you be allowed to influence people by knowing lying? Should you be allowed to use that influence you have gained by continualy lying to gain political power?

That's pretty much the argument here. For some people it's a joke. For others it's a murdered MP, an attempted coup or a petrol bomb at a refugee processing centre.

Coperincus was factually accurate due to his scientific observation. The women murdered in the Salem Witch Trials were victims of a greedy fellow villager wanting their land so making up stories about them that people belived.

There are many other stories from history of what happens when lies are allowed to become 'truth'.

I suspect you're wasting your time in trying to get Belton to engage on a substantive point Wilts. But good luck if you want to go down that rabbit hole. I stopped when I realised there was a common theme of him choosing to interpret everything I ever posted in the very worst possible light, start arguments based on that and then insist it was his right to do that. Looks like not much has changed in the 18 months since I stopped engaging with him.

To be honest my post was not really aimed at Belton. His post was just useful in me being able to make my point/set my argument by.

From memory I have had quite a few arguments with Belton, one or two heated, but we have always agreed to disagree amically in the end. I'm sure Belton will put me right if I am mistaken.

Thank you, Wilts. I appreciate that you aren’t drawn into Billy’s attempt to force his opinion of me on everyone else.

Unfortunately for Billy, since he pretended to block me, the only way he can have another unnecessary pop at me without looking like a complete fool, is when someone else quotes me.
Invariably, as with you this evening, he does just that.
After 18 months (by Billy’s counting), he appears to have a bit of an obsession with me.

Back on topic, I don’t want hatred and lies spreading on any platform, by anyone, but it is impossible to police unless these platforms are closed to everyone.

No problem Belton, as you know my opinions are my opinions, your interactions with Billy are between the two of you and absolutely nothing to do with the rest of us. Other than its boring as hell to read (with the greatest of respect to you both).

I disagree. Twitter 'police' their platform at the moment and dont allow people who break their rules to use it. Exactly the same as this forum. So clearly it can be done - because it is being done.

[ncRover]

"Social media giants in recent years have seen themselves as the agents of social progress."

I'm sorry but this just takes the biscuit.

Have you not seen the way Facebook facilitated the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingia in Myanmar? Or claims of massive election fraud and intercommunal violence in East Africa? Or the propagation of The Great Replacement rubbish that has led to numerous fat right terrorist atrocities.

Berenson by the way is a perfect case in point of someone (temporarily) banned from Twitter for posting out and out lies repeatedly, which will have led to more people dying than if he'd shut the f**k up.

Here's a thought experiment. During WWII, if a prominent celebrity had gone on the radio every night insisting that the blackout had no effect on the ability of Luftwaffe bombers to target their attacks, and that therefore it was fine to leave your windows uncovered, would you have defended their right to say what they wanted?

Yes I’ve heard that analogy. Agree to disagree on covid as we won’t get anywhere. A podcast I follow on Twitter got shadow banned for calling out gender ideology stuff btw.

This is about Twitter and it’s influence on western society. But I’d be interested to see where social media have propagated the Great Replacement Theory if you have links? Also please follow up on my other previous points regarding Trudeau and Hunter Biden story suppression.

Do you think people who openly espouse communist ideology on Twitter should be banned? They are on there.

1) I'll repeat. Berenson did NOT get banned from Twitter for having an OPINION that was considered unacceptable. He was banned for repeatedly lying on matters of Objective Truth. You want to take this on with examples, I'm happy to.

2) Twitter has never "shadow banned" any account. You're repeating a conspiracy theory right here and now in this thread.

3) "Social media" doesn't propagate anything. People using it do.

Here's one example of a candidate for the US Congress openly applauding A Fox News presenter for supporting the Great Replacement Theory.
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1441807874053885952

4) No I don't think people should be banned for espousing Communism, any more than I think far-right activists should be banned for being far-right. Those are perfectly acceptable stances to take, even if I vehemently disagree with both. I think people should be barred from social media when they clearly and unarguably and repeatedly post lies and don't retract them. I'm talking about the sort that Berenson posted repeatedly, where he would, for example, quote a COVID study as having said X when the very authors of the study refuted that. That is precisely what my OP was about with respect to Musk promoting a clear and obvious lie (from a source which has previously claimed that Hillary Clinton died in 2016 and was replaced by a body double).

1) I’m not massively interested in him. Could that have been his interpretation of studies?

2) That’s up for debate really.

3) You said that social media propagated that theory so are you going against yourself now? That’s not Twitter / Facebook facilitating it as you claimed. As wrong as I think that is, it’s a theory, therefore it can’t be against Objective Truth.

4) Fair enough, I was seeing how far your bias stretched.

Wilts, by not silencing someone that isn’t allowing a lie to become truth. If a lie is so ridiculous such as the one BST pointed out with the nord stream then it won’t gain much traction, the majority will disagree and they’ll get ratio’d. If Twitter had removed “kimdotcom”s post he’d have said to his followers LOOK I WAS ON TO SOMETHING.

In terms of a social media sponsored government narrative, how about the point you keep ignoring? The hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed as it would have hurt Biden’s campaign. It was quickly labelled as “Russian disinformation” and you couldn’t even copy and paste the link to send. The story later turned out to be true. Stuff like this erodes people’s trust in mainstream media.

Another sponsored narrative would be the one that covid vaccines were necessary for everyone and stopped transmission when they hadn’t even been tested for that. Both went hand in hand is blowing the virus way out of proportion making young, healthy people think they could die from it. Debate regarding this was suppressed and came with Twitter warnings.( I’m not saying the vaccines didn’t do good by the way )

Also BST, did Trudeau go too far for you?

Because I’m not partisan to tories or Labour doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on world events.

[ncRover]

Good luck, nc, but I suspect that like most other posters who offer a well considered and strenuous opinion that may be different to Billy’s, you’ll get fed up of effectively being treated in such an obnoxious and condescending manner.
That, and the fact that no one else has the kind of time on their hands that Billy does.
I’m enjoying watching you give it a go, though.

All good natured. I just underestimated his ability to have an answer for everything!

[BillyStubbsTears]

"Social media giants in recent years have seen themselves as the agents of social progress."

I'm sorry but this just takes the biscuit.

Have you not seen the way Facebook facilitated the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingia in Myanmar? Or claims of massive election fraud and intercommunal violence in East Africa? Or the propagation of The Great Replacement rubbish that has led to numerous fat right terrorist atrocities.

Berenson by the way is a perfect case in point of someone (temporarily) banned from Twitter for posting out and out lies repeatedly, which will have led to more people dying than if he'd shut the f**k up.

Here's a thought experiment. During WWII, if a prominent celebrity had gone on the radio every night insisting that the blackout had no effect on the ability of Luftwaffe bombers to target their attacks, and that therefore it was fine to leave your windows uncovered, would you have defended their right to say what they wanted?

Yes I’ve heard that analogy. Agree to disagree on covid as we won’t get anywhere. A podcast I follow on Twitter got shadow banned for calling out gender ideology stuff btw.

This is about Twitter and it’s influence on western society. But I’d be interested to see where social media have propagated the Great Replacement Theory if you have links? Also please follow up on my other previous points regarding Trudeau and Hunter Biden story suppression.

Do you think people who openly espouse communist ideology on Twitter should be banned? They are on there.

1) I'll repeat. Berenson did NOT get banned from Twitter for having an OPINION that was considered unacceptable. He was banned for repeatedly lying on matters of Objective Truth. You want to take this on with examples, I'm happy to.

2) Twitter has never "shadow banned" any account. You're repeating a conspiracy theory right here and now in this thread.

3) "Social media" doesn't propagate anything. People using it do.

Here's one example of a candidate for the US Congress openly applauding A Fox News presenter for supporting the Great Replacement Theory.
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1441807874053885952

4) No I don't think people should be banned for espousing Communism, any more than I think far-right activists should be banned for being far-right. Those are perfectly acceptable stances to take, even if I vehemently disagree with both. I think people should be barred from social media when they clearly and unarguably and repeatedly post lies and don't retract them. I'm talking about the sort that Berenson posted repeatedly, where he would, for example, quote a COVID study as having said X when the very authors of the study refuted that. That is precisely what my OP was about with respect to Musk promoting a clear and obvious lie (from a source which has previously claimed that Hillary Clinton died in 2016 and was replaced by a body double).

1) I’m not massively interested in him. Could that have been his interpretation of studies?

2) That’s up for debate really.

3) You said that social media propagated that theory so are you going against yourself now? That’s not Twitter / Facebook facilitating it as you claimed. As wrong as I think that is, it’s a theory, therefore it can’t be against Objective Truth.

4) Fair enough, I was seeing how far your bias stretched.

Wilts, by not silencing someone that isn’t allowing a lie to become truth. If a lie is so ridiculous such as the one BST pointed out with the nord stream then it won’t gain much traction, the majority will disagree and they’ll get ratio’d. If Twitter had removed “kimdotcom”s post he’d have said to his followers LOOK I WAS ON TO SOMETHING.

In terms of a social media sponsored government narrative, how about the point you keep ignoring? The hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed as it would have hurt Biden’s campaign. It was quickly labelled as “Russian disinformation” and you couldn’t even copy and paste the link to send. The story later turned out to be true. Stuff like this erodes people’s trust in mainstream media.

Another sponsored narrative would be the one that covid vaccines were necessary for everyone and stopped transmission when they hadn’t even been tested for that. Both went hand in hand is blowing the virus way out of proportion making young, healthy people think they could die from it. Debate regarding this was suppressed and came with Twitter warnings.( I’m not saying the vaccines didn’t do good by the way )

Also BST, did Trudeau go too far for you?

Because I’m not partisan to tories or Labour doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on world events.

You suggested that social media platforms were left-leaning.

I said they had been used extensively to facilitate the propagation of far-right propaganda, including the Great Replacement theory.

I stand by what I said. Social media doesn't send a message. It facilitates users sending messages. There's no contradiction in anything I've said on that.

Regarding the Great Replacement Theory (sic), I don't think it comes remotely close to being justified in being thought of as a genuinely honest "theory". I also don't think it's tenets stand up to any assessment by the standards of Objective Truth. But that's entirely secondary to my specific point. Which was that Facebook and Twitter have allowed that propaganda to be propagated on their sites, even while it has been quoted by far right terrorists as justification for mass murders.  Which kind of puts into question your assertion that these social media platforms are left leaning. A real criticism of them is that far too often they have been amoral. Accepting most content as long as it didn't harm their bottom line.

[wilts rover]

ncRover again that is not true. Some people like to believe a lie and the consequences for that are instability in society.

Take for example the Great Replacement Theory. Apparently the terrorist who firebombed the asylum centre believed in it, as did the Christchurch mosque killer and others. People on here have quoted it as have guests on national tv and radio - and they have been met with ridicule.

Most people who believe in it will do no harm to others. But others will commit murder - because they already have done.

Twitter flags this up as a fake theory. You propose to take that warning away and let an ideaology grow that is known to influence people to kill.

Free speech is never actually free.

[wilts rover]

Apologies to Billy - I must have been writing my response when he posted his. But its useful to see both posts I think - even on the same subject we have slightly different angles.