Twitter swings the ban hammer at Project Veritas (1 Viewer)

[nolaspe]

Twitter suspends Project Veritas account

The move against the conservative activist organization comes amid a broader crackdown by the social media giant on those promoting misinformation.

www.politico.com

Project Veritas has been known to use deceptive practices and spread misinformation in attempts to expose what it views as “corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct” from liberal organizations or individuals. In September, Stanford University and University of Washington researchers wrote that a Project Veritas video alleging voter fraud with unidentified sources was what a “a domestic, coordinated elite disinformation campaign looks like in the United States.”

 

[DaveXA]

I remember something about socks.

And pigs.

 

[Rawlings]

Find me something that states what you say is accurate. Find me the intent. Not what Trump's DOJ wrote in the last year, because that's not the original intent.

I'm reading the same code as you. The obvious intent in general was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and the exchange of ideas. It seems to me that it was working pretty well for a while and, then, we began to see more and more mainstream conservative and libertarian voices on Youtube, especially, being varyingly demonetized, deplatformed or blocked by big tech at the behest of the pc space cadets of cancel culture.

 

[Dragon]

I'm reading the same code as you. The obvious intent in general was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and the exchange of ideas. It seems to me that it was working pretty well for a while and, then, we began to see more and more mainstream conservative and libertarian voices on Youtube, especially, being varyingly demonetized, deplatformed or blocked by big tech at the behest of the pc space cadets of cancel culture.

Most of those being blocked has NOTHING to do with being PC or cancel culture

But everything to do with posting inflamatory lies and threats. Threats that can and have cost people their lives, even though those who post them hide behind excuses.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

What does believing America has deep-seated racial issues have to do with Marxism?

In the original HUAC trials, miscegenation masqueraded as anti-marxism
Scratch an anti- Marxist and you’ll probably get racist blood in short order

 

[Rawlings]

Most of those being blocked has NOTHING to do with being PC or cancel culture

But everything to do with posting inflamatory lies and threats. Threats that can and have cost people their lives, even though those who post them hide behind excuses.

Conservatives typically leave doxing to leftist snowflakes.

I see you're not familiar with the incessant battles that PragerU, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, Blaze TV, David Ruben, Conservative Twins, Daisy Cousens, Dinesh D'Souza, Faith J Goldy, Lauren Chen, Mark Dice, Lisa Haven, Matt Walsh, Mark Steyn, Paul Joseph Watson, and many others have fought against Google to have perfectly legitimate, mainstream conservative content restored.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Conservatives typically leave doxing to leftist snowflakes.

I see you're not familiar with the incessant battles that PragerU, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, Blaze TV, David Ruben, Conservative Twins, Daisy Cousens, Dinesh D'Souza, Faith J Goldy, Lauren Chen, Mark Dice, Lisa Haven, Matt Walsh, Mark Steyn, Paul Joseph Watson, and many others have fought against Google to have perfectly legitimate, mainstream conservative content restored.

I believe most of those people/entities are relatively wealthy or, at least, make a fairly comfortable living in political commentating.

 

[Rawlings]

We have many more pronouns than “he”

In real English he is the gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. I don't speak pc.

 

[Rawlings]

In the original HUAC trials, miscegenation masqueraded as anti-marxism
Scratch an anti- Marxist and you’ll probably get racist blood in short order

Scratch a member of BLM and you’ll definitely get a copious stream of racist blood.

 

[DaveXA]

Scratch a member of BLM and you’ll definitely get a copious stream of racist blood.

Smh, why am I not surprised? So predictable.

 

[Rawlings]

Smh, why am I not surprised? So predictable.

Because I'm sooooo white, right, lefty? LOL!

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

The ACLU has never been a friend to religious/academic liberty and, in any event, has thrown in the towel and joined the cancel culture movement. I'll pass.

As for Molyneaux, I never followed him as such at all. As I said in the above, his atheist apologetics are puerile. Alex O'Connor is a much more interesting and honest broker in that wise. One can at least sink one's teeth into his stuff. Also, it was held by many whose content is much more interesting that Molyneaux was drifting toward the alt-right. Yawn I just knew that he was accused of racism based on his observation regarding the state of the American education system early in his Youtube career and that he was recently deplatformed.

The real problem goes to the dumbing down of American cultural via the public education system. As a classical liberal, I regard unfettered speech to be sacrosanct, but as long as the political establishment continues to institutionally collectivise academics, the Republic is lost.

i hope you take this as an example of unfettered free speech (it's not bc Andrus & the Mods set limits on speech herein, but let's play along) and appreciate it as such
you don't make a compelling case for unfettered free speech (assuming that you are the product of such)
you are not exactly a sterling example of 'letting people say whatever comes into their head without challenge'
when people on this board express their own speech, you react very emotionally and superficially
you have offered no reason to heed the speech of the deplatformed - in fact you were caught unawares of the content of some of their speech
you don't seem to know what marxism is
you clearly don't understand systemic racism - perhaps you would struggle with both of the 'systemic' and 'racism' parts of the phrase
i have not seen either a cogent or even coherent argument - your one rhetorical tool seems to be screaming "leftist"

in light of this, i hope you understand why we might not rush out and take all the fetters off of speech (and yes, i'm using it ironically)

 

[DaveXA]

Because I'm sooooo white, right, lefty? LOL!

Conservative almost all my life. I'm probably whiter that you. Lol.

 

[MT15]

Superficial insults. Almost zero substance. yawn.

 

[Rawlings]

Conservative almost all my life. I'm probably whiter that you. Lol.

Yeah, I'm sure you are whiter than I. If you're a conservative, then why the sarcasm regarding my observation about BLM? Did I misunderstand you?

 

[brandon]

I'm reading the same code as you. The obvious intent in general was to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and the exchange of ideas. It seems to me that it was working pretty well for a while and, then, we began to see more and more mainstream conservative and libertarian voices on Youtube, especially, being varyingly demonetized, deplatformed or blocked by big tech at the behest of the pc space cadets of cancel culture.

I just want to provide some clarity on this topic.

Section 230 exists to promote free speech on the internet. On that point, you are correct. One of the mechanisms in 230 for doing that is to protect website owners from liability for the content posted by their users.

This does not mean that websites cannot moderate their users’ content if they choose. It just protects them (to an extent) if they choose not to. However, private enterprise has always had the freedom to set its own policies. It’s why McDonald’s can still decide to throw you out of the lobby if you decide to start raving about Hitler. Private enterprise restricting your speech on their property is not a first amendment violation.

If Section 230 were revoked, website owners would then be responsible for all content posted by their users. In effect, this would greatly reduce free speech because website owners would be much more likely to be held responsible when their users run amok.

 

[MT15]

And, I would add that since these are private enterprises nobody has a right to their services. Being so badly behaved or spouting lies to the point where you are asked to leave a private company is no violation of anyone’s rights. I’m sure the social media giants would prefer to have more participation than less; it just stands to reason they will only get rid of contributors who prove to be more trouble than they are worth. There are zero First Amendment considerations here.

 

[brandon]

In real English he is the gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. I don't speak pc.

In real English, “it” is the gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. “He” is always a masculine pronoun.

Singular “they” has been used colloquially for years, long before its use as a descriptor for non-binary persons, however. As in, “Everyone should do the best they can,” because “Everyone should do the best it can” doesn’t work, “he” in that context is gender-exclusive, and “he or she” is annoying to read after too many uses. The American Dialect Society has decided that singular “they” is, therefore, acceptable in these contexts.

The application of singular they to non-binary people is secondary.

Language evolves.

 

[SystemShock]

In real English he is the gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. I don't speak pc.

Nope.

they

1. used as the subject of a verb to refer to people, animals, or things already…

dictionary.cambridge.org

used to refer to a person whose gender (= sex) is not known or does not need to be mentioned, to avoid having to say "he or she":
"There's someone on the phone for you." "What do they want?"
Everyone should do what they think is best.