Facebook Content Moderator: ‘If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them for Terrorism’ /

[sl1pstream 551]

11 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

*snip*

Their investigations, if you can even call them that, have been proven false again and again. I don't see the point of continuing this if you're so far off the deep end that you can't even read the facts and come to that conclusion yourself. I didn't say actors. They don't have to hire actors. It's pretty easy to edit clips, like they've done multiple times before, to make people say exactly what you want them to say.

Most people are also able to be objective in their job, even if they don't always agree with things.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, sl1pstream said:

Their investigations, if you can even call them that, have been proven false again and again. I don't see the point of continuing this if you're so far off the deep end that you can't even read the facts and come to that conclusion yourself. I didn't say actors. They don't have to hire actors. It's pretty easy to edit clips, like they've done multiple times before, to make people say exactly what you want them to say.

Most people are also able to be objective in their job, even if they don't always agree with things.

"Proven false again and again" <- False

"Edit clips".."to make people say exactly what you want them to say" <- False

 

We've gone over the eccentric cut and pasting, to where you even cut and paste fake news smearing the wrong video thinking it debunked this one, so no need to be repetitive in bothering with that. On editing, they can edit the clips, they can't act with malice and make people say what they want them to say, especially if what was said in the video was contradicting what they actually said. If it completely distorts what they're saying, that makes it false/harmful to reputation, that is a slam dunk defamation that would make PV actionable by the people they interviewed and the company they lied about.

 

Fact is, PV's record on claims are stellar, which is why they keep doing it, and aren't in prison or sued out of commission. Moreover, the things I target of their videos are things I already know about, PV's videos are merely icing on the cake. There's been countless independent verification of political social media bias (which was the basis for sites like shadowban.eu), to which, when demonstrated, the left shift to "b-b-but private company, their site, their rights!". Have dealt with this gamesmanship since Trump took office, we're way past the factual basis of this politically contrived censorship, the only question at this point is when these politically biased social media sites lose Section 230 immunity. 

[sl1pstream 551]

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

"Proven false again and again" <- False

"Edit clips".."to make people say exactly what you want them to say" <- False

 

We've gone over the eccentric cut and pasting, to where you even cut and paste fake news smearing the wrong video thinking it debunked this one, so no need to be repetitive in bothering with that. On editing, they can edit the clips, they can't act with malice and make people say what they want them to say, especially if what was said in the video was contradicting what they actually said. If it completely distorts what they're saying, that makes it false/harmful to reputation, that is a slam dunk defamation that would make PV actionable by the people they interviewed and the company they lied about.

 

Fact is, PV's record on claims are stellar, which is why they keep doing it, and aren't in prison or sued out of commission. Moreover, the things I target of their videos are things I already know about, PV's videos are merely icing on the cake. There's been countless independent verification of political social media bias (which was the basis for sites like shadowban.eu), to which, when demonstrated, the left shift to "b-b-but private company, their site, their rights!". Have dealt with this gamesmanship since Trump took office, we're way past the factual basis of this politically contrived censorship, the only question at this point is when these politically biased social media sites lose Section 230 immunity. 

Stellar? That's hilarious.

You might also want to look further into the whole section 230 thing. If that gets repealed, they'll actually have to start censoring people. It's not really something you'd want. Sites like VisaJourney and pretty much every other site that has user-generated content would either have to heavily censor people and approve every post, or they'd be liable for literally anything that gets posted.
Clearly, you haven't actually looked into what this means, or you wouldn't cheer it on.

You should really, really, really read this.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic

The internet wouldn't exist in its current form without that law and it's absolutely insane that you're both complaining about censorship while also cheering on the one thing that would increase censorship all over the internet.

Edited June 24, 2020 by sl1pstream

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

Stellar? That's hilarious.

You might also want to look further into the whole section 230 thing. If that gets repealed, they'll actually have to start censoring people. It's not really something you'd want. Sites like VisaJourney and pretty much every other site that has user-generated content would either have to heavily censor people and approve every post, or they'd be liable for literally anything that gets posted.
Clearly, you haven't actually looked into what this means, or you wouldn't cheer it on.

You should really, really, really read this.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic

The internet wouldn't exist in its current form without that law and it's absolutely insane that you're both complaining about censorship while also cheering on the one thing that would increase censorship all over the internet.

False, yet, not a surprise. I never said repeal section 230. I said strip those sites of their section 230 protections. I also did not say it would remove their censorship, it would either force them back to their older TOS (the one that built their site to begin with), or they'd simply continue and be liable for what's posted on their site, not to mention be actionable for things like election interference.. they already curate their sites with their biased algorithmic rules and enforcement, they don't deserve immunity. All this is doing is lining up their liability with what they are, while not punishing public platforms that actually don't engage in these harmful practices. I also think section 230 needs to be amended to clarify users' recourse, and laws on election interference strengthened to give public officials more recourse against what Twitter is doing to them while receiving immunity benefits from the government.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Another video released today: