The normalisation of the far-right continues

[MacDuffman]

31 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I don’t know how it affects the discourse but Twitter was suspending people for having names that were making fun of Elon Musk.

Lone Skum?

[Savage Henry]

1 minute ago, MacDuffman said:

Lone Skum?

Melon Rusk

[welshbairn]

48 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I don’t know how it affects the discourse but Twitter was suspending people for having names that were making fun of Elon Musk.

I think they were bitcoin scammers. 

e.g.

https://twitter.com/evonkusk/status/1028423520982900737

Edited August 13, 2018 by welshbairn

[Detournement]

3 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

In what possible sense are Facebook and Twitter "monopolies"?  They're very popular social media platforms.  And private enterprises.  Which can delete and ban users for whatever reason they like.  Even without reason.  Don't like it?  Go somewhere else.  

I had to look up shadow banning.  It actually just means mute.  It's like putting folk on ignore, here.  Get them to yell right wing conspiracy theories into the cloud rather than at clouds.  

Phil McScrabblescore blocked me on Twitter, even though I've never Tweeted him.  That's not censorship.  Getting banned for trolling is not censorship.  Getting muted for calling Sandy Hook a conspiracy theory is not censorship.  Attacking the bereaved parents because you lack the capacity for abstract though and getting banned for it still isn't censorship.   There are plenty of right wing loonballs who don't get banned.  Paul Joseph Watson, for one, seems to be far more aggressive than the fat bloke from Texas.  

Zerohedge and Infowars (and dare I say it, Fox News and CNN) have done far more to "subvert political debate".  What they post isn't even political debate.

But but but but but free speech, right?

The irony of someone who believes that a few thousand bot accounts on Twitter subverted the 2016 Presidential election thinking it's perfectly fine for Facebook or Twitter to have the freedom to act as partisanly as Fox News or the Daily Mail if they chooseis astounding.  These companies have moved beyond any conception of private enterprises. They already assist with mass surveillance and evade tax on an industrial, the idea that they are passive or honest brokers is a joke.

Shadow banning is far more than muting, it is about creating a false impression of a genuine commons  which is misleading as views that don't suit silicon valley billionaires are erased. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that this could be hugely problematic the next time governments try to lie us into a war?

Alex Jones will be the poster boy but it's pretty obvious that an attempt is being made to renarrow the Overton window and silence alternative news sources. Even someone like Tariq Ali has been caught up in it.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Detournement

[killiefan27]

55 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The irony of someone who believes that a few thousand bot accounts on Twitter subverted the 2016 Presidential election thinking it's perfectly fine for Facebook or Twitter to have the freedom to act as partisanly as Fox News or the Daily Mail if they chooseis astounding.  These companies have moved beyond any conception of private enterprises. They already assist with mass surveillance and evade tax on an industrial, the idea that they are passive or honest brokers is a joke.

Shadow banning is far more than muting, it is about creating a false impression of a genuine commons  which is misleading as views that don't suit silicon valley billionaires are erased. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that this could be hugely problematic the next time governments try to lie us into a war?

Alex Jones will be the poster boy but it's pretty obvious that an attempt is being made to renarrow the Overton window and silence alternative news sources. Even someone like Tariq Ali has been caught up in it.

We should nationalise Facebook and Twitter. That would mean there would be rules and regulations meaning they had to be objective in the news sources they promote.

It would also mean Alex Jones would become protected under the 1st Amendment in the U.S, which is why I fully expect him to get on board with this idea of nationalising the big social media platforms.

[NotThePars]

We should nationalise Facebook and Twitter. That would mean there would be rules and regulations meaning they had to be objective in the news sources they promote.
It would also mean Alex Jones would become protected under the 1st Amendment in the U.S, which is why I fully expect him to get on board with this idea of nationalising the big social media platforms.

idk if this is a joke but I sincerely agree with this.

[welshbairn]

People who have a huge profile on social media should be subject to the same rules as any other journo or broadcaster, in terms of having to make a retraction if they've been proven to lie. and being liable to be sued for libel or defamation in the same way. I like the anarchy and anonymity (lol) of the internet, but if people start behaving like big boys they should get the responsibility and repercussions  that go with it. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by welshbairn

[JamieThomas]

What's all this shite about Twitter being a "bad guy" to the far right? Alex Jones has literally said that Jack Dorsey is on his side, and they've went through some quite incredible gymnastics to justify no launching the c**t. 

[Ira Gaines]

Nice to see the bigot and scumbag sympathiser climb out from under that rock.

At least the Jim Bowen account represents his real views.

[Crùbag]

Good to see this thread.

Heard John Beattie's program this lunchtime. The posh lass the BBC in London has in Sweden openly talked about the 'supposed' role of immigrants or 2nd-gen immigrants in recent rioting there. As if, other communities have no crime?

I never hear the ethnic background of the Orange Order discussed when they bring trouble to the streets of Belfast or Scotland. The Old Firm? Glasgow's gang warfare going back decades or more?

Common factor is poverty, not where the criminal was born.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Crùbag

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, Crùbag said:

Good to see this thread.

Heard John Beattie's program this lunchtime. The posh lass the BBC in London openly talked about the 'supposed' role of immigrants or 2nd-gen immigrants in recent rioting there. As if, other communities have no crime?

I never hear the ethnic background of the Orange Order discussed when they bring trouble to the streets of Belfast or Scotland. The Old Firm? Glasgow's gang warfare going back decades or more?

Common factor is poverty, not where the criminal was born.

Agreed, however what is more invidious is when those more fortunate tell one group of poor that their situation is the fault of another - normally easily identifiable - group. Tends to keep the mob rioting in their own area, and the mills and factories still have their loyal, cap-doffing workforce. Ready to vote the owner's son into parliament because they get a selection box at Christmas every year, and he's a "local lad made good". No, he's a cúnt who was lucky enough to fall out of the right fanny. 

[The Chlamydia Kid]

[NotThePars]

5 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

 

Bertrand Russell also refused to debate Oswald Mosley because "the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us" but go off I guess.

[Suspect Device]

The far right are anything but normal looking at the state of this zoomer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-45207641

I wonder which team he supports (if any?)

[tirso]

what is the far right?  if it is what i think it is, not sure they're being normalised.  they're viewed much worse now than they were 30 years ago.  

people need to take a step back.  Even 10 years has seen racial views and language change.  you're vilified now for what would have been fairly common parlance not long ago.  I'm not buying all this negativity.  The bad is just more visible to the cushy commentariat than it was pre-social media.  They've always been around.

 

 

 

 

 

[Crùbag]

8 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

The far right are anything but normal looking at the state of this zoomer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-45207641

I wonder which team he supports (if any?)

Wonder why he's only labelled by the BBC as an 'extremist' and not a 'terrorist'? Too white?

 

Utter pondlife anyway.

[Detournement]

On 8/13/2018 at 15:35, Detournement said:

Alex Jones will be the poster boy but it's pretty obvious that an attempt is being made to renarrow the Overton window and silence alternative news sources. Even someone like Tariq Ali has been caught up in it.

So in the last fortnight Telesur has been removed Facebook, Facebook's bot investigators have identified Indy supporters as bot accounts and Craig Murray has had his blog history deleted from Facebook and is being accused of having Russian links.

Nothing to worry about though.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Detournement

[Jambo: First Blood]

5 hours ago, Detournement said:

So in the last fortnight Telesur has been removed Facebook, Facebook's bot investigators have identified Indy supporters as bot accounts and Craig Murray has had his blog history deleted from Facebook and is being accused of having Russian links.

Nothing to worry about though.

Good to hear that Telesur has been banned from Facebook. The propaganda organ of an authoritarian kleptocracy directly responsible for horrific immiseration of its people while the government shuts down independent media sources. 

[Jambo: First Blood]

On 13/08/2018 at 16:33, killiefan27 said:

We should nationalise Facebook and Twitter. That would mean there would be rules and regulations meaning they had to be objective in the news sources they promote.

It would also mean Alex Jones would become protected under the 1st Amendment in the U.S, which is why I fully expect him to get on board with this idea of nationalising the big social media platforms.

Frankly quite a crazy idea. 

So crazy that Corbyn actually said there should be a state-owned Facebook type platform!

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, Jambo: First Blood said:

Frankly quite a crazy idea. 

So crazy that Corbyn actually said there should be a state-owned Facebook type platform!

To be honest, it's not that crazy, if you accept that social media is, on the whole, a good thing. I've yet to be convinced. What is for sure is that, where technology exists to make life easier, the potential for corruption and misuse also exists. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing that Google was still just a bloody good search engine.

I think Jeremy's reasoning is that, rather than handing over responsibility for policing these platforms to their owners, who obviously have profit as their prime driver, on a state-run platform it would be easier to exclude the loons and crazies. The extremists from all fringes of society would still be out there, though. There's not many paedophile groups on FB or the like, but like calls to like just the same. Personally I'm against the kind of censorship May is calling for, as at least an open forum allows for the less careful nutjobs to spotlight themselves - thereby getting the fúckers out of the shadows.