Cue the Censors; Twitter, Facebook, Google all censoring 'fake news' outlets

SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You did a long time ago.

Sad that for all the numbers, none of you can come up with a good argument in defense of your positions to save your intellectual skin.
Click to expand...
You thick fuck, you've been debunked so many times all that's left is to try make you realise you're being retarded.

Now read that again like you read your fake news and absorb it.

You'd think a "go getter seeking a sweetheart" would have at least a partially functional brain...

I do actually hold out hope you'll realise you're being retarded, like when I flirted with libertarianism when I was younger and then realized it's retarded and that I'm a lefty through and through.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
You thick fuck, you've been debunked so many times all that's left is to try make you realise you're being retarded.

Now read that again like you read your fake news and absorb it.

You'd think a "go getter seeking a sweetheart" would have at least a partially functional brain...

I do actually hold out hope you'll realise you're being retarded, like when I flirted with libertarianism when I was younger and then realized it's retarded and that I'm a lefty through and through.
Click to expand...
Personal insults, being told I'm wrong with zero supporting evidence.

Tiresome.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
No, it's editorial discretion. Only the lazy rely on google or especially, facebook. All of the sources you are so fearful about are freely available. All you have to do is visit them.

Every newspaper in the world picks and chooses it's content. That's not censorship.

If the government or some cartel tells them they can't cover something, or tells them what they can and can't say, that is censorship. It's no different in new media.
Click to expand...
fail. purposely altering algorthm to exclude content is censorship and you know it.

please don't become a Ball Washer- too smart for that..aren't you in the medical field as i recall?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
You thick fuck, you've been debunked so many times all that's left is to try make you realise you're being retarded.

Now read that again like you read your fake news and absorb it.

You'd think a "go getter seeking a sweetheart" would have at least a partially functional brain...

I do actually hold out hope you'll realise you're being retarded, like when I flirted with libertarianism when I was younger and then realized it's retarded and that I'm a lefty through and through.
Click to expand...
Do you pull the wings off butterflies in your spare time? (serious question)
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Sooooo instead of real information, our news outlets peddle duplicitous bullshit and outright lies they're told by... well, whoever happens to be convenient.


This guy says the Russians didn't hack Clinton's emails, they were sent on a thumb drive. The NSA would know.

Why? He answers that, too.
Click to expand...
i heard same quite some time ago..it will all come out in the wash.
 
greg nr

greg nr

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
If you think all that's going on is 'editorial discretion', I pity your insularity.

Have you ever put your hand on a Bible and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but?

The WHOLE TRUTH phrase is there because simply not saying something can easily be a lie. The tactic even has a name; 'lying by omission'.

You've just defended censorship.
Click to expand...
Let's not make this personal. It's a difference of opinion. Keep it there please.

I've never been sworn in like that; never had to testify in court. But I have had to sign some pretty gnarly legal statements. I'm not leaving something important out.

It still isn't censorship. You may not like that lazy people of every political stripe won't see your preferred flavor of news, but that is nothing new. Try to find a socialist voice in the wall street journal or the modern national review. It doesn't exist. Censorship? Nope. Nobody is telling them they can't cover racial inequality or reprint articles about it. They just choose to be shitheads. It's what their demographic wants ;)

When I go into news-whore mode, I'll visit up to 2 dozen alternate media sites in addition to more traditional media sites. Some I know about, others I find through recommendations on sites I do like or by following the links in aggreagators I like.

It's all there. Nothing is being censored. You just have to use a little initiative and visit the sites.

Now if you find that net neutrality has been turned off and suddenly access to non-conservative media is effectively shut down, then I will agree with you. That WOULD be a form of censorship.

But news aggregators have to make decisions on what they want to cover. If news is fake, or sites promote racially inflammatory stories of questionable accuracy, or advocate violence, then they are free to not post links to them,

Heck, I'd be happy if I never had to see a fox headline ever again, but that isn't my choice unfortunately. I don't care if you read them, just don't ask me to. If I ran a blog where I aggregated news, fox would never appear except as a focus of ridicule. Still wouldn't be censorship.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
Let's not make this personal. It's a difference of opinion. Keep it there please.

I've never been sworn in like that; never had to testify in court. But I have had to sign some pretty gnarly legal statements. I'm not leaving something important out.

It still isn't censorship. You may not like that lazy people of every political stripe won't see your preferred flavor of news, but that is nothing new. Try to find a socialist voice in the wall street journal or the modern national review. It doesn't exist. Censorship? Nope. Nobody is telling them they can't cover racial inequality or reprint articles about it. They just choose to be shitheads. It's what their demographic wants ;)

When I go into news-whore mode, I'll visit up to 2 dozen alternate media sites in addition to more traditional media sites. Some I know about, others I find through recommendations on sites I do like or by following the links in aggreagators I like.

It's all there. Nothing is being censored. You just have to use a little initiative and visit the sites.

Now if you find that net neutrality has been turned off and suddenly access to non-conservative media is effectively shut down, then I will agree with you. That WOULD be a form of censorship.

But news aggregators have to make decisions on what they want to cover. If news is fake, or sites promote racially inflammatory stories of questionable accuracy, or advocate violence, then they are free to not post links to them,

Heck, I'd be happy if I never had to see a fox headline ever again, but that isn't my choice unfortunately. I don't care if you read them, just don't ask me to. If I ran a blog where I aggregated news, fox would never appear except as a focus of ridicule. Still wouldn't be censorship.
Click to expand...
I notice you don't make this comment for Bucky and his Ball Washing crew. telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top