ProjectVeritas latest exposure of Fake News

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is too.

Now hush with this Fake News crap.

This board is not sponsored in any way by the U.S. government in the manner that Facebook, Google, etc., have been given special legal and tax exemptions; so, your argument that they are has no substantive basis in fact.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This board is not sponsored in any way by the U.S. government in the manner that Facebook, Google, etc., have been given special legal and tax exemptions; so, your argument that they are has no substantive basis in fact.

Fake News IB. I learned from you Lord, Trump. Fake News.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Fake News IB. I learned from you Lord, Trump. Fake News.

This board is not sponsored in any way by the U.S. government in the manner that Facebook, Google, etc., have been given special legal and tax exemptions; so, your argument that they are has no substantive basis in fact. Ask Andy why he was banned here, but Franco Caraccioli couldn't sue Facebook: because the U.S. government has extended certain rights and privileges to Facebook that ECCIE does not enjoy. Thus, Andy is banned, and you remain very wrong when you fallaciously claim otherwise.

[oeb11]

IBH - don't let being baited and trolled get under your skin.
Debate requires two parties bringing cogent, constructive arguments.

You face One without those qualifications.

Ignore.
One will be off the board soon enough.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oeb11

IBH - don't let being baited and trolled get under your skin.
Debate requires two parties bringing cogent, constructive arguments.

You face One without those qualifications.

Ignore.
One will be off the board soon enough.

Get this boy a Mod hat!

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by WTF

Get this boy a Mod hat!

He doesn't need a mod hat. Our current mod is doing just fine. Despite somebody's constant whining and complaining about said mod ever since his bancation ended.

[I B Hankering]

With a "minimum comment length is 50 words, you’re gonna have to put a little thought into it. Even if you’re being a troll, you’ll be a quasi-witty troll,” said Peterson.

Jordan Peterson Is Launching A Censorship-Free Platform Called ‘Thinkspot.’ Here's What We Know.

Author and clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson confirmed the beta testing of an upcoming free speech-friendly platform he's created called Thinkspot, which he teased during a podcast last week.

“Per the Joe Rogan podcast this week, I'm backing a new platform called thinkspot, currently in Beta,” he announced via Twitter on Monday. “Get on the wait list here, exciting announcements coming very soon.”

Per the Joe Rogan podcast this week, I'm backing a new platform called thinkspot, currently in Beta. Get on the waitlist here, exciting announcements coming very soon. https://t.co/3xQ78Iqc0h
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) June 10, 2019

Thinkspot.com, the author revealed, will be a space where creators can monetize their work and users can engage in thoughtful debate without worrying about the ubiquitous Big Tech censorship plaguing conservative and right-of-center users on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Speaking to popular podcast host and comedian Joe Rogan last week, Peterson explained that Thinkspot’s terms of service will uphold free speech principles. “Once you’re on our platform, we wont take you down unless ordered to by a court of law,” he said.

The forthcoming platform, currently in beta testing, will be a subscription service where creators can monetize their work.

“We’re hoping we can really add dialogue to the podcast and YouTuber world,” explained Peterson. “We’re also gonna do the same things with books, so if you buy an e-book on the platform, you’ll be able to annotate publicly. ... We can do that with books that are in the public domain, too.”

“We’re hoping that we’ll be able to pull people who are interested in intelligent conversation, specifically, into this platform, maybe start pulling them away from YouTube and some of the less specialized channels — that, plus our anti-censorship stance,” he added.

The platform will start as “invitation-only” during beta testing to work out the kinks, Peterson said, naming “Rubin Report” host David Rubin, Skeptic magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael Shermer, and popular YouTuber Sargon of Akkad (real name: Carl Benjamin) as some of the first confirmed “beta testers.”

In effort to avoid “trolling,” Peterson said the platform will have a 50-word minimum on comments and force people to have to click on comments that receive more downvotes than upvotes (though this provision is still being tested).

“If minimum comment length is 50 words, you’re gonna have to put a little thought into it. Even if you’re being a troll, you’ll be a quasi-witty troll,” said Peterson, adding, “If your ratio of upvotes to downvotes falls below 50/50 then your comments will be hidden, people will still be able to see them, if they click, but you'll disappear ... We don't know if 50/50 is right.”

Voices outside of the far-left’s acceptable thought have been censored by Big Tech with increasing pace. In the most recent form of uncovered censorship, social media platform Pinterest has reportedly been cracking down on conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers. Project Veritas' James O’Keefe showed internal documents provided by a whistleblower “showing what appear to be various means of censoring content, including a ‘porn site block list’ that includes pro-life site LiveAction.org," The Daily Wire reported this week. "Among the conservatives whose content has been censored by the site is Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro and some content produced by conservative outlets, including PJ Media."

(The Daily Wire)

.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Get this boy a Mod hat!

Maybe you can lend him yours.

[Redhot1960]

1984 arrived 35 years late. The fascist's have taken over

Dump gaggle, twatter and farcebook...

Go to BRAVE, Minds.com, patreon, vimeo, bitchute, Thinkspot and many others, NOW!

ProjectVeritas video on the truth by an insider. 25 minutes
https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Several people have taken "vacations" in recent months. I don't follow each person's posts closely but I understand why certain individuals have been temporarily banned. I don't think the mods have discriminated against those who are considered "liberal" and those that are considered "conservative". I read some of the posts by those who were subsequently banned and I fully understood why it was done.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

1984 arrived 35 years late. The fascist's have taken over

Dump gaggle, twatter and farcebook...

Go to BRAVE, Minds.com, patreon, vimeo, bitchute, Thinkspot and many others, NOW!

ProjectVeritas video on the truth by an insider. 25 minutes
https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/

Doublethink Is Stronger Than Orwell Imagined
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...orwell/590638/

[rexdutchman]

Orwell couldn't even dream of how bad its got ,Doublethink, erasing history to what they want wow

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

1984 arrived 35 years late. The fascists have taken over

Dump gaggle, twatter and farcebook...

Did you just say "gaggle, twatter and farcebook"???




It's so bad even the SciFi writers are complaining... check this out:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/o...platforms.html

[I B Hankering]

Zero Hedge posted a story reported by Veritas about how Google is using AI to censor its platform ahead of the 2020 election to prevent the 'Next Trump Situation'.

Zero Hedge posted a Veritas video from Youtube with the story.

Google has removed -- censored -- the Youtube video from the Zero Hedge article.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's so bad even the SciFi writers are complaining... check this out:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/o...platforms.html

For those who can't get NYT.


Opinion

An Op-Ed From the Future

I Shouldn’t Have to Publish This in The New York Times

The way we regulated social media platforms didn’t end harassment, extremism or disinformation. It only gave them more power and made the problem worse.

By Cory Doctorow
Mr. Doctorow is a science fiction writer.

June 24, 2019

Editors’ note: This is part of a series, “Op-Eds From the Future,” in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write Op-Eds that they imagine we might read 10, 20 or even 100 years from now. The challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The opinion piece below is a work of fiction.

I shouldn’t have to publish this in The New York Times.
Ten years ago, I could have published this on my personal website, or shared it on one of the big social media platforms. But that was before the United States government decided to regulate both the social media platforms and blogging sites as if they were newspapers, making them legally responsible for the content they published.

The move was spurred on by an unholy and unlikely coalition of media companies crying copyright; national security experts wringing their hands about terrorism; and people who were dismayed that our digital public squares had become infested by fascists, harassers and cyber criminals. Bit by bit, the legal immunity of the platforms was eroded — from the judges who put Facebook on the line for the platform’s inaction during the Provo Uprising to the lawmakers who amended section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a bid to get Twitter to clean up its Nazi problem.

[Cory Doctorow answered your questions about his “Op-Ed from the Future” on Twitter.]

While the media in the United States remained protected by the First Amendment, members of the press in other countries were not so lucky. The rest of the world responded to the crisis by tightening rules on acceptable speech. But even the most prolific news service — a giant wire service like AP-AFP or Thomson-Reuters-TransCanada-Huawei — only publishes several thousand articles per day. And thanks to their armies of lawyers, editors and insurance underwriters, they are able to make the news available without falling afoul of new rules prohibiting certain kinds of speech — including everything from Saudi blasphemy rules to Austria’s ban on calling politicians “fascists” to Thailand’s stringent lèse-majesté rules. They can ensure that news in Singapore is not “out of bounds” and that op-eds in Britain don’t call for the abolition of the monarchy.

But not the platforms — they couldn’t hope to make a dent in their users’ personal expressions. From YouTube’s 2,000 hours of video uploaded every minute to Facebook-Weibo’s three billion daily updates, there was no scalable way to carefully examine the contributions of every user and assess whether they violated any of these new laws. So the platforms fixed this the Silicon Valley way: They automated it. Badly.

Which is why I have to publish this in The New York Times.
The platforms and personal websites are fine if you want to talk about sports, relate your kids’ latest escapades or shop. But if you want to write something about how the platforms and government legislation can’t tell the difference between sex trafficking and sex, nudity and pornography, terrorism investigations and terrorism itself or copyright infringement and parody, you’re out of luck. Any one of those keywords will give the filters an incurable case of machine anxiety — but all of them together? Forget it.

If you’re thinking, “Well, all that stuff belongs in the newspaper,” then you’ve fallen into a trap: Democracies aren’t strengthened when a professional class gets to tell us what our opinions are allowed to be.

And the worst part is, the new regulations haven’t ended harassment, extremism or disinformation. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Nazi-ism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism going viral. There are whole armies of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who do nothing but test the filters, day and night, using custom software to find the adversarial examples that slip past the filters’ machine-learning classifiers.

It didn’t have to be this way. Once upon a time, the internet teemed with experimental, personal publications. The mergers and acquisitions and anti-competitive bullying that gave rise to the platforms and killed personal publishing made Big Tech both reviled and powerful, and they were targeted for breakups by ambitious lawmakers. Had we gone that route, we might have an internet that was robust, resilient, variegated and dynamic.

Think back to the days when companies like Apple and Google — back when they were stand-alone companies — bought hundreds of start-ups every year. What if we’d put a halt to the practice, re-establishing the traditional antitrust rules against “mergers to monopoly” and acquiring your nascent competitors? What if we’d established an absolute legal defense for new market entrants seeking to compete with established monopolists?

Most of these new companies would have failed — if only because most new ventures fail — but the survivors would have challenged the Big Tech giants, eroding their profits and giving them less lobbying capital. They would have competed to give the best possible deals to the industries that tech was devouring, like entertainment and news. And they would have competed with the news and entertainment monopolies to offer better deals to the pixel-stained wretches who produced the “content” that was the source of all their profits.

But instead, we decided to vest the platforms with state-like duties to punish them for their domination. In doing so, we cemented that domination. Only the largest companies can afford the kinds of filters we’ve demanded of them, and that means that any would-be trust buster who wants to break up the companies and bring them to heel first must unwind the mesh of obligations we’ve ensnared the platforms in and build new, state-based mechanisms to perform those duties.

Our first mistake was giving the platforms the right to decide who could speak and what they could say. Our second mistake was giving them the duty to make that call, a billion times a day.

Still, I am hopeful, if not optimistic. Google did not exist 30 years ago; perhaps in 30 years’ time, it will be a distant memory. It seems unlikely, but then again, so did the plan to rescue Miami and the possibility of an independent Tibet — two subjects that are effectively impossible to discuss on the platforms. In a world where so much else is up for grabs, finally, perhaps, we can once again reach for a wild, woolly, independent and free internet.

It’s still within our reach: an internet that doesn’t force us to choose between following the algorithmically enforced rules or disappearing from the public discourse; an internet where we can host our own discussions and debate the issues of the day without worrying that our words will disappear. In the meantime, here I am, forced to publish in The New York Times. If only that were a “scalable solution,” you could do so as well.

Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) is a science fiction writer whose latest book is “Radicalized,” a special consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and an M.I.T. Media Lab research affiliate.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram