Ga96 Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 I always wondered how gsb was supposed to be the right hand man to the guy that actually runs prep gridiron. Like I said in the past he is a walking lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 12 minutes ago, Ga96 said: I always wondered how gsb was supposed to be the right hand man to the guy that actually runs prep gridiron. Like I said in the past he is a walking lawsuit. you post bigger risks than he does...did... just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaGoodBoyNow Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, Ga96 said: I always wondered how gsb was supposed to be the right hand man to the guy that actually runs prep gridiron. Like I said in the past he is a walking lawsuit. Aren’t you the guy posting false articles about trump supporters hanging black people,? That’s as scum as they come 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 From my own personal p.o.v. I have a major disdain for a lot of the stuff that gets said back here. I see a great lot of it as damaging in numerous ways. I mean as in damaging our union. I mean as in damaging social harmony. I mean as in potentially damaging in ways where some could act on some of the stuff and go to prison, kill someone or be killed. I don't find humor in "civil war" talk. Whether its serious or not. Its very difficult to tell in typeface what is serious or jokes. Some things are so serious in and of themselves that they can't be joked about. Having said all of that, I haven't "censored" any of this language or even actively tried to steer the conversation away in a long time back here. I know that the site admin doesn't do that either. If it was done, it was at the request of the member. Seeing as to the fact that all of the content is gone, and I can see that member wasn't banned or blocked for spam, then, it was almost certainly at the members request to have his content removed. Makes a damned mess every time it happens. The archived materials here that include conversations with that member are more trashed than they were to begin with. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: No, like I just said in the other thread, this is a major issue that we're going to have to figure out as we move forward. We're going to have to think hard on the nature of free speech and its relation to other basic rights, which has always exercised thoughtful people and has often been an issue in this country, but in recent years, the problem has become more pressing and even more difficult, given the new technologies and the behavior of fools. 57 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said: @Belly Bob I gotta run for now, but this is a conversation I really hope we will have. 5yds4gibberish used to be sure about his position on this, but 15yds4gibberish has questions and doubts he never had before. I've dwelled on this thought process a good deal for quite a while. Maybe somewhat for obvious reasons due to having the tools to be able to do such a thing as remove someone's speech. Also for the reason that when you have the tools to do so and feel like you must, and then act on that, the sickening feeling one gets from having to actually do it. Its far easier if you are emotionally disconnected and not active in any of the conversation. Once you have feelings on the conversation one way or the other, and are involved in some way, then it isn't a simple thing. There isn't exactly a right or wrong on this. We can all see how anonymity can be very damaging if nefarious actors are allowed to go unchecked. So, that begs the question, who is the judge of what a nefarious actor is? There is always numerous sides to everything and depending on which angle we are looking in from, nefarious actors could be any or everyone. I think the best fix for social media is to not allow anonymity. Not sure how that gets accomplished, but, allowing someone to just create a name from thin air and then build some following and slowly infect them with whatever it is you don't want to see them infected with is a grave problem. The person on the other end of the conversation could be anyone. Who is the boogeyman for us right now? China? Who says China isn't behind Q? Who says Qtah isn't one of the same russian hackers that was in our government computers for months? The vast majority have no idea who the hell they are talking to, or reading from. This is the biggest problem imo. Solve that and censorship issues slow dramatically, because nefarious people want the shadows. They can't work in the light of day. Just my opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 “Free speech” is only protected from infringement by the government. Big tech is obviously acting in an increasingly biased and unseemly way, but they aren’t infringing on anyone’s rights per se. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 51 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Makes a damned mess every time it happens. The archived materials here that include conversations with that member are more trashed than they were to begin with. Once edited an entire conversation becomes suspect.... and possibly worthless. That’s the real issue with censorship 🤓. Kills everyone’s speech involved, not just one author’s. But what does a newb know 🤷♂️ Ps. Just saying. Agree with pretty much everything else you said 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 46 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: include conversations with that member They weren't conversations just said member posting 200 tweets in every thread from other people that are twisted as he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 23 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: “Free speech” is only protected from infringement by the government. Big tech is obviously acting in an increasingly biased and unseemly way, but they aren’t infringing on anyone’s rights per se. Unless those platforms become an integral part of conversation in the public square. If it become known that you said something unseemly on the phone, does AT&T take away your phone? I agree that is a tough problem, but when you market yourself as a place for public conversation in a country with free speech, trying to restrict what speech becomes extremely dicey. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, RedZone said: They weren't conversations just said member posting 200 tweets in every thread from other people that are twisted as he is. Now THERE is the voice of experience for you 🧐🤣 Even a newb can see 👀 that 🤓 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 31 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: Big tech is obviously acting in an increasingly biased and unseemly way How so...tell us more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, RedZone said: How so...tell us more? Pssst ........ when you are censoring the US president from millions of its own citizens, Houston may have a problem.... hope this helps 👍 ps. Even if he has gone king Georgie mad 😡 wouldn’t the citizenry be better off with the real truth??? 🍿 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Newbie said: when you are censoring the US president When did that happen? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 I think we have to ask ourselves some general questions about "big tech" and their role in all of this. Like, what is their role? Are they at all tasked with keeping us safe? If so, then, who is the judge of what is dangerous to us? For instance we all know and understand that the cia watches Islamic message boards for radicalization of jihadists. How is the message board host supposed to deal with this type activity on a larger scale? We all see jihadist radicalization as a problem in America. What about other extremist radicalization though? I see it all as the same difference. It happens right under all of our noses. It happens and the ones it is happening to don't really even notice it until they're strapping on a suicide vest or getting shot in the neck while breaking a window at the capital or run over by cops at a BLM rally. Does big tech have a responsibility to protect us from that if they see it? I think most ppl go on social media expecting some level of safety and protection as provided in the user agreement or terms of service. However, does that give moderators and admin free reign over removing content? Suddenly they are in a judgment call position. What should they do? Turn over the content to the cia or fbi and let them deal with it? Etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 11 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: I think we have to ask ourselves some general questions about "big tech" and their role in all of this. Like, what is their role? Are they at all tasked with keeping us safe? If so, then, who is the judge of what is dangerous to us? For instance we all know and understand that the cia watches Islamic message boards for radicalization of jihadists. How is the message board host supposed to deal with this type activity on a larger scale? We all see jihadist radicalization as a problem in America. What about other extremist radicalization though? I see it all as the same difference. It happens right under all of our noses. It happens and the ones it is happening to don't really even notice it until they're strapping on a suicide vest or getting shot in the neck while breaking a window at the capital or run over by cops at a BLM rally. Does big tech have a responsibility to protect us from that if they see it? I think most ppl go on social media expecting some level of safety and protection as provided in the user agreement or terms of service. However, does that give moderators and admin free reign over removing content? Suddenly they are in a judgment call position. What should they do? Turn over the content to the cia or fbi and let them deal with it? Etc. Watch docudrama A Social Dilemma on Netflix. Much deeper then you think....you will probably cancel fb after watching! For me FB WAS for bday reminders and watching OZ man reviews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On2whls Posted January 9, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 2 hours ago, Troll said: Parler being shut down by google apple and amazon.... Apple’s demand that Parler provide a comprehensive moderation plan.....is hilarious. Nobody ever uses an IPhone for nefarious reasons right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said: Watch docudrama A Social Dilemma on Netflix. Much deeper then you think....you will probably cancel fb after watching! For me FB WAS for bday reminders and watching OZ man reviews I never made a Facebook. I'm smarter than the average bear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 hour ago, zulu1128 said: “Free speech” is only protected from infringement by the government. Big tech is obviously acting in an increasingly biased and unseemly way, but they aren’t infringing on anyone’s rights per se. It might be trickier than that. If I have a right to stand on the corner holding a sign that you find offensive, the state's job isn't just to stay out of my way but also to make sure that you stay out of my way. Obviously Twitter is a company and not a street corner, but to @Bormio's point, in may also be a de facto public space in which people meet to share ideas, in some broader but important sense of "public." The state's job is to make sure that we can speak and be heard in public, even as the ways in which we do that continue to change in surprising and unpredictable ways, provided that our doing so doesn't violate other, equally basic rights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, HawgGoneIt said: I never made a Facebook. I'm smarter than the average bear. I did years ago....easier to check in on a classmate from grammar school vs a 3 hour conversation recapping the past 30 years of your life....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On2whls Posted January 9, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, I AM IRONMAN said: Watch docudrama A Social Dilemma on Netflix. Much deeper then you think....you will probably cancel fb after watching! Yup, those apps are free but you’re paying a price. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said: I did years ago....easier to check in on a classmate from grammar school vs a 3 hour conversation recapping the past 30 years of your life....lol I know that it has a lot of attractions on the positive side. I watched my friends and family talk about it enough early on to realize the problems with it too. Those problems kind of show you the other side of my aforementioned anonymity problem. On there, you aren't very anonymous, so, watchers can pay attention and know what you have, when you are gone and etc., depending on how much you use and post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 28 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: I think we have to ask ourselves some general questions about "big tech" and their role in all of this. Like, what is their role? Are they at all tasked with keeping us safe? If so, then, who is the judge of what is dangerous to us? For instance we all know and understand that the cia watches Islamic message boards for radicalization of jihadists. How is the message board host supposed to deal with this type activity on a larger scale? We all see jihadist radicalization as a problem in America. What about other extremist radicalization though? I see it all as the same difference. It happens right under all of our noses. It happens and the ones it is happening to don't really even notice it until they're strapping on a suicide vest or getting shot in the neck while breaking a window at the capital or run over by cops at a BLM rally. Does big tech have a responsibility to protect us from that if they see it? I think most ppl go on social media expecting some level of safety and protection as provided in the user agreement or terms of service. However, does that give moderators and admin free reign over removing content? Suddenly they are in a judgment call position. What should they do? Turn over the content to the cia or fbi and let them deal with it? Etc. If twitter let donald do more damage in terms of loss of life/complete madness they would be held accountable for that.....would they not? I just don't see the free speech angle at all, but I guess people can play with it in this case if it floats their boats. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, RedZone said: If twitter let donald do more damage in terms of loss of life/complete madness they would be held accountable for that.....would they not? I just don't see the free speech angle at all, but I guess people can play with it in this case if it floats their boats. I think as per everything we read on here, folks run to the most extreme angle they can find on it. Personally, having the terms of service that twitter does, they could have and probably should have dinged the Donald a while back rather than the little "warning" messages attached. When its let go too far we see the Donald and family having a watch party while retards break into the capital with lil dons wife dancing in excitement all the while. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxchoboian Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 Do we have two things going on in this thread? One having to do with GSB seemingly requesting that he, and all his posts, be wiped from the annals of this board, and the other regarding the general topic of censorship in the current age of social media. Censorship conversations can be deep and thought-provoking, as can already be seen in this thread. I'm in no shape this morning to add anything of value to that discussion (visited with a brother of mine last night who I hadn't seen in too long, and a couple things we realized immediately when seeing one another was that we missed getting together more frequently, and that we were both real thirsty -- lots of laughs, much needed good time). GSB calling it quits is a much simpler thing. Some family member of his probably saw the results of all the time he spent on here and flat out asked him wtf?! He scrambled to get everything of his removed, then denied to that family member he ever participated here. And then quickly changed the subject by saying he'd buy them something. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted January 9, 2021 Report Share Posted January 9, 2021 20 minutes ago, RedZone said: If twitter let donald do more damage in terms of loss of life/complete madness they would be held accountable for that.....would they not? I just don't see the free speech angle at all, but I guess people can play with it in this case if it floats their boats. Wasn't there much public discussion regarding a piece of legislation addressing this very issue in just the last few weeks? I think there are a lot of angles because this is a multivalent issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.