Free Speech and the Importance of X
In a free society, all citizens must be able to pursue their own paths, set their own goals, and think for themselves.
In America people are free to express their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or wrong... in recent years our government, in collusion with Social Media giants like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter tried to change that.
Here is an example of topics that can be found openly discussed on X today that will get little or no coverage elsewhere, its a reason why you should consider joining X to find news and information... it might not be allowed anywhere else you're likely to look:
The farmers of Europe are in the vanguard of the battle for freedom against an ever more tyrannical globalist establishment.
https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar/status/1753409141798826404
“What Biden, Mayorkas, and the Senate uniparty in the swamp want to do is PREVENT the Texas AG and all other state AGs from acting as a check on the federal government’s tyrannical abuses of power." – Paxton
https://twitter.com/MQSullivan/status/1 … 3438283181
UNRWA: "the agency will no longer have funding as of the end of February. So that means our operations would come to a halt during March. This has an impact on the 250,000 Palestine refugees that we estimate currently ... in Lebanon" - Dorothee Klaus, @UNRWA Director in Lebanon
https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/stat … 5292140792
“With wars in eastern Europe and the Middle East already raging, and ties between revisionist states becoming more pronounced, all it would take is a clash in the western Pacific to bring about a crisis of global security unlike anything since 1945.”
https://twitter.com/ForeignAffairs/stat … 9900563954
Biden: "The only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump."
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/ … 9902240874
Why I'm interviewing Vladimir Putin.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/statu … 1257475555
Be informed... not indoctrinated.I watch news programs that aren't filtered by the powers that be. The media only relays information that it wants the public to know, no more no less. If the media decides to be more revelatory in its news presentation, there is an underlying bias in such presentation.
Also, there is the context of so-called inflammatory speech. On many outlets, one can't freely express his/her opinions lest it be considered to be hate speech. Even the most innocuous remark, to some eyes, is deemed to be offensive.Seriously, I click on everyone of each link. This is what t get: 'Content blocked by operator upon request from Aovernment Authority'. I'm in Nigeria. The last Administration of Nigeria, is against free speech. Seems the present agree.
I am sure X is being blocked in some countries, and that list is probably growing. The one thing that cannot be tolerated is truth and open debate in a corrupt or tyrannical nation.
The more they sensor our speech and access to information in America, the closer we get to being oppressed by a tyrannical and callous government that controls us rather than answers to us.
I think the problem is the idea of free speech on the left is that they can say anything they want, spread any falsehood they like, and they should not be challenged. If they don't agree with your speech, it needs to be labeled as false and a threat.
The left operates media much like Tass and Pravda is russia.
I've said this before, but it is true, the similarities between how communist russia runs itself and how the democrat party wants to run the United States is overwhelming at times.I know you realize what audience you are speaking to. Personally, I do not go to 'X', facebook, instagram, or others for my news. Nor Gab, Parler, Truth Social, or etc. They require too much fact checking to sort out the BS. I don't have time for that with more important things in my life. But, I do find some are very entertaining to read when I pop in on occasion. I should note Facebook is for a community environment. I painfully unfriended the people who were too political seeking a more friendly feed.
Maybe, some, may say that is speaking from ignorance in the sense of not wanting to know. That is arguable in my mind. It is not willful ignorance as I see it. I get about a dozen heading to about twenty newsletters from media sources. They are pretty even between right, left, and center sources as well as special interest such as education. Plus, newsletters from Europe.
For instance, I get three Fox news newsletters and the same for CNN. Both throughout the day post bulletins keeping me up to date on daily current activities. So, does Daily Caller and others.
Just reading the headlines each morning takes well over a half hour. Then pick and choose a few to read the actual articles gives me well over an hour or more of coffee drinking time. Then come here and see what is happening and where the posts may lead me in searching out further info seeking clarification and sorting out the BS. I have to be done by 10am PST to watch 'The Price is Right'. Can't miss that. Need a smile or two now and then.
But, you are right and I agree there are stories or info not in the public eyes that is important not seen in the run-of-mill everyday media sources.That is certainly a considerable amount of information evaluation.
I imagine that is more than most consider.
I make mention of X because this is becoming a source of news and information that you may not find in other places. I could be wrong, as I do not review news in the fashion you do.
Through X I do get official posts directly from the UN, WEF, WHO, many nations, businesses, and also individual or 'citizen' reporters. So in that sense it is unfiltered or unavailable from 'normal' MSM news sources.
I'm not sure any MSM sources of news dependent on Ad Revenues will show truths like this:
Unelected globalist technocrat, Bill Gates, at COP 28: "The issue of food systems and how with climate change, a lot of farmers aren't able to grow their crops, which is a tragedy for them. We'll talk about using innovation to absolutely solve that problem."
Globalist doublespeak translation: Due to our deliberate war on farmers, a lot of farmers aren't able to grow their crops, which is a blessing for us, because it allows us to replace traditional agriculture with insect farms and fake meat laboratories, and assume total control of the global food supply, under the pretext of tackling "climate change".
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/sta … 1799706969
OR this:
Nonbinary queer teacher wants the entire curriculum in every single K-12 classroom to be infused with gender ideology.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status … 2417123333
It is this type of information, free of commercial scrubbing, not pre-approved for public consumption that is interesting and gives a differing perspective.
Yes... X has become a great forum where common sense lives. This is why I keep saying I have great hope that the tide has turned. Social media is flooded with people that have truely seen the light. Freedom of speech is alive and well and is being heard above all the nonsensical.
I had a Twitter account back in 2014, I wasn't doing much with it, other than... allowing it to annoy me!
I am back, now that Musk has taken it over & starting to get a little more active.I stuck it out, and I am glad I did. I find the playing field has been leveled. Which makes the forum more attractive to me.
I had a Twitter account blocked by order of government authority. That render it inactive. I'll try to open a new account.
Where news you won't find on MSNBC is:
BREAKING: SPECIAL COUNSEL HUR REPORT STATES BIDEN COULD NOT REMEMBER WHEN HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT OR WHEN HIS SON DIED
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status … 8768439620Ken, it's no secret that I've harbored concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities for years. From my perspective, his condition has deteriorated to a point that can't be ignored. The recent Hur report was compelling, shedding light on just how confused he appears. While I won't rehash recent examples, the instances cited in Hur's report were truly alarming. It's imperative that Biden be removed from office, and Congress must act swiftly.
Failure to do so would only confirm what many already suspect: a lack of effective leadership both in Congress and the White House. I shudder to think what the world makes of our current state of affairs.
Hopefully, his family will convince Joe to remove himself from the job.'Hopefully, his family will convince Joe to remove himself from the job'. Really? Put the money on the table. I think you know that, that you know Joseph Biden, consider the presiddncy like a birth right?
I’m fully aware of a lot of examples you give from watching British and European news and Al Jazeera, such as the protests by farmers in Europe; the funding issues of UNRWA; and the risks of the conflict in the middle east escalating etc. – and I don’t need to do so much fact checking that I would have to do with items on X – and I don’t have the time to “separate the wheat from the chaff” on X, I’ve got better things to do with my time.
Besides the sort of ‘Freedom of Speech’ that X promotes is a ‘Free for All’; which means speech that:
1. Harms others, or incites harm to others, and
2. A saturation of unchecked ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘fake news’.
That’s why I recently deleted my Twitter Account.I like X. Your list of negatives is mostly correct, but all social media sites are like that. On X, viewing that stuff is a choice. You have a "Following" view that only shows posts from accounts you choose to see—by 'following' them (other sites may also have this *shrug*).
The junk of your list is in the "For you" view which is populated by X's algorithms. You probably know this, but I think your condemnation is a bit too broad to cover X as a platform.
My "Following" view is like Tsmog's morning newsletter list for news. along with a ton of science & technology accounts. Some junk may slip in (infrequently), but a quick scroll takes care of that.
I go to the "For you" view frequently for chuckles and wows. Some accounts show how idiotic we can be, like; CCTV Idiots that have clips of dumb human stuff; FCK_ARND_AND_FIND_OUT(?) that shows idiots doing really stupid stuff; and there are also accounts like Figen that show some of us at our very best and nature at its most awesome.
Dissing X for your reasons is like dissing a library because it has a book section you (generic 'you') don't like.
As a note, I 'saw' somewhere (meaning I don't know if it's true) that if you linger as few as 2 seconds on a post the algorithm notes it as the stuff you like to see — so ya gotta be quick scrolling past the stupid stuff! ;-)
GAAs with most social media sites a person in essence programs their feed with their activity including activity on Google So, basically no two persons will be alike. For instance, I am on Facebook a lot. I looked at a couple of sites on prostate cancer. Soon my feed was inundated with prostate ads or info links. I mean in only a few minutes.
I painfully unfriended all my deep political friends and most of the political groups I followed to make my feed more friendly to me. Of course, my other interests like NHRA drag racing has an impact. And, the friends I interact with.
For 'X' take a look at this article; How the Twitter (X) Algorithm Works in 2023 (Sept 22, 2023).
https://metricool.com/how-the-twitter-x … s-in-2023/I'm not familiar with facebook but it sounds like the 'friending' thing is similar to X's 'Follow' choice. You're right, in both cases, users can choose not to see the dumb stuff (in their view) they think is harmful.
As an opinion, I think manipulating impressionable minds is more of a danger to youths on sites like Facebook than on X. I have the impression that X isn't popular with younger users. If that is correct, then the impressionable minds in danger are adult ones. A lot more personal responsibility should be expected from them.
Thanks for the link, but, after recently trudging through the immigration bill text my mind took a 30-second scan of your link and just said no.
GATsmog, thanks for the link. It's a study. I've bookmark it.
I watched the two hour + interview Tucker had with Putin.
Biggest thing I came away from that with... Putin is intellectually competent.
Biden couldn't have kept that up for 10 minutes.
Putin articulated an entire history of Russia and Ukraine, from memory, while being interrupted. No it wasn't perfect, yes it was biased, but it was a better effort than I've heard from anyone not a historian/professor.Even Trump in his present state of mind, I think couldn't reach that level about American history?
No, I don't see Trump as that interested in history, or how it impacts today.
He can be articulate, his speech to the UN was very well presented, especially for him, his first State of the Nation was as well, but Trump could not go off the cuff in detail like Putin did.
Biden at this stage, can barely string coherent sentences together for longer than two minutes. So, while Trump may not be able to give a history lesson for two hours, he is certainly way ahead of Biden on speaking coherently.Years ago, I read Trump's State of the Nations Address. And I'm well impressed. Even his first inauguration address impressed Ex-President Barak Obama. But these are public functions. And they're great hands behind these 'Great talk'.
This is true, same can be said for aforementioned UN speech by Trump.
That is why I made the distinction. I openly admit I believe neither Trump nor Biden are capable of being as articulate and factual as Putin showed himself to be in that interview.
I saw in a very recent ad where Obama joined Biden, and essentially did all the talking... it was a reminder to people, you aren't just voting for Biden, you are voting for a continuation of this Administration, with the likes of Clinton and Obama behind the scenes, helping out.
And of course I can't find a copy of it, despite having it pop up on my phone last night and having to sit through it. Here is a different clip from that same time period, just a different message:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y7-Ix_lu4tA
I think this is the message they will continue to subtly push in this election, you are not voting for Biden so much as you are voting for a continuation of this Administration, and the people behind the curtains making the decisions. And... you are voting to keep Trump out, of course.Yes, I agree with you. But let'ts wait and see when November shows up. But Putin is his own man. Being absolutely dictatorial, he's speaking and in control.
This is a very fair view.
Unlike news sites and email letters, you can Follow UN, WHO, IMF, BIA, CCP, FBI, CIA... literally who-ever you want, and get their posts directly.
You can also get 'citizen reporters', comedians, people like Elon Musk, politicians, etc.
Its a good tool and one that should be used by anyone interested in getting the truth, not avoiding it.Yeah, all social media sites are like that, to a lesser degree; which is why I don’t use them for my ‘news’ source.
Yep, I know how Twitter works; I had a Twitter Account for years, until I deleted it last week.
Yep, the statement in your last paragraph is correct.
Your analogy in your penultimate paragraph isn’t quite right in that in a library you just go the sections of interest to you, and generally speaking factual books tend to be well referenced and well sourced; while on social media undesirable material is ‘in your face’, and all too often so called factual articles are not well referenced and sourced.
Besides, ever since Elon Musk has taken control of Twitter he’s encouraged and promoted the spread of undesirable material e.g. conspiracy theories; and far too many people are gullible enough to swallow the misinformation, disinformation, and fake news propagated by conspiracy theories. While in contrast other Social Medias, such as Facebook and YouTube are now taking greater responsibility to limit such trash.
What will be interesting to see is if and when Elon Musk falls foul of the UK’s ‘Online Safety Act’ which became law on 23rd Oct 2023. The new Act, although watered down a little by the hard-right-wing in the Conservative Government, it still takes “a zero-tolerance approach to protecting children from online harm”, and protects adults from illegal content under British law; and places the “legal responsibility” on the Social Media platform, rather than the person posting the article to the platform:
And if Social Media Companies fail to comply with the law the maximum penalty is $23 million or 10% of the company’s global annual revenue – whichever is the bigger.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-c … ecomes-law
In my view, why should I support a Social Media site that actively facilitates the spread of material that harms others, or incites others to do harm?Well . . . okay. Are you on other social media sites?
GAYep, I am on other social media sites; namely Facebook, HubPages and YouTube
Yes, those sites are properly censored to ensure no unwanted information or opinions are allowed.
There is no difficulty with X... you can ban people you do not want to deal with, so that none of their posts show up in any thread you are looking at.
This is not a luxury you get in HP or YouTube.
You can set your X feed to get only the content you want, from the sources you want... so in effect, you can block out anything you do not want to see.
It is a tool... it allows more Free Speech than any other Social Media platform. It allows you to censor what you see, or don't see, as well or better than other platforms. It connects you to other people in more convenient ways than Facebook or YouTube can offer.
Your local Congressman isn't likely to use YouTube or HubPages to communicate to his constituents... but he'll use X.What I appreciate about X compared to Twitter is now I see a genuine presence of conservative viewpoints. It's become apparent to me that these users likely existed on Twitter but were suppressed, as I was many times.
And that same thing occurs on Facebook and YouTube today.
X (Twitter) is currently the un-censored 'town platform' where we can hash things out. And find truth like this:
This is how Biden created crisis & chaos at the border & is now blaming on President Trump.
https://twitter.com/Pismo_B/status/1755993120456745396
It’s “criminal neglect” to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a proxy war. It’s “criminal neglect” to secure Ukraine’s border before our own.
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/sta … 4322416932
We don’t have ‘local Congressmen’ in Britain, we have MPs; and their prime method of communication to their constituents is what’s called local ‘surgeries’. For example, this MP is advertising that fact in this video on his YouTube Channel: https://youtu.be/wg23eE1tHYM
Well, I don't know how things are done in the UK, and that is really not my concern regarding X.
Americans do not use YouTube for "instant" or "consistent" communication.
If you want to get a message out to people, quickly and consistently, X is the common way to do so in America.
However many people, like yourself, have left X because they bought into the negative press it has gotten because it is no longer a FBI controlled, restricted, voices silenced Social Media site... twice as many have returned to it or joined it for the first time.
Myself for instance, I never used Twitter, long before the purges and censorship began... when they first started using Tweets from a decade prior to ban comedians and get executives fired, long before Trump (prior to 2016) I decided to keep away.
But now I support it, Elon Musk, and the effort to maintain some space where Free Speech is allowed.
As proof that I don't know what I'm talking about, I've always considered YouTube a video-sharing platform, different from 'social media' like X or Facebook.
How do you interact on YouTube like you do on Facebook or X?
GAComments section
Adding links to articles and other videos in the comments section
You can subscribe to the content makers
YouTube (Alphabet/Google) scrubs a lot of content, either banning/removing the content, or demonetizing or 'hiding' it.
People like Jordan Peterson were banned from posting content on YouTube, just as he was banned from Twitter, until Elon Musk bought the company and reinstated his (and many other) accounts.Oh well, live and learn. The few times I have scrolled through a video's comments I didn't find them informative beyond a characterization of the commenter. I also don't participate much on X either. I read a lot and chase a lot of links but an infrequent retweet is the extent of my participation.
GAI am not surprised, X (Twitter) is not really something I enjoy using.
I went the entire month of January I believe without looking at it, had to do some gymnastics to figure out how to log back in as I didn't remember the password.
Its a tool. A means of communication.
When a primary communication tool that a former President used to use to communicate to everyone, bans a lot of people, restricts opinions and information it does not agree with, and eventually bans the President of the United States...
Well, that indicated something very wrong was going on... and I am glad Elon Musk threw away a good chunk of his fortune to expose it, and to re-establish X as a place where voices could be heard and debates take place... aka Free Speech.
Yep, technically you are correct, to a point; a lot of celebrities use YouTube to voice their political and social views e.g. Podcasts -and numerous celebrities have been suspended in recent years, including Russell Brand, who used to use YouTube vigorously to promote his conspiracy theories.
You can interact on YouTube via Podcasts, and using the Comments Page below the video.Thanks. I'm getting the idea. 'Influencers' can be harmful, but censorship can be more harmful. A Conservative's perspective is that the "Twitter Files" highlighted that point.
GAHow do you arrive with 'more' other than a subjective perspective. Should I take that as expert 'opinion'? I don't mean that in a foul way, only that perspective is just that a perspective.
Yes, the 'Twitter Files' demonstrated there are failures, but how do you track the mis - disinformation spreading across social media and the harm caused by that? It is said disinformation and misinformation spreads ten times faster than true reporting. That, for my subjective view point is 'Alarming'!!!
How misinformation on social media has changed news (Aug 14, 2023) by US PIRG Education Fund.
https://pirg.org/edfund/articles/misinf … ial-media/
It must be effective otherwise Russia wouldn't be investing in it as much as they do. It is said they allocated 1.9 billion on propaganda. Just pick an article at the next link a Google landing page and read it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … media#ip=1
Censorship with social media has a broader definition than just the political stuff. Unfortunately, perhaps, the rules for one specific affects another. Then it becomes how to apply the rule, right? Yes, you can with pornography, but you can't with politics.
Not picking on 'X', but using them as an example for bot activity. For me I read the article next as a learning experience. Maybe consider it.
Bots on X worse than ever according to analysis of 1m tweets during first Republican primary debate by The Guardian (Sept 8, 2023)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ … s-increase
"Our findings suggest that pro-Russian messages received ∼251,000 retweets and thereby reached around 14.4 million users." That is from Russian propaganda on social media during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Springer Open
https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com … 23-00414-5
I appreciate the intent of Musk with 'X' and am not seeking to criticize the new platform. I am just trying to make the point not all posts are innocent and the 'real truth'. And, it is like Speedy Gonzales on a Saturday morning cartoon. Or, the arrival of the twirling Tasmanian devil arriving. It moves not only fast, but quickly across the platform.All that I say about this is opinion. And I'm not claiming it is an expert opinion. Because of the way I use social media, I don't see much of the "misinformation" folks are talking about. I mean, I have seen it, I know it's there, and there are a lot of idiots that don't know what they are talking about, and a lot that are purposely posting trash, but I'm not forced to see it.
Wilderness hit the point that no one ever answers: Who would you trust to decide what gets censored and what doesn't?
The Twitter files are a good illustration. They provide a documented trail to follow. At the start, the 'good guys' in government and the 'good guys' at pre-Musk Twitter (et al) had the 'best of intentions.' First, they addressed foreign propaganda (a noble purpose), and by the end, they had moved to almost any 'information' disputing official positions; from covid to candidates to conspiracies (for illustration, not specific attribution).
Some censorship will always be needed in public arenas. Since I think most political opinion 'information' is exactly like porn—undefinable, and too many of us are (at times) just sheep looking for someone to follow (stated as a fact, not a ding), or a group of like-minded folks to interact with, any censorship must be very basic and very rare.
I still believe in the old 'Sticks and stones . . . ' adage, and the one about getting out of the kitchen. I think I'd be great for the job.
*Just in case:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" and "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."]
GAYeah, toss in 'I'm rubber and your glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.' ha-ha
I humbly retract my opening about 'more'. I see the word 'can' was used in the statement, " 'Influencers' can be harmful, but censorship can be more harmful." I overlooked that earlier. I apologize. Thus, in my mind, now, it is abstract since there isn't any definitions.
Way back when the Twitter Files were released I did enough reading to know it was contentious and remains contentious. It boils down to perspective again.
Deciding to refresh my perspective I spent a few hours poking about on the Twitter Files. Two articles of many I read or skimmed follows next.
The Twitter Files Parts 1-15: A Comprehensive Summary, Analysis, and Discussion of Ramifications for American Institutions (updated 1.19.23) by Stopping Socialism (Jan 19, 2023) Quite lengthy! I'm still reading it slowly and will continue to do so.
https://stoppingsocialism.com/2023/01/t … titutions/
Introduction
** Elon Musk, after taking control of Twitter and firing most of its upper-level management (and many of its rank-and-file employees), promised to release internal documentation that illustrated the degree to which Twitter had shadow-banned and censored content from conservative-leaning sources.
** To date (12-21-22), 10 file dumps have been released by journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Michael Shellenberger, Lee Fang, David Zweig, Alex Berenson, and their various associates, after heavy analysis of documents provided by Musk and his inner circle.
********* It is important to note that these files are not open to the public other than what the journalists and authors decide to share, and that Musk is “vetting” the files before passing them along to these journalists.
(Note: What files did they not release? Why did they choose only to release the ones they did? Was there a game plan at hand?)
** Each of the below hyperlinks takes you directly to the official Twitter thread corresponding to the data dump in question, with the author’s name and the general topic highlighted in bold.
** Each bullet-point is a direct quotation from the author, or a consolidated quotation. Editorial discretion was utilized to cut out extraneous or tangential information, and keep focus on the more extraordinary findings.
Though will be arguable, yet offers a cast net of doubt is the article next; Deconstructing ‘The Twitter Files’ by Tech Crunch (Jan 13, 2023)
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/13/decon … ter-files/
It's opening paragraph is; "The bombast with which the so-called Twitter Files have been released is incongruous with the mundanity of their content. Even so, as the circus folds up the big top and the barkers return to their Substacks, it is worth a thorough retrospective to put these breathlessly delivered, revelation-flavored products in context."
Maybe a dare or will cause one to completely reject the article. For me, it was a dare and I read it. It breaks it into thirteen parts with somewhat brief explanations of their 'perspective'. Having that hopefully embed somewhat in my mind I will continue reading the first referenced link, yet have an understanding that the Twitter Files itself can be the biggest work of propaganda yet. I am open to be objective as best as can be while know coins have two sides, though at times the image is the same.Oh hell, if the Twitter files are fake I fit my own description. (We all do anyway)
I did read most of the released files and I thought I checked enough links to separate the spin. Now you have me wondering.
Since you said your link was a long read, and, since you've already started, How about I just wait in the car for your opinion? We seem to be of similar minds on a lot of issues. Plus, my deep-diving days are behind me.
GAThat is the goal, get you to doubt real information, while at the same time getting you to accept what is clearly not true.
Anyways... information like this continues to be made available on X:
Author of 'The Great Reset', Marc Morano, on Klaus Schwab's recent B20 speech:
"He's talking about us essentially giving up national sovereignty, giving up individual freedoms, and turning over rule to experts... This whole agenda is to make it so we have no choice on some of the biggest questions of our lives."
"We didn't get to vote on whether gas powered cars would be banned, we didn't vote for vaccine mandates, we didn't vote for lockdowns, we didn't vote for banning of meat. But all of this is happening, because at these meetings like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, they meet and they work with government-corporate collusion to bypass democracy and impose stuff through this corporate government fascism."
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/sta … 3569603798
He has a good website of information focusing on more global events:
https://wide-awake-media.com/Sowing a seed of doubt might not always be a bad thing. If you're certain about something there won't be any place for doubt, but if you only think you are certain then a prompt for confirmation should be a good thing.
GA
A favorite saying of mine is, "one never knows."
Going back a few steps, on Facebook, today, I don't see the supposed mis and disinformation that I proclaim is there. But, I use to!!! A matter of fact too much!! Some really odd ball stuff too.
When the 2020 election came around I painfully unfollowed all the political groups, organizations, and friends that were too heavy about politics using vitriol. I should have prefaced I followed not only Republican/Right and Democrat/Left actors and groups, but bipartisan groups too.
To give context I originally used Facebook to market my HP articles seeking the greatest follows as I could ranging toward 500+. I now have 326. So, as you can see I did a lot of work.
I cleaned my self-programmed feed. Now, it is what I call a safe zone mainly filled with cat and pup videos and racing/performance car stuff. A lot of history stuff too. You know what I mean I am sure. Of course family.
I purposefully do not like or share a political post of any kind these days. I don't want that contributing to the algorithm for posting posts on my feed. I prefer ones with a picture of New York sharing that 800 languages are spoken there. Odd, interesting, and safe.
One thing I always find interesting is how fast a search on Google the topic inundates my feed. I mean if I search a product now and go to FB in a few moments it will be on my feed. I also have gone to FB's feature for feed preferences to tailor it.
That first link I referenced in the earlier post is closer to documenting events in time line for the twitter files dumps. Yes, it names names too. But, I 'feel' context can be lost since there is nothing being offered to compare/contrast with. In other words, who is not to say they did not do the same thing with other information/actors? That is one point that second article alludes to.
I am still reading the first referenced link. Yes, it does give cause to me for concern. But, I still stand my ground with the spread of mis disinformation is detrimental whether it be about politics or how to take care of your pup.
I am alarmed with my reading over at least the past year or so how social media can be an 'effective tool' for nefarious reasons no matter who the perpetrator is. Realizing you don't do deep dives as much these days, though I think you will recognize what I'm about to say as valid, try researching subliminal messaging on social media sometime. Wow!Yep, concerning subliminal messaging, your wow is right. I dug into it a while back—prompted by an article about hidden text in messages, and was 'wowed' to discover the extent of techniques. The often displayed 'flashing behind-the-scenes' text messages are just the tip of the iceberg.
GAMaybe it's time to go back to hard copy.
Perhaps i should note that though I advocate for X, I also strongly suggest very limited usage of it, a couple hours a week is more than enough.No worries, I have a pair of glasses that filter input for subliminal traces. They have a USB port for quarantining the subliminal's signature and they come with an app that lets the glasses retrace the subliminal's path and mirror the message. It seems dumb criminal videos are the most loaded.
GA ;-)
Regarding Facebook I did the same after the 2016 election.
Again, that understanding that comes from having been within the machine, I strongly suspected how it would react.
Never dreamed of some of what did come, but the crack down on Social Media, tracking, banning, eventually ruining, arresting those who were too committed to the 'Drain the Swamp' sentiments... That was a no brainer.
As for the Google search engine. We all have a pretty good idea of the changes and process with how it works here on HubPages I suspect.
Interesting in what you found contentious or concerning about that opening page's statements.
I found this to be far more revealing and concerning: "Twitter—primarily at the FBI and intelligence community’s urging—systematically suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. Initially, Twitter was resistant to the FBI’s probes and requests for information. However, over time, the FBI became deeply embedded within Twitter in terms of a revolving door of personnel, the granting of top-secret security clearances to Twitter executives, and the opening of myriad direct communication lines in which the FBI and other intelligence agencies could directly influence Twitter’s censorship activities. Central to this effort was former FBI general counsel James Baker—a well-connected and powerful member of the intelligence community—who until very recently was deputy counsel for Twitter."
Maybe its simply the fact that I spent a few years working inside our government, in a fashion, privy to how it works, so to speak... that focuses me on the FBI insurgency into Twitter more than what Musk and others may have omitted, to protect certain individual's rights or to just remove nonsensical and meaningless information.
I am curious about your current X status, but that is perhaps something you wish to remain private.I haven't been to 'X' (Twitter) since probably about 2013. The only reason why I joined Twitter was to market my articles from HP. I just went to it and see there is absolutely nothing in my feed except recommendations for who to follow. The first one at the top of the list is Elon Musk. All my follows and followers are long gone I see.
Your concerns of the Twitter files hoopla echo 'some' of my concerns. A difference is you appear to have more trust in Musk. I pretty much don't trust him, though I admire his achievements. Of course, of the more recent years I have become one might say a skeptic with a touch of being a realist while cynical. Perhaps a dangerous mix of characteristics.
Frankly, you don't have to have experience with working for government agencies to realize the consequences of human nature within an organizational structure. People seek power even with one-on-one interactions. My twenty-four years in a corporate structure with the last fourteen working in the corporate office I can attest to the games played by the actors or in groups.
Fortunately, I reported directly to the owner of the company during those fourteen years. In other words, the top of the food chain. I can't recall how many times the president of the company would ask me suspiciously what I was doing. My reply was typical. Ask, Joe (The owner). That would occur with the vice president/CFO too. However, it did put me in many precarious situations in regards to formed friendships.
My department, which was just me, was titled special projects. I had access to all the information on the main frame and I only had that access. Yes, each department and stores had access to their software to process their work, but I had access to the raw data. I could data mine and create any report desired that was approved by the owner. Talk about having power. Who checked my work?
I signed two NDAs. One with the corporation and another with owner directly. Even though the company was sold to Firestone back in 2018, I am still bound by both of them.I believe, based again on reflection of experience, and having a good share both in and out of government now, there is a great deal more emphasis on deception, denial, fabrication and misinformation in military and government positions than exist in the corporate and civilian sectors.
I find that 1.9B to be highly improbable. Consider this:
Jun 17, 2015 — Russia's largest news organizations are state-funded and state-controlled. Russia Today alone has an annual budget on the order of $300-400M.
So they are saying they detected BOT activity during the Republican primary debate... “We look at patterns of accounts that are discussing the debate topics, and during the interview as well, that are posting the same or similar content or the same links repeatedly within five seconds of each other,” he says.
Were those anti-Republican or anti-Trump bots?
If they think Russia is spending 1.9Billion on misinformation and bots, how much is our government spending to misinform Americans? 19 Billion? 109 Billion? Ten times that?
Is that not what the FBI was shown to be doing regarding all Social Media sites? I am sure our government is doing more than asking Social Media sites to restrict or ban certain information, I am sure through various NGOs or offshore businesses there is just as much harmful BOT activity that provides opinion and information intended to sway the American public.The link was made available at the post for you to go to the landing page to discover for yourself where the 1.9 billion comes from. It is for all propaganda. Not just on the US.
As you suggest over and over to look for sources other than American mainstream the sources at that Google landing page are just that. The browser search phrase was 'How much does Russia spend on propaganda'.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … ganda#ip=1
Just for giggles the next link is for the search phrase, 'How much does China spend on propganda'.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … +propganda
Who gives a damn who initiated the bots. The point is the bots themselves are being used to the extent that are. In other words, social media is being manipulated by them along with social media sites algorithms.
I wouldn't be questioning how many bots are used by the feds. I would be questioning how many are being used by the RNC, DNC, and other political organizations or even nefarious actors seeking to just F*** things up. Especially with AI taking center stage.You do seem a bit fired up in your reply.
I refrained from going to those sites, due to my current location, in a couple of days, I will peruse those links more thoroughly.
I think 1.9B for all propaganda is probably fair, I concluded incorrectly that it was meaning specifically targeting America with bots.
AI will be a problem, Elon Musk is pretty certain it will control the world, soon... his hope is that we can find a way to mesh with it... in a way, he hopes to evolve humanity with it, he fears otherwise, if the wrong people develop it... it will be used to destroy humanity instead, or perhaps, choose of its own volition to eliminate humanity.
Yeah, that tends to be the American perspective; but in Europe we view things differently – Our view is that it’s not censorship, but ‘Freedom of Speech’ with ‘Responsibility’ (Responsible Freedom of Speech) e.g. in Europe we consider it irresponsible to post content (such as hate crime) which does harm to others, and or incite others to do harm – and removing such content is less harmful than allowing it to spread.
"Free speech with responsibility" sounds like a good and reasonable approach. But it is simply a euphemism, the action is still censorship. The difference in our cultures' tolerance for censorship and government control of our actions is a known quantity. We want as little as possible and you want what you want.
In public arenas like social media, a need for some censorship (not necessarily only banning and hiding) is a reality, it is the degree and application that matter.
In the issue here, many think our government went too far and abused its 'censorship' authority.
GAYou make a fair point:
Obviously ‘political censorship' is unacceptable on both sides of the pond; but where we do diverge is that in Europe we are very much in favour of tightly controlling ‘hate speech’, and the like.Who defines what is and what is not "hate speech?"
Are there disagreements over what is considered hate speech?
People in the UK have been accused of hate speech for misgendering a person.
That in my way of thinking is absolutely insane. There is a lot of people in the UK accused of hate speech that is ludicrous in my book. A person prays silently against abortion, not making a sound, silently praying, and they're taken to jail and charged with hate speech?
That is just crazy.The Supreme Court set the precedent with 'public life'.
"In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) the Supreme Court appeared to close the door on hate speech regulations. The case involved a city ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, prohibiting bias-motivated disorderly conduct against others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. The Court struck down the ordinance, finding it to be unconstitutional on its face because it was viewpoint discriminatory.
The Court reviewed whether hate speech as defined in the ordinance fit into the “fighting words” category. This category, first established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), was defined as “such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The Court in R.A.V. found that the ordinance had removed specific hateful speech from the category of fighting words because, by specifying the exact types of speech to be prohibited, the restriction was no longer content neutral."
Hate Speech by Free Speech Center/Middle Tennessee State University (Sept 19, 2023)
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hate-speech/
Hate speech with online interactions one could say is opening Pandora's Box or a can of worms. Obviously, social media sites are private enterprises and define it as they choose within their Terms of Service. For instance HubPages says, "Hate Speech or Personal Attack - Contains a personal attack, racist content, or hate speech. This can be either in the Hub or in the comments."
However, there is no formal definition for what is hate speech. So, obviously it is up to moderation following up a complaint I suspect.
Understanding Hub Content Rules and Guidelines by HubPages (Mar 9, 2015)
https://discover.hubpages.com/community … Guidelines
Sticking to 'X' the link next is to Hateful Conduct for 'X'. (April 2023)
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-p … uct-policyYour last paragraph is a prime example of ‘misleading information’:
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a Christian campaigner who runs the anti-abortion group, was not jailed for “silently praying”; she was arrested (but not jailed) for beaching a ‘safety zone’ (Public Spaces Protection Order), imposed by local governments “banning people from intimidating or harassing someone within 150 metres (164 yards) of an abortion clinic.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce has been arrested twice for the offence, the first time she was found not guilty in a magistrate court, and the second time the police dropped the charges and apologised to her because on that occasion the "limitation of proceedings" around that particular abortion clinic had expired.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce has subsequently taken the matter through the courts in an attempt to make Public Spaces Protection Orders illegal, but failed; the High Court Judges in December 2023 summed it up in their Ruling, as follows-
1. The High Court Judges said: "The protest activities described in the evidence, including silent prayer and the handing out of leaflets, were... outside a clinic to which women were resorting at particularly sensitive and difficult moments in their lives."
2. The High Court Judges added “any interference with human rights was "justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of women attending the clinic, their associates and the staff".
In answer to your first two questions:
Taking your 2nd question first “Are there disagreements over what is considered hate speech?”
• What is classified as ‘harmful material’ (including ‘hate speech’), and therefore illegal in the UK is well defined under EU laws (that existed prior to Brexit) and UK Laws: And interpretation of the law is the jurisdiction of the courts.
Now for your 1st question “Who defines what is and what is not "hate speech?"
• In the UK, in 2021, Ofcom defined ‘Hate Speech’ as follows:
"all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age."
Ofcom is the UK’s Regulatory Authority who enforces such laws across amongst other things, the Internet.
Ofcom is an ‘independent’ government-approved regulatory authority financed by industry, not the tax payer.
Who is Ofcom and what do they do: https://youtu.be/cdVUr-NrXng"The High Court Judges said: "The protest activities described in the evidence, including silent prayer and the handing out of leaflets, were... outside a clinic to which women were resorting at particularly sensitive and difficult moments in their lives."
They admit she was silently praying.
Yeah, nothing is worse than a woman being quiet and offering you a leaflet. What trauma!
"2. The High Court Judges added “any interference with human rights was "justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of women attending the clinic, their associates and the staff".
Oh, what could be more intimidating and threatening than a quiet woman offering a leaflet? What about the human right to protest? Is that legal in the UK? What about a woman's legitimate aim to protect the unborn? Seems the UK laws are a bit one-sided.
This is all you have? It's absolutely ridiculous.
Maybe it is you who are spreading misinformation.
From the UK Daily Mail
'Our silent thoughts are nobody's business': Catholic woman who was twice arrested for silently praying near abortion clinic says she fears police are becoming 'ideologically driven' - as she vows to carry on doing it on a weekly basis?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … basis.html
From the LBC
Police apologise to Christian campaigner arrested after 'silently praying' outside abortion clinic
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-sorry … er-arrest/
These are just two of the many articles concerning a woman being arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic in the UK. There are many articles about it in the UK, many articles about it in the United States as well as Australia and other places.
"all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age."
Who interprets such standards?
Using these standards, the UK police and courts are guilty of a hate crime for promoting hatred against a woman who is silently praying outside an abortion clinic. By association, they are committing a hate crime against the Christian religion.
I think it is important for the police and all those involved be charged with a hate crime. Based on the standards set forth, it would be the only proper action.
If you truly believed in free speech and the punishment of people who commit hate crimes, I think some arrests for breaking the hate-crime law should be done immediately.
Unless, there is double standards and the interpretation of such thing are only based on the views of those who have political power.
Is that the case?Yep, and I suggest you read beyond the ‘Headlines’ which taken on their own is ‘misinformation’; they are written to be sensational e.g. increase circulation.
The articles themselves (at least in reputable newspapers), once you get past the headlines (and subheadings) gives the full facts, and paints a different picture.
The fact is that Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was not arrested for silently praying, but was arrested for knowingly and deliberately ‘peacefully protesting against abortion in a designated exclusion zone outside an abortion clinic.
The exclusion zones are there because even a peaceful protest against abortion outside an abortion clinic can be intimidating (distressing) to women (at an emotionally sensitive time) who are there for an abortion.
Where you say: “Who interprets such standards?” - Ultimately it’s the courts, and in serious criminal offences the defendant’s 12 fellow citizens (jury).
In answer to your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs, such things are not only based on the views of those who have political power: As I said above, if it’s a serious criminal offence then the defendant’s 12 fellow citizens (the jury) decide: A prime example being when 4 Bristolians were charged with ‘criminal damage’ (which they didn’t deny) for pulling down a statue of a slave trader during the BLM protests, in court their fellow jury found them ‘Not Guilty’; as shown in this short video:-
https://youtu.be/fQOAlDKRQfwYou should look at the video provided in the article. Her arrest was captured on video.
She tells the police that she is not protesting. She is standing there and silently praying. The police don't disagree with her. They are worried about people's "perception" of her.
Using these standards...
"all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age."
The police SHOULD be charged with a hate crime.
Let the jury decide, but, based on the above standards, they DID commit a hate crime.
It says, "race, religion or BELIEF"
Are these standards just applied by people in power to further their political agenda?
That is what it seems like from here. I think the term "double" standards would apply.Yep, I have seen the video (link below):
https://youtu.be/DJdb5brmXT0
But I’ve also read the background facts to put it into perspective.
The fact that it is well known to the locals who Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is, and that the locals know the reason why she is standing there is a factor; it’s well known that she’s the Director of ‘UK March for Life’ (a pro-life campaigner), a prominent anti-abortion campaigner – So of course her presence outside of abortion clinics is going to be intimidating to pregnant women at a vulnerable time.
Yep, under British law, perception by the victim is a legal factor e.g. it’s not good enough to just say “I didn’t think it was offensive when I called ‘so and so’ a !!!!!!”, if that other person ‘in their own mind’ perceived that you were being offensive towards them.
As the High Court Judges surmised ‘Isabel Vaughan-Spruce presence outside the abortion clinic was intimidating to women attending the abortion clinic – so what about the rights of those pregnant women attending the abortion clinic – Don’t their rights matter?
How does ‘protecting the rights of pregnant women seeking abortion’ fit in with your penultimate paragraph?
Besides, your penultimate paragraph sounds very much like a typical American propaganda statement! People in power (at least in the UK) are subject to the same laws as anyone else; As Boris Johnson discovered to his cost, and as the Labour Party are fully aware of as they continue to grapple with antisemitism being rife in their Party."How does ‘protecting the rights of pregnant women seeking abortion’ fit in with your penultimate paragraph?"
I fail to see how a woman not making a sound and standing outside of an abortion clinic is harming anyone. To believe she is doing anything wrong is ridiculous. Again, her human rights are violated simply because she doesn't believe as those in power believe.
It does say something good about the British legal system that she was found innocent both times she was charged. It says something bad about the British police and the people who supported arresting this poor woman.
I have a friend who live in Wales.
The relationship between the English and the Welsh is a complicated one. I don't try to understand it. I also don't try to understand how the Welsh speak...I find it confusing.
He questions the political background of those who are brought up on such charges. He questions if those in power are using these laws to crush political descent?
He has no proof. That is his question. I have no idea if he is right or wrong, but I wonder if it's possible.Sorry that you can’t see it; but Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is known by the locals for her anti-abortion campaigns, and therefore the locals found her presence distressful, which is why they called the police; even though she wasn’t physically doing anything, her mere presence (because people knew that she was an anti-abortion campaigner) was causing those using the abortion clinic distress (mental harm).
Yeah, there is “something good about the British legal system”; but to be pedantic, she was not “found innocent both times she was charged”:
1. On the first occasion the Magistrates found her not guilty due to "insufficient evidence".
2. On the second occasion, the PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order) had expired, so she was committing no offence – the police had made an error, they apologised and dropped all charges.
I also have a close friend who is Welsh; and being just a 20 minutes’ drive from the border I know Wales well – And I love their language –its music to my ears.
The relationship between the English and Welsh isn’t as complicated as the relationships between England and Scotland, and England and Northern Ireland (but that’s another story).
In your penultimate paragraph, there is no substance to the speculation raised. As you know, I’m a staunch socialist, but I don’t feel that those in power e.g. the Conservative Government are using the laws to crush my political descent – I obviously have more faith in our political system in Britain than your Welsh friend.If you want to cover a related topic, where I think we both might be on the same page, is the brutality by police at a peaceful vigil in March 2021 (during covid restrictions) held by women in remembrance of Sarah Everhard who was brutally murdered by a serving police officer 10 days earlier.
Since then the Police have apologised (to a fashion) and paid a substantial sum in compensation to the women they arrested.
See the British Newspaper Report, and British TV News Report on the subject in the following links:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 … rard-vigil
https://youtu.be/IitUGOBF9mQ
And this related British newspaper article fills in a few more gaps in the story: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 … over-vigil
The police officer who was convicted for the murder quite rightly got a 'whole life sentence'.
I think, based on this, and Mike's reply to it...
One has to determine if she were protesting (being intimidating) in that zone, can one be in that zone, not protesting?Considering the sensitivities caused by Isabel Vaughan-Spruce actions, if a stranger stood in that zone the locals are going to be hypersensitive and phone the police, and the police are going to challenge you. But if you reassured them, for example - that you were waiting for your partner or friend to have an abortion, and that while waiting you’d gone outside for a bit of fresh air and a smoke I don’t think the police are going to be unduly concerned e.g. a legitimate reason for standing outside an abortion clinic.
But to be fair, anyone anywhere who is loitering is going to raise suspicion, and invariably the police or security guard is going to challenge your presence and intent – I’m sure it’s happened to most of us at some time or another. But how the authorities respond depends on your reactions and what you say when challenged.
A good example of that in the UK is when one guy decided to film on public land just opposite GCHQ. GCHQ being the UKs highly secret ‘Intelligence Service’ (Government Spy Agency); as shown in this video (it’s a bit of a laugh): https://youtu.be/NnIe_rkLdbw
"In my view, why should I support a Social Media site that actively facilitates the spread of material that harms others, or incites others to do harm?"
What is your definition, given the statement here, of what "actively facilitates" the spread of material that you find harmful? Is it simply sitting by and doing nothing? Is it treating every post the same, regardless of content?
Or do you feel these sites are giving such negative posts extra help to be seen, help that other posts do not get? Are the sites putting such posts at the top of a list to spread around?It’s well known that sensational stories, which all too often are embellished with misinformation, disinformation, and fake content, travels much faster across social media (view clicks) than the more mundane, better balanced, mundane (boring) news.
What I mean by “actively facilitates” is as you said “simply sitting by and doing nothing”; when they have a moral and legal duty to weed out the harmful material.This is the same case with print media.
Lots of news come from newspaper syndicates and many of them are as bad a any social media site you mention.Yep, a related forum just started by Tim touches on that issue
Then, misinformation in the media is nothing new. It's been happening for many years. Social media just provides a new forum for an old happening.
Yep, “misinformation in the media is nothing new”; the problem has been around for centuries, and was rife in newspapers in the Victorian era - A prime example is this 19th century newspaper story about a Methodist Preacher in Texas: https://www.nathanville.uk/religion/pau … of-america
Just as biased, political, and misinformative as anything you will find on Social Media these days, for sure.
Then the next step, if "actively" means doing nothing, is to censor...with the question of what to censor up in the air. Certainly "harmful material" depends on who is reading it and even truth does the same.
Who would you suggest for the head censor - government, with it's own agenda and lies?In answer to your questions:
1. What is classified as ‘harmful material’, and therefore illegal in the UK is well defined under EU laws (that existed prior to Brexit) and UK Laws. For example, in 2021 Ofcom defined ‘Hate Speech’ as:-
"all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age."
2. The Regulatory Authority in the UK who enforces such laws is Ofcom.
Ofcom is an ‘independent’ government-approved regulatory authority financed by industry, not the tax payer.
Who is Ofcom and what do they do: https://youtu.be/cdVUr-NrXng
3. As regards the recent Online Safety Act 2024 (which gives Ofcom extensive powers to fine social media platforms up to 10% of their annual global turnover for breaches of the law e.g. for allowing ‘harmful content’) British Newspapers are exempt from the Online Safety Act, as explained below:
During the three months ‘Consultation Period’, prior to the UK Conservative Government introducing the Online Safety Bill to Parliament, British Newspapers submitted a joint statement to the Government asking to be exempted from the Regulations on the grounds of ‘Freedom of the Press’; and in exchanged offered to ‘self-regulate’. The UK Government accepted the British Newspapers representation, so they are exempt from the new law, on the understanding that they will ‘self-regulate’.
Sorry Arthur, for deleting your Twitting account. The truth is that some fake news exists on Twitter. Equally, tangible information exists. More than 5 years ago, I had my account blocked by Nigerian Government. Becavse I dare speak out the truth of a state government not paying pensioners they arrears and gratuity, when the money was released.
Yep, but Twitter doesn’t make it easy for you to distinguish fact from fiction, and there is far too much fiction on Twitter.
I would caution that many social media platforms are not actually sources of "news," but mostly opinions expressed. I think it is important to be informed by weighing in on multiple sources in order to find the truth.
It's like the issue of the border. With the bipartisan bill killed by the Republicans, the way this story is being spun is "Republicans want a secure border but won't pass a bill that does that." The truth is, the bill they can't support does NOT close the border and that's why it is dead.
In order to find the truth and the reasoning for killing the bill, one has to look beyond the headline.The bill essentially just circles back to the same problems we're currently facing at the border. One notable change is that it places more decision-making power on the president to make prudent choices. Additionally, it adds to the already generous invitation for anyone to make their way to our border, with the possibility of being among the 5,000 individuals ushered in on any given day. In my opinion, the bill should have been seen as an insult to anyone who took the time to truly examine its factual offerings. It essentially serves as a postscript to Biden's invitation, offering a guaranteed 1.8 million and a free ticket into America.
I sincerely hope that Americans will pay attention to which legislators supported this bill and vote accordingly when choosing their representatives for Congress in the next election. It's important to also recognize those who didn't support the bill and made efforts to inform the public about its shortcomings, particularly its failure to offer solutions to our border crisis.
Free Speech and the Importance of X
Shrinkflation - Hopefully Biden keeps the genius that came up with shrinkflation, and the video to ensure he got the word out.
I appreciate the freedom of speech afforded by platforms like X, but Joe's recent misstep—seriously, who advised him on that clip?—made me question his judgment. While YouTube took down the comments, X allowed Joe's post and the resulting commentary to remain. It's baffling who suggested Biden create that clip. Social media consistently reflects public opinion on Biden, fueling my optimism for Republican success in 2024. I mean he has very few minions defending him any longer on social media. Really who would have advised Joe to make this clip? Freedom of speech lives on X.
Keep it up, Joe! Build Back Broke!
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1756713597864988940That was actually a decent clip, one I agree with, I along with many have noticed just that, 7oz packages being changed to 6oz, and so on. Same price, same package, smaller amount.
Of course, if that were the biggest problem we were facing today, I am sure his deflection to blame companies for ripping people off would not be concerning.
There are bigger concerns however, his allowing the violence to escalate in the Middle East, how soon before we are again embroiled in a full war effort there?
And then there is Ukraine.
And the growing number of migrants with nothing more than finger-pointing and playing the blame game going on.
For all that people want to complain about Trump, he did do something, despite Congress, the UN, many individual lawsuits, etc. doing everything they could do to block his efforts to control the border.
You have to be willing to ignore a lot of bad policy and bad decisions to think the Biden Administration has done good, or you really must believe in the effort to do away with nation states and create a international corporatocracy that is not beholden to voters or nations... and being a warmonger thinking it is America's job to force other nations to submit to their authority and control wouldn't hurt either.100% agree --- While I'm currently in campaign mode, I must express my frustration with what I perceive to be utter foolishness. From my perspective, America is suffering greatly under Biden and his seemingly irrational agenda. It's disheartening to witness companies resorting to shrinking product sizes to maintain profits amidst rising wages and expenses. I'd rather see smaller bags of chips than witness companies facing bankruptcy and their employees losing their jobs.
Moreover, I find his attempt to divert attention with a political ploy to be utterly ridiculous. He looked so foolish.
Instead of falling for such distractions, I'm focused on managing my monthly expenses and grappling with the consequences of his policies, including the influx of millions of migrants, involvement in two very expensive conflicts, green initiatives, and spending bills that, in my opinion, are detrimental to our economy. Ken, the list goes on...
I find Biden to be a confused human being and an embarrassment. I am hopeful that Congress will remove him from office.
The definition and interpretation of the same law by two diifferent countries differerntly is perplexing. Why should America democracy differ from that of the UK? Why should the principie be interpreted differently? Except that it was Easthern democracy. But it's West!
The woman Spruce shouldn't be in that area she was sighted praying and distributing anti-abortion fliers. And it was clear to note and infer that her actions are a protest. The action is bad in itself. As a Christian, she should render unto Ceaser his dues.
Related Discussions
- 41
TikTok, what gives? What happen to freedom of speech? Assembly?
by Tim Mitchell 8 months ago
"The House of Representatives voted 352-65 on Wednesday for a bill that threatens to ban the social media platform TikTok. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act would ban TikTok from app stores unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance gives up ownership...
- 18
Elon Musk is standing in the way of Global Totalitarianism
by Ken Burgess 8 months ago
Last night, around 8 p.m. local time in São Paulo, Brazil, Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes announced a criminal investigation into Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, for allegedly spreading disinformation, obstructing justice, and allowing people who De Moraes...
- 201
Elon Musk Makes Offer To Buy Twitter And Take It Private
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Elon Musk Offers to buy Twitter for $43 Billion dollarsThe link is a Google search quey. Pick your source for details. The short story is that we are about to see a battle of titans. America's richest man vs. the capital interests involved with Twitter. Musk has offered $43 Billion, and `they' say...
- 19
Free speech and offensive language. And, views differ. Take a peek.
by Tim Mitchell 2 months ago
What is offensive language to you? Is it words or can it be ideas too?What is offensive language in a public setting from a small gathering, on the streets, at the fair, in a classroom, or on the internet - publishing an article, social media, a podcast, or a YouTube?{For example I don't you cuss...
- 18
Hillary Clinton’s Propaganda Remarks Raise Free Speech Concerns
by Sharlee 2 months ago
Photo from Bing Free to use files.I hope my opinion piece will spark meaningful discussion and provide food for thoughtHillary Clinton has recently sparked controversy with comments regarding the potential criminal or civil punishment of Americans spreading propaganda, particularly that connected...
- 32
Should Social Media Have Th Power of Censorship
by ga anderson 4 years ago
In light of the recent Twitter/facebook NY Post censorship controversy, and as a nod to Savvydating's thought about the current power of Social Media, (read; facebook, Twitter, Google), I have some thoughts about the power of our predominate social media networks..But first, these thoughts aren't...