The Political Discussion Thread

[thekillman]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's say I agree.

Look at the bottom of the Gateworld forum main page. Tens of thousands of bots have been banned. This isn't possible without censorship.

Real life has no equivalent for botnets, yet they exist aplenty on the internet.

[aretood2]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's say I agree. We'll have Breitbart or Heritage.org do the moderating.
You're good with that, right? Of course not.

But you want me to be ok with the Internet being moderated by lefties, which A: describes the vast majority of the media outlets and B: are generally the people calling for moderation.

Sorry, not in this lifetime.

It's one thing to run a story that shows Trump or Schumer in a negative light, or even omitting some facts or focusing on one end. But that is not, by definition, "fake". Fake would be making up a story about something that never happened, using testimonies that were never taken, and referring to individual's actions that they never did while knowing that all of these things are factually none-existent and then passing it off as actual news. That's fake news. It is news that is fake, as in nothing about it is real. We aren't talking about censoring Breitbart or keeping Heritage.org from saying that Hispanics are dumber (they actually said that once, wonder if you agree...) but to keep a bunch of greeks and russians from spewing downright lies and spamming social media outlets with them to the point where people with guns by into them and start shooting up random places.

This is an assault on the truth itself, and most people aren't going to look at a item on social media to determine its reliability. You want to live in a world where the most popular lie becomes truth? But then you complain about "mainstream media"...well at least what they say has actual basis in reality. They will disappear behind the greek and russian fake news mill. This isn't about freedom of speech. If the Onion wants to post the craziest things, they can. They just have to be upfront with everyone that they aren't a real news organization but a parody/comedy. Sadly, hundreds if not thousands of sites are just like the onion, except they don't admit that they are no news source and that is just fraud.

[aretood2]

Look at the bottom of the Gateworld forum main page. Tens of thousands of bots have been banned. This isn't possible without censorship.

Real life has no equivalent for botnets, yet they exist aplenty on the internet.

I didn't notice this post, but let me add to this...

Fake news is one thing, but then we also have bots posting comments online where ever there are comments to be posted. The technology exists to say, create thousands of accounts to spam twitter feeds with comments about how horrible Star Wars The Last Jedi was...or to claim to agree/disagree with a political issue. That means manufacturing a majority where none may even exist. That does have an effect on the way people vote. I've seen it in my classes just about every day. When I ask for opinions, I've noticed that some students, or rather a lot, just wait to see what others say and raise their hands to match the majority. I've even played with it by asking similar questions (or the same ones) at another point in time and see who doesn't vote the same way as they have before. This is why polls can't be announced before a certain hour on election days, because the results will influence how people vote or if they even bother to vote.

These bots have gotten so sophisticated, they they can even sign online petitions, create facebook/social media accounts. Like it or not, this does influence perception which will influence people.

[Annoyed]

It's one thing to run a story that shows Trump or Schumer in a negative light, or even omitting some facts or focusing on one end. But that is not, by definition, "fake". Fake would be making up a story about something that never happened, using testimonies that were never taken, and referring to individual's actions that they never did while knowing that all of these things are factually none-existent and then passing it off as actual news. That's fake news. It is news that is fake, as in nothing about it is real. We aren't talking about censoring Breitbart or keeping Heritage.org from saying that Hispanics are dumber (they actually said that once, wonder if you agree...) but to keep a bunch of greeks and russians from spewing downright lies and spamming social media outlets with them to the point where people with guns by into them and start shooting up random places.

This is an assault on the truth itself, and most people aren't going to look at a item on social media to determine its reliability. You want to live in a world where the most popular lie becomes truth? But then you complain about "mainstream media"...well at least what they say has actual basis in reality. They will disappear behind the greek and russian fake news mill. This isn't about freedom of speech. If the Onion wants to post the craziest things, they can. They just have to be upfront with everyone that they aren't a real news organization but a parody/comedy. Sadly, hundreds if not thousands of sites are just like the onion, except they don't admit that they are no news source and that is just fraud.

My main point is that I don't want to see any censorship because no matter who you get to do the censoring, they're gonna have biases. I just used the examples of Breitbart and Heritage as a way to say "Ok, let's have the censoring done by someone you (thekillman) disagree with and we'll see if it's acceptable to you", as opposed to the vast majority of people who want to censor the 'net to mark fake news or whatever being left-biased. It's easy to advocate censorship when the censors are on your side of the political fence. How would he like it if they were on the opposite side?

[Falcon Horus]

Trump is trying to channel Bush and Obama in one...except he lacks the moral high ground they had.

I'm afraid he lacks more than that, a lot, lot, lot more...

You play with your hats all you want. But is it or is it not true that a police state or authoritarian state of any flavor controls the media, very early on?

Ask Trump, he's been trying his very best at being a first class authoritarian but Kim Jong-Un won't reveal his secrets to him. Erdogan's busy. Putin's been dissappointed and Duterte... well, he's got bigger fish to fry.

Secondly, your president routinely slams and smears US media for daring to report on what he says, and calls his own words fake news. It's clear that if it were up to trump, the White House would be the only source of news. Or have you forgotten the "alternative facts".

He's the only real news -- everything else is FAKE. And Fox & Friends, real too.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's say I agree. We'll have Breitbart or Heritage.org do the moderating.
You're good with that, right? Of course not.

LOL!!

Breitbart is known for posting fake articles, or articles that have absolute no basis on many occasions. They wouldn't know the difference between real and fake news if it bit them in the nose. And Heritage.org has a rather negative reputation when it comes to using credible information or sources.

Yup, those would do nicely. You'd be spouting the same amount of nonsense that can be read in SGAlisa's occasionally hilarious posts (I didn't even finish the Meghan commentary -- my goodness, woman, you hit some serious coo-coo level there).

But you want me to be ok with the Internet being moderated by lefties, which A: describes the vast majority of the media outlets and B: are generally the people calling for moderation.

That's the problem you dombo, the internet isn't regulated.

But not to worry, the US has just voted to take net neutrality off your interwebz. I'm sure you'll soon be seeing what your provider wants you to see, and nothing else. If you're in luck, you might be served with Breitbart and Heritage nonsense.

Do you deny that politics has a great deal to do with fake news and the accusations of it?

Trump thinks it's all fake.

My main point is that I don't want to see any censorship because no matter who you get to do the censoring, they're gonna have biases. I just used the examples of Breitbart and Heritage as a way to say "Ok, let's have the censoring done by someone you (thekillman) disagree with and we'll see if it's acceptable to you", as opposed to the vast majority of people who want to censor the 'net to mark fake news or whatever being left-biased. It's easy to advocate censorship when the censors are on your side of the political fence. How would he like it if they were on the opposite side?

Oh damn.... net neutrality man... I'm so sorry.

[mad_gater]

I'm afraid he lacks more than that, a lot, lot, lot more...



Ask Trump, he's been trying his very best at being a first class authoritarian but Kim Jong-Un won't reveal his secrets to him. Erdogan's busy. Putin's been dissappointed and Duterte... well, he's got bigger fish to fry.



He's the only real news -- everything else is FAKE. And Fox & Friends, real too.



LOL!!

Breitbart is known for posting fake articles, or articles that have absolute no basis on many occasions. They wouldn't know the difference between real and fake news if it bit them in the nose. And Heritage.org has a rather negative reputation when it comes to using credible information or sources.

Yup, those would do nicely. You'd be spouting the same amount of nonsense that can be read in SGAlisa's occasionally hilarious posts (I didn't even finish the Meghan commentary -- my goodness, woman, you hit some serious coo-coo level there).



That's the problem you dombo, the internet isn't regulated.

But not to worry, the US has just voted to take net neutrality off your interwebz. I'm sure you'll soon be seeing what your provider wants you to see, and nothing else. If you're in luck, you might be served with Breitbart and Heritage nonsense.



Trump thinks it's all fake.



Oh damn.... net neutrality man... I'm so sorry.

about Trump thinking it's all fake...I might be inclined to agree with him on that score...these days it seems to me like all major media outlets operate more like a 3-ring circus than as entities charged with reporting facts and truth

[SGalisa]

Secondly, your president routinely slams and smears US media for daring to report on what he says, and calls his own words fake news. It's clear that if it were up to trump, the White House would be the only source of news. Or have you forgotten the "alternative facts".

He's the only real news -- everything else is FAKE. And Fox & Friends, real too.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let's say I agree. We'll have Breitbart or Heritage.org do the moderating.
You're good with that, right? Of course not.

LOL!!

Breitbart is known for posting fake articles, or articles that have absolute no basis on many occasions. They wouldn't know the difference between real and fake news if it bit them in the nose. And Heritage.org has a rather negative reputation when it comes to using credible information or sources.

Yup, those would do nicely. You'd be spouting the same amount of nonsense that can be read in SGAlisa's occasionally hilarious posts (I didn't even finish the Meghan commentary -- my goodness, woman, you hit some serious coo-coo level there).

How'd I guess, you'd single me out even in passing...?
Here, I was desperately trying not to drag anyone on this forum topic typically ranting off about me, but you (FH) just *had* to mention my GW name...

Anywho...
What part of the Meghan / Prince Harry news was so coo-coo? The spoiler bracket? If yes, Prince Harry did say that about believing the world would be better off if 80% of the current (human) population got wiped out. It was a few years ago (before I ever heard of Meghan's name). Internet article was either recycled and archived or got removed. I've tried to relocate it again at least 3 times since it vanished. Prince Harry may have said it in a meeting (don't remember if it was just a casual or major event..) or his message got caught (heard) somewhere on a you-tube video. I remember seeing it (the news about this), but didn't pursue it, because what I read just angered me. He was supporting or promoting Al Gore's global "climate change" issues. It surfaced somewhere around when the Al-Qaeda was popping up in the news with threatening messages (again) or the Islamic State was just beginning to purge out a lot of folks in the Middle East. I don't remember if the Climate and AQ-I.S. stories were connected in that Prince Harry commentary blurb, either.


Oh, btw, in other news... Newsweek posted an article about
"Clinton Donor Gave $500,000 to Fund Trump Sexual Misconduct Accusers"
By Marie Solis, On 01/01/2018 at 9:05 AM (posted in Newsweek, U.S. Edition)
(above article may require a subscription to access)

As I recall wayyyyyyyy back whenever Donald Trump's wild past first popped up as major news on this forum----
Back in those days/months, many people (elsewhere on the internet) were commenting that Trump was being set up to fall (lose votes) or be "impeached" for misconduct behavior that happened in his past...

So, NOW the above article is apparently Not fake news... it got caught and the New York Times on 12/31/2017 posted something about it, too. Amazing they both (finally?) decided to tell the truth about Clinton workers deliberately setting Donald Trump up for misconduct. People on other forums have also been saying for months now that they believe the whole parade of Democrats and whoever else are suddenly resigning for behaviors actually committed (physically against others) are being allowed to continue to someday nail Donald Trump into a corner and force him to be impeached or resign, as well.


I get frequent feeds (from my own family members!!) on my Facebook page about demanding President Trump to be impeached... Just when I thought the postings were done and kaput, more keep popping up! It's a continuous war zone on there (in social media). And Facebook supports and seems to side with negative Trump stuff (doesn't matter which "Trump" persona either). There's always pro Michelle Obama and trash Melania at every new topic posted. Bots or people? And who or what force(s) is(are) behind those trashy messages anyway? This nonsense stuff is getting beyond frustrating.

I didn't notice this post, but let me add to this...

Fake news is one thing, but then we also have bots posting comments online where ever there are comments to be posted. The technology exists to say, create thousands of accounts to spam twitter feeds with comments about how horrible Star Wars The Last Jedi was...or to claim to agree/disagree with a political issue. That means manufacturing a majority where none may even exist...

These bots have gotten so sophisticated, they they can even sign online petitions, create facebook/social media accounts. Like it or not, this does influence perception which will influence people.

Question... what or *who* are the bots? Real people or just jumbled computer robots talking with each other and generated by real people or some other method? That's where the lines of info blur. No one can really know what is the truth any more when the internet is swarming with a bunch of bots. I know some sites require human interaction to actually READ what a bot cannot when a code pops up requiring it to be deciphered... and #1 vs. the letters i or I or l (lower case L), and 0 vs. O are sometimes really challenging to figure out. I hate guessing incorrectly whenever those letters/#'s pop up...! Policy numbers or Order #'s on computer cards are just as annoying to note, too, because of a particular font and style... grrrrrrrr.

[Gatefan1976]

can I have some of your drugs?

[Ian-S]

I am aware that that article refers to the UK. I hope their population doesn't swallow this nonsense.

I don't care where it is, the govt. should not be allowed to levy penalties for published/broadcast content aside from the customary prohibitions regarding obscenity. The govt. should not control speech.

We don't and have never had any rights to freedom of speech, the closest we get is freedom of expression as laid down in article 10 of the European convention on human rights, but this has so many uk specific sub clauses that just about anything said in public about another race, religion or sex can be twisted into racism, sexism or homophobia by the offended party unless worded very, very carefully. Even just questioning the number of Jews killed by the Nazi's in the wrong place is enough to get you jail time.

It's part of the reason why the Far Right is on the rise all over Europe, if only the Far Left stopped for a second and considered whether it was a really good idea to censor or shout down anybody they don't agree with, maybe they'd realise that their own actions are contributing to it and if they stopped dictating what people can call other things it might kill the rise of the Far Right dead in its tracks and lead to a more self policing society rather than the Police State it's heading to.

But if you've ever tried to point out to a mollycoddling loony leftie where they might be wrong, you'd know you've got more chance of buying rocking horse **** from the organic farmers market in town than that.

[LtColCarter]

LOL...too funny!

[Gatefan1976]

pissing match anyone?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...55557022420992

[aretood2]

My main point is that I don't want to see any censorship because no matter who you get to do the censoring, they're gonna have biases. I just used the examples of Breitbart and Heritage as a way to say "Ok, let's have the censoring done by someone you (thekillman) disagree with and we'll see if it's acceptable to you", as opposed to the vast majority of people who want to censor the 'net to mark fake news or whatever being left-biased. It's easy to advocate censorship when the censors are on your side of the political fence. How would he like it if they were on the opposite side?

Annoyed, where did I advocate censorship? Quote it please.

pissing match anyone?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...55557022420992

Does Trump and his fanclub really think that the Chinese and Russians would just sit back and do nothing in response to the use of Nukes? The number one rule of nuclear warfare is to not actually push the little red button.

[Annoyed]

Annoyed, where did I advocate censorship? Quote it please.

It's one thing to run a story that shows Trump or Schumer in a negative light, or even omitting some facts or focusing on one end. But that is not, by definition, "fake". Fake would be making up a story about something that never happened, using testimonies that were never taken, and referring to individual's actions that they never did while knowing that all of these things are factually none-existent and then passing it off as actual news. That's fake news. It is news that is fake, as in nothing about it is real. We aren't talking about censoring Breitbart or keeping Heritage.org from saying that Hispanics are dumber (they actually said that once, wonder if you agree...) but to keep a bunch of greeks and russians from spewing downright lies and spamming social media outlets with them to the point where people with guns by into them and start shooting up random places.

From your post, it appears clear that you think that social networks like Facebook should remove content. For content such as what I bolded, yea, I don't care if they remove that specific content.

But on a deeper level, I don't trust censorship, period. Today they want to block Greek and Russian spammers. What will they want to block 3 years from now? 4 year? 15? Once the precedent is established and all that jazz.

Better to not let the precedent get established.

[jelgate]

Annoyed, where did I advocate censorship? Quote it please.



Does Trump and his fanclub really think that the Chinese and Russians would just sit back and do nothing in response to the use of Nukes? The number one rule of nuclear warfare is to not actually push the little red button.

Foreign policy and diplomacy isn't really Trump's speciality

[Who Knows]

I think Trump is a windbag.
America 'supected' Iraq had WMDs & invaded the country, but found nothing.
North Korea is openly flouting their WMDs & all Trump is doing is making threats to push buttons.
Why has America not invaded North Korea?
Could it be America has no financial assets (oil) to protect?