The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

basically they say they paid her $130000 for an affair she didn't have with Trump

btw I didn't sleep with Trump either where's my $130000?

I'm waiting to see how Annoyed will explain this.

[Annoyed]

How about fraud laws? Or the fact that they are government agents, not private civilians?

Are there laws requiring people to post their real names/identities on social networking sites?

Is your real name aretood2?

[thekillman]

Exactly how are they going to interfere? By attempting to alter public opinion through media? In a country where free speech is a cherished right (although the left is continually trying to limit it) how would you propose to stop them? Ban social media? Or require some sort of government license to use it?

Social media algorithms are easy to game, and the russians figured out long ago that the best propaganda is just a long list of BS to the point checking the facts is impossible. I've seen how it works with MH17, where the claims went from probable (separatists did it) to the completely insane (people onboard were already dead, so technically the attack didn't kill anyone). Drown the real news in BS, and nobody can be sure or trust anything. You say that people should make up their own mind based on facts, but that has the achilles heel that people need to see facts. Drown the facts in bull****, and you inevitably win over people.

Hell, with the Vegas shooting, the top results on google were all conspiracy theories and not actual facts. All it takes is to sow doubt, and that's easier than ever. Add that most people only read the headlines most of the time, and you can pretty much write a fake news script, push it to a couple of thousand Twitter bots and ride the algorithm to every front page.

There are no easy answers for this, but it's fairly clear that the trolls are winning. But as i pointed out before, and as you thoroughly ignored before, content control is fundamental to the internet.

[Annoyed]

Social media algorithms are easy to game, and the russians figured out long ago that the best propaganda is just a long list of BS to the point checking the facts is impossible. I've seen how it works with MH17, where the claims went from probable (separatists did it) to the completely insane (people onboard were already dead, so technically the attack didn't kill anyone). Drown the real news in BS, and nobody can be sure or trust anything. You say that people should make up their own mind based on facts, but that has the achilles heel that people need to see facts. Drown the facts in bull****, and you inevitably win over people.

Hell, with the Vegas shooting, the top results on google were all conspiracy theories and not actual facts. All it takes is to sow doubt, and that's easier than ever. Add that most people only read the headlines most of the time, and you can pretty much write a fake news script, push it to a couple of thousand Twitter bots and ride the algorithm to every front page.

There are no easy answers for this, but it's fairly clear that the trolls are winning. But as i pointed out before, and as you thoroughly ignored before, content control is fundamental to the internet.

But content control flies in the face of free speech. Who decides what is allowed?

How about this? All social media posts must be approved by Heritage, Breitbart or some other organization whose views you disagree with?

[jelgate]

*insert another not everything is political comment #47*

[Annoyed]

*insert another not everything is political comment #47*

If that is the case, then why does nearly if not every instance of exercising "content control" mean stifling views from the right? For example, a few weeks back, Twitter banned what they claimed were conservative "bots". Why not ban liberal "bots" ? Surely they exist too.

If it's not a political issue, then why the difference in how the two sides are treated?

thekillman favors censorship or "content control" to use his words of the Internet. But it is always the lefties that want to do the censoring. What's wrong with using righties as the censors? After all, it's ok if the lefties are doing the censoring, which is what everyone advocates.

[jelgate]

*insert Annoyed conspiracy theory comment # 63*

[thekillman]

thekillman favors censorship or "content control" to use his words of the Internet. But it is always the lefties that want to do the censoring. What's wrong with using righties as the censors? After all, it's ok if the lefties are doing the censoring, which is what everyone advocates.

Do you even understand how Google, Twitter, and Facebook work? because i don't think you do.

A trending topic is in itself content control. It's just a piece of code checking what's popular. But that can be gamed: make 15 000 bot accounts, have them all post "#carrots" and #carrots is trending. Then, everyone in the entire country will see #carrots in their trending list. Now replace that with, oh i don't know BS theories like #pizzagate and now some bull**** alt-right theory is suddenly on everyone's front page.

Google in itself IS content control. It's how the thing works, without it it wouldn't even work. You like conspiracy theories? Well, then google will link more. Facts? It doesn't give a damn about what's factual, just about what people typed in previous. Yet, as i pointed out before, this ALSO can be gamed. Get a few thousand bots to all google conspiracy BS, then make them click the conspiracy links. great, you just trained Google's AI to display more crap.

Facebook in itself is content control. Like posts by ObviouslyRussianTroll? here's a feed from Putin4Evr and TotallyNotSpies.

That's how it works. That's how the internet works. You don't need to censor a thing, just drown out the truth with fake news. It's also working, which is the sad thing.

Here, have a rightwing guy explain it to you:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...olls-for-trump
People actively try to game the algorithms to get their crackpot theories in the news.

It even mentions reddit, which is also was a hub for pedophiles until they banned them, a hub for bestiality before they banned them, and other crap. Do you think pedophiles should be freely able to share their porn, never to be taken down? Should gateworld allow people to post videos of people ****ing horses? Because that is ALSO content control. Never see anyone complain about lack of child porn on this site.

[Annoyed]

Just because there is a new medium in place doesn't mean it should be censored.

40 years ago people talked over the back fence, in the shopping centers, and where ever they gathered. Or they called you on the phone.
If your neighbor or some one at a supermarket started talking about something you didn't want to hear, you walked away or ignored it. If someone called you on the phone, you hung up on them. If it was on TV, you changed the channel.

A new communications medium doesn't justify censorship, it just means that the people have to learn to use it, just as you had to learn to hang up on the telemarketer or turn the channel.

Or is it that they're not tuning the message out when you or someone else thinks they should?

[SoulReaver]

thekillman favors censorship or "content control" to use his words of the Internet. But it is always the lefties that want to do the censoring.

cept - among other things - when the SS I mean SchutzStaffel damn I mean Secret Service questioned Kathy Griffin for using her 1st amendment rights (those coward scumbags even got her fired from CNN)

[Coco Pops]

cept - among other things - when the SS I mean SchutzStaffel damn I mean Secret Service questioned Kathy Griffin for using her 1st amendment rights (those coward scumbags even got her fired from CNN)

Because how dare she do a comedy skit with a fake head....

Now had that been Obama's head everyone would not complain

[thekillman]

Just because there is a new medium in place doesn't mean it should be censored.If someone called you on the phone, you hung up on them. If it was on TV, you changed the channel.

This analogy just shows you have no clue how it works, and refuse to understand how it works.

Facebook is more than a phone or TV. it's the TV company determining your TV package and the channel numbering, while giving you 1 million channels to ensure you'll never find quality TV on your own. It's your phone company managing your contact books. It's your taxi driver suggesting your destination. Any bias you have is preserved in the system, except that people can also easily game these systems to ensure that their brand of BS is now channel 1.

You don't get 2000 automated calls from telemarketers. In fact, there's a mandatory-by-law no-call list. Don't see anyone whine about censorship there. Your TV doesn't switch to child porn. If your neighbor in the supermarket runs around naked, he's in jail in no time.

Why then, should it be allowed to show child porn on the internet? Why should it be allowed to spam people on the internet? Removing that is censorship too. Hell, throwing people in jail for public indecency is censorship. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

[Annoyed]

This analogy just shows you have no clue how it works, and refuse to understand how it works.

Facebook is more than a phone or TV. it's the TV company determining your TV package and the channel numbering, while giving you 1 million channels to ensure you'll never find quality TV on your own. It's your phone company managing your contact books. It's your taxi driver suggesting your destination. Any bias you have is preserved in the system, except that people can also easily game these systems to ensure that their brand of BS is now channel 1.

You don't get 2000 automated calls from telemarketers. In fact, there's a mandatory-by-law no-call list. Don't see anyone whine about censorship there. Your TV doesn't switch to child porn. If your neighbor in the supermarket runs around naked, he's in jail in no time.

Why then, should it be allowed to show child porn on the internet? Why should it be allowed to spam people on the internet? Removing that is censorship too. Hell, throwing people in jail for public indecency is censorship. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

You can still tune whatever you want on that TV channel. You can tell the taxi driver to stuff it and take you where you want to go. You can still talk to whoever you want of the phone. I certainly don't pay any attention whatsoever to FB's suggestions (advertisements)

And you thinking that the Do Not Call registry makes any difference at all. The telemarketing industry is alive and well, unfortunately.

And I'm not going to lower myself to "there should be child porn on the internet" You know better than that.
[edit]
And you still haven't answered the question of who does the editing? Who decides what is accurate enough to be allowed?

Unless you agree that it should be heritage, breitbart or some other right wing group, your bias and real goal of censoring the 'net is showing.

[Falcon Horus]

Kim's been winning well before Trump. He never offered surrendering his nuclear weapons before though.

Like he's going to give those up...

Everyone knows William Henry Harrison was the worst president ever

Correction, that honor now goes to Trump.

[LtColCarter]

*insert another not everything is political comment #47*

*insert Annoyed conspiracy theory comment # 63*

And all of his conspiracy theories are rooted in a "liberal agenda" that he concocted in his head.