Social media censorship roundup

[Griff]

Just put a disclaimer in your byline, I'd hate to catch you chatting on Facebook regularly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later

Knock it off, you can't take your ball and go home, you are home.
The primary reason I gave up being a mod is people put implied authority to my statements unlike every other swinging dick, and that was a drag.
You don't have that option, until people grasp that you can be told to fuck off like everyone else it's your albatross.

[Flint]

This is stupid. Nobody thinks you're the Cellar.

You've got a strong personality, well-formed opinions, and you put yourself out there to take a lot of heat on difficult positions. That's all you, baby.

We wouldn't have it any other way.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who decides what is disinformation and/or harmful?

Which leaves you and Facebook in a difficult situation. I don't believe Facebook ever bothered to address that question until it became glaringly obvious that there reputation (and more important, proftis) was as stake. I believe their guidelines were ad hoc - after the fact - too late.

Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.

Yes, plans completely break down with first conflict. But the fewer who have plans are more easily able to adapt to changing conditions and unexpected events. Do any good guidelines or examples exist from which one might construct such a framework?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Did you ever sit down to write out a doctrine or benchmark a structure? A framework to decide what is acceptable verses what is 'yelling fire in a theater'? I don't believe many people in your position do that.

I feel like he has.

There are only THREE rules of The Cellar.

Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.
Do not try to break the Cellar.
Do not be "intolerably irritating".

[Happy Monkey]

The last one is censorship by this thread's standards, and I've disagreed with several cases of its use, but do not disagree with the necessity of the rule or UT's (or designated mods) right to enforce it.

[Clodfobble]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...LI1bOd0aFd5jHw


Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.

[Griff]

Wow.



I'm not cool with UT self-censoring on this and other issues. We need his unique voice here.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Evidently you did when you censored Henry.

Yeah, about that...

Toad didn't censor me: I took myself out of the discussion.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well if every time I talk, I'm talking on behalf of the Cellar, instead of just conversationally, I'll do my conversational talking elsewhere.

See y'all later

If you took yourself out on my account: you ought to reconsider.

[fargon]

It wouldn't be the cellar with out Undertoad.

[Griff]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/polit...nREzWXNiWWZCmM

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets "potentially misleading."

The draft executive order being prepared by the Trump administration tests the boundaries of the White House's authority. In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits.

[BigV]

Ok, let's talk about this.

Trump just wants a fight. Fights attract attention, aka his oxygen. The reason for the fight is to gain attention. Winning this fight is irrelevant and unlikely. It's more ammunition for his Endless War of Aggrievement. Like any old blunderbuss, it doesn't matter what you stuff down the barrel, the hot air will shoot it out. And if there's one thing he has a superabundance of is hot air.

There's no First Amendment argument here, no sane person will say there is. He just wants to distract our attention from his abject failure as a good leader, or even as a good person. It will resonate with those who also feel aggrieved and entitled.

[Griff]

You are right about this. The current state of the Supreme Court gives me pause but Roberts isn't a loon.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...LI1bOd0aFd5jHw


Jeremy Corbyn's own party deceived him into thinking they were running the ads he wanted to run, by micro-targeting the Facebook campaign to be seen by, essentially, only him and those closest to him. The rest of the population was seeing different ads.

.....I suggested a while back the white house staff should do this with T-Rump's Shitter account.....