Twitter Censures

https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/11/undercover-video-twitter-engineers-to-ban-a-way-of-talking-through-shadow-banning-algorithms-to-censor-opposing-political-opinions/ 
...
first amendment violation ????
The challenge is that the 1st amendment protects individuals from the government censure, but does not say what others like corporations or businesses can do or left-wing spies!

More on the twitter/google culture – http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/01/12/twitter-leaker-hollywood-celebs-hate-speech-violence/ 

Google keeps tampons in their men’s restrooms as a matter of policy, because “some men menstruate.” More recently, James Damore’s lawsuit against Google revealed that the company allowed someone who “identifies” as a “yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin” give a presentation on “living as a plural being.”

Comments


It’s not going to ban the mindset, it’s going to ban, like, a way of talking.


I would think you would be all for this … it’s exactly what you do here to me as you censor my #LOA based talking. It doesn’t ban any specific ideas, just how people present them. Makes people talk, and thus think, more alike. 

Hence I wouldn’t really see this as a 1st amendment violation, but I would see it as a Christ Vector violation.  

I don’t censure anything – I tell you when you are WRONG!

Well that’s WRONG. You ought to see what shows up under “My Orphan Comments” over in group live gear that you have deliberately censored from your thoughts. There are literally hundreds of things! (and that list does not include comments you have hidden either … which are many more)

Apparently the designers built in functions so that YOU CAN’T GRAFFITI everything I say.  The above had nothing to do with the project veritas discovery of political censorship (twitter people) censoring posts.

Yes it does. You specifically asked if this is a 1st amendment violation and I replied

Hence I wouldn’t really see this as a 1st amendment violation, but I would see it as a Christ Vector violation. 

… along with the explanation of why citing the passing in the article that applies. No one could ask for a better contented response than that.

You just doin’t like it because I talk about things you don’t want to hear about. i.e. you want to censor how things are talked about … just like Twitter.

Predictable #Bullshit – over & over .  It’s simple don’t run your #Bullshit on my posts.  Run them & your mind on your own XOR maybe go over to twitter where #Bullshit is the norm.

I don’t graffiti. I interactively communicate and give intelligent responses to your questions. If you don’t like my response, you don’t have to shit on it … it’s the shitting on that brings the #OOB content.

Respond to what makes you feel good. You don’t have to respond to anything that doesn’t … and just because it doesn’t make you feel good does not mean it is graffiti.

Like I said “Run your own mind any way you want”  You can call your arguments anything you like – e.g. null-love notes.  But, remember that is only in your own mind. If you leave them on my stuff & they are way off-topic like your typical #Bullshit & on my posts, I will do with them what I would do with any graffiti & unk’em .

I really don’t mind if you hide all the rest of the comments as they are #OOB anyway.

I only mind about Twitter Censures (comment 83362) because that is a valid response to the question you posed and I took the time to go read the article to discover that information so that I could thoughtfully provide an answer. I would appreciate it if that comment stays. It is my honest opinion and finding about the article and it is well presented.

Asserting your own validity repeatedly is useless to others outside your mind, but probably necessary for YOU to maintain your ego-vector. null

It’s an opinion. The only quality that can be judged about it is the way it is presented. And that’s my whole point in a nutshell.

Like they say about opinions: “OPINIONS are like ASSHOLES – everybody has one!”
null

Yes, and are not opinions what you are looking for when you present information and pose questions about it? Or are you only looking for assholes that look just like your own?

I conditionally disagree with the meme. In well balanced communication you have the right to present your own alternative opinion or disagree along with an explanation. Just dumping on by saying “your opinion is stupid” is not productive. Anyone can do that, but being able to does not make it useful and does not foster creative sharing of information.

XOR none of the above.null Mostly I post things to remind me of something I might visit again later. I use it as a Cybermind. Conversations in the style of Socratic Dialogue would help avoid knee-jerk-RWG-form-Graffiti that shows up a lot from nathan & Seth occasionally. Seth at least tries – just needs a little bit more command of English & a little less abstraction.

The outcome of the [socratic] dialogue is that Socrates demonstrates that the other person’s views are inconsistent. In this way Socrates tries to show the way to real wisdom.

… and this is exactly what I do all the time. You are very inconsistent with your dialog. I attempt to show that constantly. That is the main thrust of all the #OOB conversation on this thought. I have a very well formed and consistent #LOA mindset. It is easy for me to present ideas about reality in a consistent and well thought manner, not to mention that all that I present can be tested independently, no faith required.

My dialog is about as socratic as it can get. Yours is not necessarly Platonic, rather I don’t know what to call it other than adversarial. You just dump on things you don’t like without consistency sans the dumping itself.

ZZzz…...

Well, if you want socratic dialog then please join me in it. That is what I want too.

If all you want to do is demonstrate your unavoidable right to call people stupid (and meme it) … I don’t.

Same old boring #TuQuoque  ZZzz…...