What Did Big Tech Censor Today Thread

[Phase2]

It seems like almost every day, I'm seeing one or more reports of some individual or group (primarily, but not exclusively conservatives) being unilaterally hobbled by the major tech platforms.

Just in the last 24 hours:

• Donald Trump has had over a dozen tweets censored or given "disclaimers" including this, this and this.
• Facebook Shuts Down Massive ‘Stop the Steal’ Group
• Facebook Has Taken Down the International Shooting Sports Federation’s Page
• GoFundMe has deleted a fund drive to gather funds to perform Voter Fraud Detection for the 2020 election in 7 states by comparing voter roles to death records and move records. It had raised $220K of $250K in less than 24hrs before the fund was nuked. Now dead link.

 

[NKBJ]

Listening to news organizations that actually talk about it, the shutdown is quickening as was spoken of years ago.
No surprises.

 

[fullauto 45]

I'm blocked for 7 days on Facistbook for saying "Stop counting dead votes and illegals and send Dementia Joe and the hoe home."

 

[Leadeye]

Big tech is now religion, taking the position the institution once held and turning back the clock to the middle ages. Non believers are apostates, heretics, Lollards and Cathars.

 

[Phase2]

Mark Levin announced three days ago that he was using Facebook strictly as a secondary distribution source due to the quantity of censorship he's had to deal with.
'Enough is enough': Mark Levin says he 'won't be looking at' 'dinosaur' Facebook anymore

Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo is leaving Twitter: https://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1324872991688286209

Looks like the GoFundMe for voter fraud analysis I mentioned in the first post has already been moved to another platform. You can read about it here.

 

[indyartisan]

I did not receive one email from Sunday to Wednesday.
Thursday I received 15 and 22 today.
I thought that was a little strange.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Stop the steal (I think ) created a second group. Tonight according to Facebook, a hacker changed the name of the group to "gay communists for socialism", changed the banner pic, etc. Facebook admitted they were hacked, but told them they had to wait 30 days like everybody else does when a group is changed voluntarily.

You know damn good and well if it were a leftist page they'd manually change it back, ban the IP of the "hacker", and arrange to have Putin send Spetsnaz troops to raid the home of the hacker.

But in this case,. they dont like the page so they feign any ability to do anything.

 

[marvin02]

It's amazing how many people think that Twitter, Facebook, or any other internet platform has to allow free speech. Every one, including this forum, sets their own rules. You want to take advantage of the infrastructure they have built you play by their rules or build your own platform. Don't like their rules play in another sandbox.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It's amazing how many people think that Twitter, Facebook, or any other internet platform has to allow free speech. Every one, including this forum, sets their own rules. You want to take advantage of the infrastructure they have built you play by their rules or build your own platform. Don't like their rules play in another sandbox.

Interesting point of discussion/devil's advocate. Yes, 1A only applies to .gov and the public square. But what happens when the public square effectively dies and migrates to the local ale house because the public square effectively no longer exists, nobody is going to the square, and the ale house becomes the defacto public square where the majority of the town has its debates and discussions? And in this case the owner of the house ENCOURAGES the town to come and interact, so its absolutely positively NO accident that the town square is now disused.

I think that latter point is the big difference. Its one thing for the local pub owner to tell his clients who happen to be there to drink to STFU so that patrons can enjoy a calm pint. Its another when the owner encourages people to come and exchange ideas.

 

[marvin02]

Interesting point of discussion/devil's advocate. Yes, 1A only applies to .gov and the public square. But what happens when the public square effectively dies and migrates to the local ale house because the public square effectively no longer exists, nobody is going to the square, and the ale house becomes the defacto public square where the majority of the town has its debates and discussions? And in this case the owner of the house ENCOURAGES the town to come and interact, so its absolutely positively NO accident that the town square is now disused.

I think that latter point is the big difference. Its one thing for the local pub owner to tell his clients who happen to be there to drink to STFU so that patrons can enjoy a calm pint. Its another when the owner encourages people to come and exchange ideas.

I would think it depends on the local bar owners terms of service and if the TOS were legal. Like most companies/businesses the internet platforms really are only in business to make money, if they can use their platform to influence the political world in their favor so that they can maximize their profits, they will. They are slick at making sure that their rules are set so that the predominate viewpoint of their "users" pushes their own agenda. If you are not is step with the group think you are in trouble.

 

[Nevermore]

It's amazing how many people think that Twitter, Facebook, or any other internet platform has to allow free speech. Every one, including this forum, sets their own rules. You want to take advantage of the infrastructure they have built you play by their rules or build your own platform. Don't like their rules play in another sandbox.

Not really free speech, but more that if they're going to be this ban-happy then they must be made open to the legal consequences thereof. They can't have it both ways: Free speech and legal protection as if they were merely running a chat service while also banning any point they wish. If a newspaper publishes "WE NEED TO KILL THE JEWS BECAUSE THEY POISON THE WELLS" they can be sued for inciting violence, and/or for libel. Facebook et. al pretend to only be a market square, so to speak, where they can't be held liable for speech such as the above. This is nonsense when it becomes obvious that they act instead as a willful publisher/curator of content when it comes to the posts on their site.

 

[Phase2]

Today in big tech censorship:

Twitter Blacklists Angel Families Days After Presidential Election- People who were victimized by illegal aliens are now being locked out by Twitter.

In related news: Parler (a Twitter competitor) is now the #1 most downloaded app for iPhone.

 

[Gabriel]

In related news: Parler (a Twitter competitor) is now the #1 most downloaded app for iPhone.

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of Facebook posts about moving to Parler. I'm not on the Twitters, so I'm not sure how that works.

 

[wtburnette]

Not really free speech, but more that if they're going to be this ban-happy then they must be made open to the legal consequences thereof. They can't have it both ways: Free speech and legal protection as if they were merely running a chat service while also banning any point they wish. If a newspaper publishes "WE NEED TO KILL THE JEWS BECAUSE THEY POISON THE WELLS" they can be sued for inciting violence, and/or for libel. Facebook et. al pretend to only be a market square, so to speak, where they can't be held liable for speech such as the above. This is nonsense when it becomes obvious that they act instead as a willful publisher/curator of content when it comes to the posts on their site.

Yep. Sad that people don't understand this. Yes, they are a business and choose to filter what they want, as long as they don't mind having their protections against lawsuits removed. That's the outcome that I'm hoping for, but it'll never happen under sniff and blow.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Today in big tech censorship:

Twitter Blacklists Angel Families Days After Presidential Election- People who were victimized by illegal aliens are now being locked out by Twitter.

In related news: Parler (a Twitter competitor) is now the #1 most downloaded app for iPhone.

Since the Democrats have determined that all manner of violence is protected "peaceful" protest, it sounds to me like some folks need to go to Twitter and have a building barbecue.

 

[Phase2]

For part 1 of Today in Tech Censorship (there will likely be more) about analyzing voting patterns this election:

GOING ALL OUT TO STOP THE SIGNAL: Last night Facebook wouldn’t let me post this link on Biden’s votes and Benford’s Law. It just didn’t work. They blocked the Bit.ly version too. Now several people report that trying to post it produces a claim that it’s blocked for “adult sexual exploitation,” which it has nothing to do with.

Edit: Don't try posting that link on Twitter. Several people are reporting that their accounts get locked when they tried it.

 

[Phase2]

In part 2 of Today in Tech Censorship, Instagram has shut down Recover Tactical's (firearm accessories) page.

 

[Phase2]

There are many ways to censor and manipulate. Some are blatant, such as banning based on vague and unevenly applied terms-of-service violations, forcing contradictory "disclaimers" onto your content, shadow banning (not referring people who have explicitly subscribed for info), etc.

Search engines have their own censorship and manipulation tools, such as the following. Breitbart tends to be critical of Biden, but Google stopped sending *any* search results meaning the people would not get both sides of the story.

Bottom line: Don't use Google if you want an unbiased search.

 

[drillsgt]

I wonder if Elizabeth Warren still wants to lead the charge to reign in big tech?

 

[Nevermore]

I wonder if Elizabeth Warren still wants to lead the charge to reign in big tech?

Certainly they do, because the establishment don't want GoogleFacebookTwitter independently powerful, able to demand favors and money. They want them subservient and dependent on government approval to maintain power, and thus much more cheaply bought.