Clemen wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:44 pm Da General said “Section 230 is very important for these tech giants, but they have been totally taking the piss, so something will have to give, but probably later than sooner. I don't get how they can clearly target the Right and still keep that protection. Twitter was eager to promote the article about Trump's stolen tax returns, but are now saying they can't allow this story, which wasn't even 'hacked.'”

This has been repeatedly debunked.

Clemen, this story about the corruption with Hunter Biden and his father when he was vice president is a prime example. Look at the Rittenhouse shooter guy story. He shot in what could definitely be debated as self-defense (even one of the liberal media outlets broke down the timeline, and it's pretty obvious), and Facebook labeled him a terrorist and was giving strikes for anyone who defended him.

When something is right in front of you for all to see, I don't think it's a conspiracy to say that the Right is who is getting targeted, no matter what your take on the politics are. Twitter completely blocking this story about the Bidens is a pretty clear case. Jack Dorcy was at least man enough to call it a mistake and reverse their decision later. I don't even think this should come as a shock or anything. It's not like these executives in these tech companies are a mix of Left and Right-leaning individuals.

I agree with you that Facebook is better than Twitter, but I think it's impossible to say with a straight face that these companies aren't unfairly censoring the Right compared to how they treat the Left. Here's a good article by no other than the Washington Post, which are beyond bias it's not even worth debating. They point out that a Biden ad is clearly manipulated, giving it 4 Pinocchios. The kicker? Twitter has repeatedly marked Right winged stuff as 'manipulated,' but don't do that on the same scale (if at all) to the other side. Again, I don't even see how you could currently dispute what's going on now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... lam-trump/

So, who you gonna believe, the media or your own lying eyes?

Clemen wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:20 am “Facebook bigwigs at the time were concerned about how these changes would affect right-leaning news outlets and wanted to avoid adding fuel to critics’ argument that the platform has an anti-conservative bias. However, in its attempt to appear unbiased, the company evidently overcorrected ”

And correct me if I'm wrong, but your example of the Left getting censored and not the Right is a time that Facebook tried to make it so they don't 'appear' biased and accidentally over-corrected, thus accidentally censoring the Left?

And even in that Gizmodo article, in their words, they said FB did it to 'appear' unbiased, not even that they did it to 'be' unbiased.

And I have no issue at all that almost all these outlets and platforms are super Left, I just think they should be upfront about their biases and not try so hard to fool the public into believing they are actually neutral when they so clearly aren't.

And I'm totally against any of these platforms 'fact-checking' things or marking them as 'manipulated media,' not because I don't think truth/facts are of the utmost importance, but because it's really bad for society when you are told that you don't need to use your own brain and that you can trust something because it's already been determined accurate, so just believe it. I think it's better that everyone realizes that you will always come across things that are untrue and that it's up to you to decide if you believe it to be true or not, and not just trust some multi-billion dollar entity that's not interested in facts or being fair.

simon.sayed wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:48 am

Look at the Rittenhouse shooter guy story. He shot in what could definitely be debated as self-defense (even one of the liberal media outlets broke down the timeline, and it's pretty obvious), and Facebook labeled him a terrorist and was giving strikes for anyone who defended him.

Comeon Bru, I'm a big believer in self defense but that kid was not defending his property or family just an idiot kid who wanted looking tough.

His stipid actions affect the look of responsible gun owners and are an insult to self defense. Kid had no right or need to be anywhere that he was and escpecially did not need to be carrying an illegal weapon of any size, nevermind that one.

OK. Out of curiosity, do you disagree with this timeline from ABC news? [EDIT: Here is a better link, from the New York Times, which clearly states that he's first being chased by a group and one of them shoots a gun first, before Rittenshouse ever shoots at all, and they also mention that one of the guys he shoots was also armed and chasing him.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/k ... video.html (might need to open this in an incognito browser to get around their paywall)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-alle ... d=72651587

And have you watched the videos? He's running away and literally being chased in all of them, and even the guy he shot in the arm that was chasing him had a gun in his hand. I think he has a very good argument that he was defending his own life, but I haven't followed it very closely. But the Left labeling him a white supremacist (based on ZERO evidence) and FB giving strikes for even defending him just shows how silly things have become.

I didn't even say it's definitely self-defense, I'm just saying I think he has a good case that can be debated. And I've never said he should have had a gun, but that doesn't mean it's automatically not self-defense and instead, murder. You seem to be suggesting that if anyone has an illegal handgun they are instantly unable to defend themselves, period. That's not how the laws work.

Anyways, no desire to debate this in circles. If you've seen the videos of the shootings and think you are looking at a clear case of murder even though he's literally running away from every single person he unfortunately shot, that's up to you.

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:29 am But the Left labeling him a white supremacist (based on ZERO evidence)

Biden called Kyle a white supremacist. No evidence whatsoever. There is a dictionary definition for white supremacist and nothing I have seen suggests that he holds those views (which are NOT a crime in and of themselves).

So Biden is being sued for it.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation- ... 42010.html

The lawyer for accused Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is suing Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for libel, accusing the candidate of connecting Rittenhouse to white supremacy in a campaign video.

{snip}

“To say that Kyle is a white supremacist and militia member who was responsible for the violence in Kenosha is a lie. That lie prejudices Kyle’s constitutional right to a fair trial and damages his reputation,” L. Lin Wood, Rittenhouse’s attorney, told Newsweek.

simon.sayed wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:48 am Comeon Bru, I'm a big believer in self defense but that kid was not defending his property or family just an idiot kid who wanted looking tough.

His stipid actions affect the look of responsible gun owners and are an insult to self defense. Kid had no right or need to be anywhere that he was and escpecially did not need to be carrying an illegal weapon of any size, nevermind that one.

A decent interview with Kyle's lawyer. Argues that Kenosha was part of a group that was requested to come and defend the community in Kenosha.



In any case, it strikes me as irresponsible for Biden (and much of the Left) to pass judgement on the case at this point.