I have been witness to "X game is dying" with every GAAS game I've ever played. This sentiment is chanted endlessly by certain personality types. I learned to ignore them long ago. It's just funny how the same people chanted "X is dying" as soon as Musk bought it.
It's only been about a month since their elections, hasn't it? They've changed the place that much? or haven't? To be completely objective it might be better to get some data so it doesn't look like fantasy wishful thinking.
Letting rioters on the platform might seem like enabling incitement under the veneer of free speech. That accusation would require a trend to hold water.
Two more weeks…
What’s misinformation? Who gets to be the arbiter of reality?
Vaccine denial, election denial, political interference, antisemitism, racism, holocaust denial, fake news, Russian misinformation, and more are all over Twitter. Most agree those are bad things, and luckily the EU has institutions and courts where things like this can be decided on.
According to recent leaks, this was literally the judge in question he's refering scrolling through his twitter feed, seeing stuff he didn't like, and calling his cabinet to "find stuff" to block them. In one case (this had consequences youtube rather than X though) one of the advisors "looking for stuff" in the conversation quite literally said "he couldn't find anything, just normal publications" and the other answered with "be creative", this was a major magazine too.
you just listed a bunch of political buzzwords. Is something misinformation because “most” people don’t believe it? That’s crazy. What if they believe in something that is wrong? That happens all the time - Zuckerberg talked about it in a session in front of Congress.
The nice thing about that quote is that it applies so neatly to Elon Musk as well.
Ah yes, the political buzzword know as… Racism. Cute way of trying to deflect the points made. And yes, the EU gets to decide what is allowed in EU member states. Its organizations were put in power by those very same people and governments that belong to it. Twitter doesnt have to adhere to any ruling that is made in the EU, it would just need to stop any activities in the EU if it does not wish to comply with said rulings.
From his point of view is seems like the truth is only what he believes in.
The only issue with the current Twitter is that it seems the timeline is a complete mess where I get posts from minutes ago, days ago from various topics that I am not even interested in and have to block words.
Call me crazy, but thinking holocaust and vaccine deniers are spreading misinformation seems to align with reality. But who knows? Maybe the Earth is flat as well?
There is no deflection. The EU can decide what people says in the EU because they have power and the people don’t. They can decide how tyrannical they want to be but that is what it is about.
That's true for me as well. I end up getting what I came for and then some but you are right.
So you are claiming there is absolutely no false or misleading information on Twitter at all? There are not bots, absolutely no racism, and nobody is trying to deceive anyone?
That situation sounds like very troubling corruption if true. Bypassing oversight to intimidate and use federal authority from the background for political gain. Can the fed be intimidated like that? People would loose their shit here.
We already know all of these things as well as the source of the leaks (the cellphone of said advisor), and yes, it is a slippery slope for tyranny. Keep in mind our president is still covering up for Maduro after their elections. Many of the people in power here would love nothing more than turn the country into another Venezuela. And i'm seeing this exact trend in other places while some people still go on about "but muh misinformation"
I’m saying two things, one is, if you decide that “false information” needs to be taken off of twitter or whatever, who decides what is false and why do they get the power to do so. Why does this person or government office have the power to, again, decide what objective reality is?
Considering how much information has been revealed post COVID the whole vaccination it is and was an extremely shady thing fueled by media with one, two, three etc. shots or how much testing was done for this and that and so on.
Nobody is decided what objective reality is, the only things I’m advocating for is that hate speech such as racism and antisemitism as well as clear misinformation that can lead to very real negative repercussions such as vaccine denialism be moderated on Social Media platforms.
I listen to what the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject is, rather then fringe theory nonsense. I believe we landed on the Moon as well, is that also me being led astray by the truth? I’m not sure what the rest of your post has got to do with holocaust denialism , I’m clearly referring to those nutters who think the Nazis didn’t really kill any Jewish people.
No, the government said that the lab leak theory is more likely the true one, which is the whole point of what I am saying. The whole concept of "misinformation" is based on this idea that somebody can decide what "information" is, when in reality that isn't true at all, especially for stuff that just happened or is ongoing. If you want to ban stuff, then it's just banning stuff. I personally do not feel the need to ban stuff, whether it is about historical events or lifestyle choices, and I also don't think it is productive and I don't think it leads to the desired outcomes. But, again, in Europe, discussion of many topics is banned and has been for decades.
Zathalus
is trying to say.
No one is claiming any of that. I certainly am not. The real concern is who in the government should decide what ideas should be removed from all social media? What if you disagree? What if you agree now, but someone you completely disagree with is elected later who then uses the government to remove ideas and people that you do agree with?
You realize when people ask "who decides what's truth", that's just an euphemism for "arbiters of truth will promote lies as truths and call objective truths lies because its convenient for them", right?
At this point, unequivocally believing the lab leak theory is false puts you in the minority. Plenty of information showing it's likely, and the US government said as much. But it's not like a communist country will let us go in and do a proper investigation, so it will always remain a theory.
Most US intelligence agencies believe it was not a lab leak, all of them agree it was certainly natural and not engineered or man made:
So the "not most" US intelligence agencies are allowed to believe and discuss the lab-leak theory but the general public isn't?
This document is a lot more damning, not less. Tldr: we don't know, maybe maybe maybe, oh btw they did have shit safety standards though! Case closed
I claimed that where exactly? My issue isn’t even with Covid, that just got sidetracked into the discussion. My problem is with vaccine misinformation regarding vaccines and autism which has led to the very real world consequences of children dying.
too bad these same "speech regulation measures" you're defending were also used on the things you apparently don't have a problem with.
Truly a shame.
Pray they don't switch their target from "things you don't have a problem with" to "things you believe and advocate"
Oh no! Not the slippery slope! Better hope they don’t come after me when I say I don’t really care for football. Where will this madness end?
If somebody said they did ABC but they didn’t I don’t see why it is the governments job to regulate this or demand some massive infrastructure and bureaucracy to regulate it. It’s not illegal to lie.There is objective truth. Saying "who decides what's truth" is obfuscation of what is real.
Did so and so really do this? He says he didn't but unedited video shows he did.
Did they the act? He and they said they didn't but the unedited video shows they did.
Did such and such happen? Unedited audio shows that it did happen.
That's what
Either there is a process by which data becomes information, or there isn't. If there is, then if the process isn't followed, we can say that information isn't being created.
Let me tell you a little not-so-secret. Tyrants love championing progressive ideals when they want to obtain power - easier to create drastic, convenient changes in society such as "anti-free-speech laws" or police states that way.
This is really the primary strength of free speech. But you need that because the speech is the process. The government can only do one thing, which is exercise power. It can’t arbitrate reality.
So suppose I put a deepfake video of a politician saying something inflammatory online (that he never actually said). Is this free speech to you? And if so, does this act of free speech render the video "information" about something that happened in the world?
You can do whatever you want. The politician can come out and say it is a deepfake. If sone people believe it is real, it is what it is. I’ll tell you one thing, the government saying it’s fake won’t make them believe it’s fake. Banning the video won’t make people believe it’s fake.
