Question for comptuer guys

[Jess from VA]

Trump now permanently banned.  The Trump campaign is now blocked from emailing their millions of supporters after being suspended by their email service provider.

New York Post banned.  Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell banned.  Rush Limbaugh banned.

Our longstanding Virginia Citizens Defense League banned (or support dropped).

The new Parlor app deplatformed.

Thousands dropping Twitter and Facebook in retaliation. (GOOD)

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz warned, "Big tech tyranny is playing out before our very eyes."

So my question is really what can you tell us about this guys.   I never joined any of that, but I am curious.

DJT did sneak back on Twitter though.  

[f6gal]

They are pretty much banning all well known conservative or republican people and groups.  In addition to the ones you mentioned, Michael Flynn, Dan Bongino, #walkaway, any pro-Trump sites, and many others.  YouTube is being pressured to do the same.  Google is censoring search results and de-platforming Parler app from Play Store, Apple is also de-platforming the app.  Trump's email platform has blocked him from sending emails.  WTH?  It's a scary world when everything you see and hear is being controlled.  It's like Communist China filtering any information that comes in or goes out.  I know it's not the "government" doing the censoring, but it's being done on their behalf.  

[Savago]

 This may cheer you up: a backup of 45th's tweets
https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

[Robert]

The real problem that being able to express oneself on the internet was a lie. How many said don't put restrictions on the internet, and regulations will hurt free speech and now we see it was all a lie. I would not say we are in danger but at this point we don't know how far this will go.

I am very much surprised actually that Savago seems to think this is a joke. He should know the ramifications of what they are doing and they could just as easily happen to him or any site that they dont approve of. I may be wrong but this is the mentality of those that are in Congress and all the rich who allowed the riots, that it does not affect me so I dont have to worry about it. I may be wrong and would like to hear what Savago thinks since he posted.

If you look to England you will see where we are headed, since they already have all this in place. Funny how other countries have this and now its coming to our shores. Funny how the US has to be in lockstep with other countries, how far will it go to make the bad boy US to be a willing participant in the globalization of the world?

[hubcapsc]

F6GAL:  I know it's not the "government" doing the censoring

ROBERT: The real problem that being able to express oneself on the internet was a lie.

The people who own twitter and facebook and all that are expressing themselves. Where's
the lie? I've never tweeted or faced... I would expect the owners of those platforms
to try and please their core users... I don't mewe either... is certain stuff being blocked
over there? If the Apple and Google app-stores have booted Parler  (I've never used it either)
then I think people can get the Parler app from someplace else and go through
some extra steps to get it installed on their devices... Since google and facebook and
all that own so much of the core of the Internet, finding "someplace else" might be
a whack-a-mole problem...

-Mike

[Rams]

Learned this morning that Twitter's stock is down about 4%, let's hope it keeps dropping.
No, I don't tweet.

Rams

[Pete]

You can host and start a site for less than $250 and your time building it on  many commercial servers. Add a server and a connection if you want to be your on host. Say  another $500 to xXxX to do that based on traffic expected.

As your traffic and software needs expand cost will also increase. So you need to make it self funding with ads or something.

It is not rocket science, but there is a learning curve. It will eat into your spare time and if successful will  consume it all.

[Robert]

F6GAL:  I know it's not the "government" doing the censoring

ROBERT: The real problem that being able to express oneself on the internet was a lie.

The people who own twitter and facebook and all that are expressing themselves. Where's
the lie? I've never tweeted or faced... I would expect the owners of those platforms
to try and please their core users... I don't mewe either... is certain stuff being blocked
over there? If the Apple and Google app-stores have booted Parler  (I've never used it either)
then I think people can get the Parler app from someplace else and go through
some extra steps to get it installed on their devices... Since google and facebook and
all that own so much of the core of the Internet, finding "someplace else" might be
a whack-a-mole problem...

-Mike

I am not on the platforms either, but they are whats called social influencers. People flock to them to share with one another. Many you might say are addicted to the platform, many make money off of them and some have made a new career and living off of these sites. They also enjoy special protections by law that allow them special privileges. My quetion to you would be why would it be allowed to block the president of the US but allow, Iran, Antifa, Louis Farakan and so many more on the sites without restriction, yet block any conservative?

There policies that are public use statements are being applied with the extreme bias or being ignored al together to anything that is conservative and the excuse that they are violent is not only a lie but a false excuse to ban them. When you allow BLM and Antifa but ban conservative sites and you are a social influencer even as far as influencing the election outcome then you are purposefully constructing a narrative.

This article below will explain the problem with Google but every other social media is the same way. When you search for something on Google their algorithms only allow you to see certain results. The social media sites only allow non conservatives on their sites. They control most of the internet searches and social media. If you link that with the news media then you have a society that can be told anything and no way to find the truth.

Essentially it has happened before with the bible as an example. Until the 1500's it was illegal and punishable by death or excommunication from the church for anyone to have a bible or to read it. Because the church was all powerful and the government at the time was in support of this and helped the church since this made for docile people. So without an opposing and true point whatever the priest said and that agreed with the king then that's what was done and if you opposed it you were dead.

That is essentially what we are getting today and the danger in not having open and honest internet and social media sites.

Mike not being part of this and not being aware of the influence these sites have over most of the population is a problem. TV in the early days was looked at as a social influencer and did in fact change generations to come. This social media is far worse and purposely constructing a narrative, like our schools, news media, and alike to sway public opinion and squash the facts of opposing views.

Mr, Smith goes to Washington is a early movie that sounded so simplistic back then and made you feel good when Jimmy Stewart was able to get the truth out. Today there is no Jimmy Stewart there is no feeling good about the course of actions these social media sites have taken and the suppression of facts is much worse.

The sites receive special breaks, government help and payments, and even the code and the construction of the sites used government code when it was made. They design the sites to be addictive and lure people in, its how they work. They control thought, control the medium, control the government and Apple has more money than many countries and have gotten rich off the US.


Why Google Poses a SeriousThreat to Democracy, and How to End That ThreatTestimony byRobert Epstein, Ph.D.(re@aibrt.org) Senior Research Psychologist, American Institute for Behavioral Research and TechnologyBefore the United StatesSenate Judiciary Subcommittee on the ConstitutionTuesday, June 16, 2019, 2:30 p.m

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Testimony.pdf





A bill in NY read it on the Cornovirus page
 § 2120-A. REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF CASES, CONTACTS  AND  CARRIERS  WHO
 ARE OR MAY BE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH; OTHER ORDERS. 1. THE PROVISIONS
 OF  THIS  SECTION  SHALL  BE  UTILIZED  IN  THE  EVENT THAT THE GOVERNOR
 DECLARES A STATE OF HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO AN EPIDEMIC OF ANY  COMMUNI-
 CABLE DISEASE.

[hubcapsc]

You can host and start a site for less than $250 and your time building it on  many commercial servers. Add a server and a connection if you want to be your on host. Say  another $500 to xXxX to do that based on traffic expected.

As your traffic and software needs expand cost will also increase. So you need to make it self funding with ads or something.

It is not rocket science, but there is a learning curve. It will eat into your spare time and if successful will  consume it all.

I think the vast majority of virtual servers are owned by google and amazon and microsoft.
If they don't like you, they don't have to sell to you. And if you go with someone other than
the big three, where do they get their connectivity? ATT? Stuff like this is where the whack-a-mole
problem might come from.

-Mike

[hubcapsc]

My quetion to you would be why would it be allowed to block the president of the US but allow, Iran, Antifa, Louis Farakan and so many more on the sites without restriction, yet block any conservative

My answer (opinion really) is that the freedom many (not me) claim we don't
have is actively being used by the woke who are currently flush with money
and influence. The woke get their money and influence from all of us... I
use google and amazon...

-Mike

[Robert]

My quetion to you would be why would it be allowed to block the president of the US but allow, Iran, Antifa, Louis Farakan and so many more on the sites without restriction, yet block any conservative

My answer (opinion really) is that the freedom many (not me) claim we don't
have is actively being used by the woke who are currently flush with money
and influence. The woke get their money and influence from all of us... I
use google and amazon...

-Mike

 

But then the woke want to turn around and control those that made them.

Mike let me point out that this comes at a time when they are locking down people with the virus excuse, will not review the election results, and generally making a platform of taking away rights. All happening at NOW at one time, if we cannot see the direction this is going then we are surely doomed.

Trump and many floated the idea that these companies should be regulated like a public utility, I agree with this and think they should be.

[Tundra]

Time to beat the drums, use smoke signals and tin cans to communicate.

[signart]

All I can say is, get yourself a short wave radio while you can before they get like ammo. Also get a tractor trailer rig if you're able, might come in handy for a BLM trick on the interstates.

[Skinhead]

How is this different than the baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake?  Was that decision overturned? 

[old2soon]

     I've Never used F B or tweeted. BUT I can see the START of a Much LARGER Problem headed straight at our very Freedoms. Some one had already posted this but it bears repeating. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time or in this case maybe byte. RIDE SAFE.

[Pete]

You can host and start a site for less than $250 and your time building it on  many commercial servers. Add a server and a connection if you want to be your on host. Say  another $500 to xXxX to do that based on traffic expected.

As your traffic and software needs expand cost will also increase. So you need to make it self funding with ads or something.

It is not rocket science, but there is a learning curve. It will eat into your spare time and if successful will  consume it all.

I think the vast majority of virtual servers are owned by google and amazon and microsoft.
If they don't like you, they don't have to sell to you. And if you go with someone other than
the big three, where do they get their connectivity? ATT? Stuff like this is where the whack-a-mole
problem might come from.

-Mike

With you own access point and server they cannot do anything, there are many independent server farms that will host any site.

[Oss]

great reply skinhead   right on the money

Pretty good for a retired guy.

[The emperor has no clothes]

How is this different than the baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake?  Was that decision overturned? 

I think the difference is in the laws prohibiting discrimination of age, sex, race, sexual preference.

I don't think Twitter kicked him off because of his age.

[Savago]

I am very much surprised actually that Savago seems to think this is a joke. He should know the ramifications of what they are doing and they could just as easily happen to him or any site that they dont approve of. I may be wrong but this is the mentality of those that are in Congress and all the rich who allowed the riots, that it does not affect me so I dont have to worry about it. I may be wrong and would like to hear what Savago thinks since he posted.

@Robert: since you asked... I don't see that as a joke.

Fact is that FB/twitter like to pose as a 'tech company' (which they *also* are, since they run their infrastructure like servers and software stack) *but* their core business really is... news and entertainment. They truly are a media company.

What helps to moderate regular media from propagating lies/misinformation as 'news' (look that 'Fox news' has its opinion segment where everything goes, which is a way to workaround the regulations, but that is another can of worms...) are laws put in place years ago.

There are studies that show that the algorithms that decide what you see on those social media platforms will frequently lead to news that are effective to engage the users, and as a result, has the natural tendency to lead a user to fringe and radical/fake content.

When *I* search for content (e.g. 'Was the election stolen') the results will be different depending on the user, geolocation, etc. The results probably will be different from what you will see.

Fake news spread many times faster than real news. Remember that those companies make money from user engagement and ads, there is a financial gain in allowing radicalism and fake news to propagate in the networks.

I think FB/twitter decided to ban 45th just a couple days before he leaves the presidency just for trying to save face. While the GOP wouldn't never pass legislation to make the social media companies behave like a news company, I believe that the democrats won't take that easy with those companies (FB/twitter/google).

It is indeed concerning that a few CEOs that run those companies hold so much power (i.e. they known what users think and control what they see) with no regulation and specially that was not granted to them by the people (i.e. they are not elected).

Add on top of that lack of legislation on fake content and the results are bad for the society as a whole.

There is a really nice documentary in Netflix, called 'The social dilemma' (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/). It does a decent job explaining how those recommendation algorithms work and present the social issues associated to it.

Concerning the legality of banning the 45th: if you have a restaurant and a customer starts screaming and telling people to set the place on fire, I guess is more than natural that you will ask him to leave, right?

Regular people have been banned from twitter/fb for posting much less consequential messages than what 45th did in the last few years. If anything, he actually got special treatment until now.

The technology for building a website/messages feed is simple and most of the software components is opensource/freesoftware. You don't even need to actually own the servers hosting the content, as there are a few cloud providers (e.g. AWS, Azure, etc) that charge based on load.

Point is that 45th can create a 'Trump News' website and keep on spelling his... words bs to his base. He is just no longer welcomed in the platforms owned by some private companies (FB/Google/etc).

If you ask me, unless he ends up in jail for his possible many financial crimes, odds are that he will just go back to being a TV celebrity with a loyal audience of 74 million people.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I am very much surprised actually that Savago seems to think this is a joke. He should know the ramifications of what they are doing and they could just as easily happen to him or any site that they dont approve of. I may be wrong but this is the mentality of those that are in Congress and all the rich who allowed the riots, that it does not affect me so I dont have to worry about it. I may be wrong and would like to hear what Savago thinks since he posted.

When *I* search for content (e.g. 'Was the election stolen') the results will be different depending on the user, geolocation, etc. The results probably will be different from what you will see.

This might be the understatement of the year !  (it's early though)

[Bret SD]

I am very much surprised actually that Savago seems to think this is a joke. He should know the ramifications of what they are doing and they could just as easily happen to him or any site that they dont approve of. I may be wrong but this is the mentality of those that are in Congress and all the rich who allowed the riots, that it does not affect me so I dont have to worry about it. I may be wrong and would like to hear what Savago thinks since he posted.

@Robert: since you asked... I don't see that as a joke.

Fact is that FB/twitter like to post as a 'tech company' (which they *also* are, since they run their infrastructure like servers and software stack) *but* their core business really is... news and entertainment. They truly are a media company.

What helps to moderate regular media from propagating lies/misinformation as 'news' (look that 'Fox news' has its opinion segment where everything goes, which is a way to workaround the regulations, but that is another can of worms...) are laws put in place years ago.

There are studies that show that the algorithms that decide what you see on those social media platforms will frequently lead to news that are effective to engage the users, and as a result, has the natural tendency to lead a user to fringe and radical/fake content.

When *I* search for content (e.g. 'Was the election stolen') the results will be different depending on the user, geolocation, etc. The results probably will be different from what you will see.

Fake news spread many times faster than real news. Remember that those companies make money from user engagement and ads, there is a financial gain in allowing radicalism and fake news to propagate in the networks.

I think FB/twitter decided to ban 45th just a couple days before he leaves the presidency just for trying to save face. While the GOP wouldn't never pass legislation to make the social media companies behave like a news company, I believe that the democrats won't take that easy with those companies (FB/twitter/google).

It is indeed concerning that a few CEOs that run those companies hold so much power (i.e. they known what users think and control what they see) with no regulation and specially that was not granted to them by the people (i.e. they are not elected).

Add on top of that lack of legislation on fake content and the results are bad for the society as a whole.

There is a really nice documentary in Netflix, called 'The social dilemma' (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/). It does a decent job explaining how those recommendation algorithms work and present the social issues associated to it.

Concerning the legality of banning the 45th: if you have a restaurant and a customer starts screaming and telling people to set the place on fire, I guess is more than natural that you will ask him to leave, right?

Regular people have been banned from twitter/fb for posting much less consequential messages than what 45th did in the last few years. If anything, he actually got special treatment until now.

The technology for building a website/messages feed is simple and most of the software components is opensource/freesoftware. You don't even need to actually own the servers hosting the content, as there are a few cloud providers (e.g. AWS, Azure, etc) that charge based on load.

Point is that 45th can create a 'Trump News' website and keep on spelling his... words bs to his base. He is just no longer welcomed in the platforms owned by some private companies (FB/Google/etc).

If you ask me, unless he ends up in jail for his possible many financial crimes, odds are that he will just go back to being a TV celebrity with a loyal audience of 74 million people.

Savago, we are way past the 'normal' censorship of big Tech, they are systematically deplatforming conservatives across the board.. If this doesn't bother you nothing will. People on the left seem happy to have censorship so long as their viewpoints aren't the ones being censored.

This is only starting, the radical left won't stop until every conservative in the country is banned. If you're comfortable with this I don't really know what to say to you, except maybe, be careful what you wish for.

[Savago]

Savago, we are way past the 'normal' censorship of big Tech, they are systematically deplatforming conservatives across the board.. If this doesn't bother you nothing will. People on the left seem happy to have censorship so long as their viewpoints aren't the ones being censored.

I *do* worry about the unmeasurable power hold by a few tech companies. So much that I support some level of regulation. So much that I lived 7 years in the Silicon Valley and opted to *not* work for those companies (with huge personal financial loss by the way).

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Quote: "if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Let's use an extreme example here: if a given person (a Proud Boy) says that we got 'remove' all jews/blacks/mexicans/etc and take the government by force, should this person have his twitter account deleted?

I say *yes*, delete this person's account (at least he won't spread his hatred so easily). What do you say? Should the Auschwitz t-shirt guy keep his account?

I *hate* fscking nazis. I *hate* racists. There is a point where we got draw a line. If you are unable to see that line, we have a different set of values and can never agree.

[Serk]

Let's use an extreme example here: if a given person (a Proud Boy) says that we got 'remove' all jews/blacks/mexicans/etc and take the government by force, should this person have his twitter account deleted?

I say *yes*, delete this person's account (at least he won't spread his hatred so easily). What do you say? Should the Auschwitz t-shirt guy keep his account?

I'm sure Enrique Tarrio, the Cuban descended chairman of The Proud Boys would take offense at being labeled racist.

Beyond that, on one level Twitter is a private company and can do what they wish with their services. But they also shouldn't be granted Section 230 immunities if they do.

On the other hand, I stand by Dr. Ron Paul: "We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather. We have the 1st amendment so that we can say very controversial things."

On the other other hand, nothing makes an idea or a thing more enticing than to ban or censor it. Keep that in mind as the ban hammer is trying to silence an entire segment of the population right now.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Let's use an extreme example here: if a given person (a Proud Boy) says that we got 'remove' all jews/blacks/mexicans/etc and take the government by force, should this person have his twitter account deleted?

I say *yes*, delete this person's account (at least he won't spread his hatred so easily). What do you say? Should the Auschwitz t-shirt guy keep his account?

I'm sure Enrique Tarrio, the Cuban descended chairman of The Proud Boys would take offense at being labeled racist.

Beyond that, on one level Twitter is a private company and can do what they wish with their services. But they also shouldn't be granted Section 230 immunities if they do.

On the other hand, I stand by Dr. Ron Paul: "We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather. We have the 1st amendment so that we can say very controversial things."

On the other other hand, nothing makes an idea or a thing more enticing than to ban or censor it. Keep that in mind as the ban hammer is trying to silence an entire segment of the population right now.

How many hands do you have ?

[Serk]

How many hands do you have ?

Evidently you don't even need to get the C19 vaccine for the mutations to happen, seems to work just if you schedule an appointment to receive it!

[The emperor has no clothes]

How many hands do you have ?

Evidently you don't even need to get the C19 vaccine for the mutations to happen, seems to work just if you schedule an appointment to receive it!

when are you guys due ?

[Savago]

I'm sure Enrique Tarrio, the Cuban descended chairman of The Proud Boys would take offense at being labeled racist.

@Serk: I don't known this Enrique guy or what he stands for.

But being of latino ethnicity doesn't equals being free of bias or even being racist.

It may be surprising, to a few of you, but there are white latinos.
 

Unfortunately, quite a few that I personally met were pretty racist themselves (even people close to me).
 

I recall some time ago watching a funny comedy video where a white latina describes some of the situations she faced (e.g.  " _ But where are you from? Europe?", " _ No, I'm from South America." " _ Ohhhh, reaaaly? That is funny! You don't look Latina.").

[scooperhsd]

I've seen for myself the worst racists are actually blacks.

[Bret SD]

Savago, we are way past the 'normal' censorship of big Tech, they are systematically deplatforming conservatives across the board.. If this doesn't bother you nothing will. People on the left seem happy to have censorship so long as their viewpoints aren't the ones being censored.

I *do* worry about unmeasurable power hold by a few tech companies. So much that I support some level of regulation. So much that I lived 7 years in the Silicon Valley and opted to *not* work for those companies (with huge personal financial loss by the way).

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Quote: "if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Let's use an extreme example here: if a given person (a Proud Boy) says that we got 'remove' all jews/blacks/mexicans/etc and take the government by force, should this person have his twitter account deleted?

I say *yes*, delete this person's account (at least he won't spread his hatred so easily). What do you say? Should the Auschwitz t-shirt guy keep his account?

I *hate* fscking nazis. I *hate* racists. There is a point where we got draw a line. If you are unable to see that line, we have a different set of values and can never agree.

It's a problem when people are falsely labeled racist, fascist, nazi, white supremacist etc  Also a problem when double standards are in place relative to political ideology.

Jailing people for speech and thought crimes is coming, the left can't debate, they seek only to destroy opposition, which is pure fascism..

We're in trouble here

[Bret SD]

More fascism from the left..

https://t.co/KeXF2gVXVV?amp=1