Old 05-29-2020, 10:25 AM
  #21  
CalHunter
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,644
Default

Originally Posted by Lunkerdog View Post
Sorry, not making the connection... We started with Twitter, an FB... You then went on to CNN, and WAPO... Are you saying that the news you stated above can't be found on the net?

Seems to me that media you don't like is getting more social attention than you want, so you want to take control of that...
After reading Valorius' posts on this subject, I think he delivered it a bit piecemeal but his point seems to be that Twitter, Facebook, etc. are social platforms used by the public at large and should not be censored by Twitter, Facebook or anybody else. Valorius also pointed out that Twitter and Facebook, etc. do censor posts on their respective platforms and that a lot of the time (not always), the censorship is applied against people posting conservative content. There are different articles about such censorship and even interviews of different censors employed by Twitter and Facebook. From what I can tell, the owners of those 2 companies and a super-majority of employees (including censors) are liberal and obviously opposed to conservative points of view. This opposition is perhaps magnified a bit by the cancel and snowflake cultures that seem to be spreading.

Just out of curiosity, in your perfect world (term you previously mentioned), would people be able to post whatever they want (not criminal stuff) and let the audience judge what content they want to view or consume by simply ignoring the said content or do you favor some type of control or censorship beyond just deleting criminal stuff? Serious question as it helps to form the discussion.
CalHunter is offline