Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Trump's tweet on Joe Scarborough and Lori Klausutis may be costly >

Trump's tweet on Joe Scarborough and Lori Klausutis may be costly

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Trump's tweet on Joe Scarborough and Lori Klausutis may be costly

Old 05-29-2020, 10:25 AM
  #21  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,553
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  
Old 05-29-2020, 10:29 AM
  #22  
Nontypical Buck
 
Valorius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,746
Default

Cal you get me.

Was that question for me?
Valorius is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 10:57 AM
  #23  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,553
Default

No, it was for Lunker. I was going through all of his posts in this topic and was trying to get a better sense of his base level, bottom line point on this topic. And yes, I realize that what we're both proposing should be the "rules" for Twitter and Facebook" is going to irritate a lot of liberals who believe in censorship and some Independents who think only 1 side has problems. Censoring somebody is pretty much a tacit admission that one is losing the argument or public debate. It also prevents you from examining all of the evidence and information as opposed to just the parts that support a particular point of view. It's one of the key reasons behind the 1st amendment so the press and people could expose the errors of government.

The first amendment doesn't apply to private companies like Twitter and Facebook but such companies reach a growth point where they control a significant chunk of the public domain so to speak and you start getting into gray areas. Such as, if it's illegal for a white country club to ban black membership, is it illegal for a Black organization to ban white membership? Taking that tenet further, does that make it illegal for a liberal organization like Twitter or Facebook to censor or ban conservatives or their posts and topics? I realize these weighty topics are far beyond what the OP posted and are more directed at a level playing field than simply a never Trumper protest post. But it is sometimes fun to climb past the first low hanging rung on a topic.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:05 AM
  #24  
Nontypical Buck
 
Valorius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,746
Default

I know i'm not the only one that remembers when the left held free speech to be sacrosanct.

2020 America is bizarro land.

Facebook, twitter, you tube etc have special protections from liability because they are supposed to be neutral town squares. Once they begin to editorialize and censor opposing views- which they have been doing for years now- those protections must be removed.
Valorius is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 12:00 PM
  #25  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,553
Default

I agree. What's particularly galling is they simply don't want to hear or allow to be printed anything which says their position(s) are wrong.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 12:56 PM
  #26  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,126
Default

For what it is worth, Twitter and FaceBook aren't the only ones that practice censoring. I read 5 or 6 different news platforms every day and often comment on articles. For the last 3 weeks or so whenever I post a comment on the Fox News site it gets deleted within a minute or two. None of the comments violate any of the guidelines, they contain no profanity, they are not argumentative and they are no worse than any of the other comments posted. Doesn't matter if I reply to someone else's post or originate one, they always get deleted. So for some reason they flagged me and censor everything I put up. I had to get a different user name and a throw away email account in order to post.

As much as it irritates me, I understand they have the right to do it. 1st amendment is only binding on the federal govt. Media sites and social media sites are privately owned entities and like this site they can set their own rules about what they allow to be posted.
flags is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 03:18 PM
  #27  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Coastal Mountaineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 268
Default

Flags, so that's all you got? Insults?
Coastal Mountaineer is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 03:56 PM
  #28  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 13,257
Default

Yes, that is all those of your ilk deserve. They deserve every insult anyone can come up with. The left, your people are the antithesis of America!
Oldtimr is online now  
Old 05-29-2020, 06:02 PM
  #29  
Nontypical Buck
 
Lunkerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 2,182
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
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.
Cal, I saw RogerV make a "perfect world" comment earlier this week, but don't recall making a comment like that myself... As to your question, yes, people should be able to post what they want as long as it adheres to a given sites TOS, and basically let the viewers determine if they want to view the content of any post...

The other highlighted above seems a bit broad to me... Is the content being censored because it's conservative, or how it's being expressed? Again a sites TOS may be in play...

Lunkerdog is offline  
Old 05-29-2020, 06:39 PM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
 
sconnyhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,709
Default

Originally Posted by Lunkerdog View Post
So what your saying is that Social media needs to be censored until it delivers the "Right" (Pun intended) message?
Social media already censor the RIGHT, opinions. Like it or not. There have been ongoing Congressional hearings about it.

The rest of us, are asking that Social media play fair, is that too much to ask? If youre not going to be the neutral bulletin board that you claim to be, fine. Make it a private pay site and get on with it. OR, get your **** together and play fair like you have said that you are.
sconnyhunter is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.