After that conspicuous hit, Facebook reversed itself, claiming to have "mistakenly flagged" the account as an "imposter":This is crazy! Even for someone like me who is well aware of baseless cancellations by our social media overlords, to evict my friend @BretWeinstein is a new kind of insanity. I would go so far as to call it evil. You could not find a more measured and reasonable man than Bret. https://t.co/tGTm42FlTx
— Sean Ono Lennon (@seanonolennon) October 22, 2020
Who, exactly, is Liz Bourgeois@Liz_Shepherd? On her Twitter page, she identifies herself as "@Facebook comms, formerly @TheDemocrats and @SpeakerPelosi. Mom of 2 tiny humans."My first indication of a problem was this message saying Facebook had "already reviewed" the suspension and the decision "can't be reversed". My tweet about it clearly got your attention, but I have 400k Twitter followers.
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) October 23, 2020
What protects regular people from such "mistakes" Liz? https://t.co/DEvvgOaV4i pic.twitter.com/z43TZJr5j5
This is all very fishy. She's obviously a Democrat and completely open about it, and I take it she works at some level at Facebook and that "comms" means "communications" — that is, public relations. It is bad PR to cancel Bret Weinstein and have Sean Ono Lennon pop up as his friend to call you insane overlords.
Who believes Facebook just flagged Weinstein's account as an imposter? Why would such a harsh unreviewable cancellation message be sent to a person who'd just gotten flagged as an imposter? Automatic actions like that obviously can go wrong, so who believes it's something Facebook has set up to be unreviewable? Indeed, Facebook seems to have reviewed it, though if the method Weinstein used was getting Sean Ono Lennon to tweet about the injustice, that is hardly available as a method of review for anybody else.
"It can't be reversed" — but it was reversed! Facebook didn't follow its own stated procedures. There's a special injustice in that. There's an alternative path to relief for some people — famous people or semi-famous people with ultra-famous connections — and the rest of you deplorables can slip down the memory hole forever.
पोस्ट्स
१३० टिप्पण्या:
Like Meade, I never joined Facebook. Family members have pleaded with me to do so. I'll never be part of that shitshow.
Perfectly written, Althouse.
The last few days in social media have been wild. It's like we are starting to see the man flailing behind the curtain.
it's can't be reversed; unless they want to.
The Media are our GOD
ALL WORSHIP OUR GOD
HAIL TO OUR MASTERS!
OBEY!
Sean Ono Lennon is living proof that insanity is not inherited.
Facebook will be the face of a Biden administration. Think about it.
I had always thought that the DMCA was good law. That's over. These lefties assclowns are acting as publishers and should be treated as publishers. And maybe they should be regulated as a utility. This cannot continue.
- Krumhorn
Our daughter has a fulltime position at their large church. Education and Community outreach. Here core job responsibilities to make communication to their congregation, and greater community, regular, clear, and comprehensible. facebook is a big gear in that engine. Their facebook page was taken down 2 weeks ago, electronic inquiry into why and how to get back in business, was answered by a robot response that because covid, no appeals will be considered. They could open a new page, but ALL old content is out of their reach.
If you are not the buyer or customer, in a transaction, you are the product.
Facebook, Twitter, Google -- we will look back in a few years and smile at these names from yesteryear. We will express amazement at how they seemed to dominate the world. They are today's Bethlehem Steel, IBM, Gulf & Western.
Almost like it’s more important than ever for us to rekindle our in-person connections. You know, spending meatspace time with people we care about and who inspire us, and filling our spare time with meaningful pursuits and activities that build community and friendship outside the control of our tech and government overlords.
Oh wait.
Two of the people I've seen this week on the Facebook comms side of thing are Liz, who used to work for Pelosi, and Andy Stone, who used to work for Boxer.
I will note that Liz does not bother to answer or explain to Brett Weinstein why his account had been mistakenly flagged, disabled, reviewed, and made permanent.
There just seems to be a lot of higher powers picking and choosing who can be heard and who can operate a business these days. You aren't saying the right thing or maybe making the right campaign donations? Well, you or your business are unsafe.
The Progressives are proving to the the FASCISTS they are so scared and worried about....Is this the kind of America YOU want to live in??
The social media giants need the "antifa" treatment from the non-left.
It's revealing the left has left them alone. Proving 'never bite the hand that feeds you,' perhaps?
Step 1: cancellation
Step 2: doxx 'em and burn their house down
Step 3: continue virtue signalling about being against 'hate'
Step 4: whine like a little bitch when it happens to you
"There's a special injustice in that."
Sure, sure, if you think traditional petty bourgeois sensibilities apply.
On the other hand, if you assume that progs at FB are fighting the culture war and aim to win, justice has nothing to do with it.
When the AI borg comes for you, there is no rationalizing or appeals. The borg will crush you and flush your memory. Only the very fortunate few rate human intervention.
Trust the machines! They are backed by science!
“Good citizens need not fear."
Facebook and Twitter cannot burn and crash soon enough. It'll happen. They are going to crash under the weight of their own arrogance and self-righteousness. They would not recognize a fascist if they were staring at 20 of them on their own work zoom meeting.
There's an alternate path to relief for some people — famous people or semi-famous people with ultra-famous connections — and the rest of you deplorables can slip down the memory hole forever..
To which I would add, rich people. Famous people, semi-famous people, rich people almost always have an alternate path to relief, whatever the circumstances. But what's the answer here? Government regulation? The cure may be worse than the disease.
There's always a letter to the editor.
Facebook and twitter are garbage. If you are not paying for a product, it is because YOU are the product. They are using you and your data. They treat you like trash. Why do you continue to use those "free" services? In light of all that has transpired these last [at least] 4 years, if you continue to use those services, you have earned what you get.
I sometimes feel like this blog is a couple years behind.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google are evil.
They know they have us.
Should we allow it?
It's time to think hard about walking away from hivemind Chi Com facebook/twitter/google.
Please welcome our new Overlords.
Perhaps this is how we can free ourselves from Social Media. Just say no.
"It can't be reversed" means it can be reversed if we want to.
Please welcome our new Overlords.
Perhaps this is how we can free ourselves from Social Media. Just say no.
There are many problems with my writing style. Among them is the inability to get across an idea in a few words. For example, look at what Weinstein gets across in 3 sentences to Liz that Althouse expands into 4 paragraphs. I grant that Althouse provides additional context about Liz in those paragraphs. However, Althouse's last paragraph is Weinstein's last sentence.
Then again, Althouse's last paragraph is why I couldn't vote for Hillary. Too many people were given the special injustice of being punished for mishandling classified information for which Hillary received no punishment at all.
The next time Facebook cancels Weinstein, they will coordinate with Twitter first.
I started a Facebook account at the urging of my Sister-In-Law, who uses it to virtue signal her politics and humblebrag her social life. I closed it after 3 weeks, because the purpose of Facebook is to sell your personal information for commercial use, and the value of posting family pics didn't justify that for me.
You are the product for Facebook. Being a product is not a good position to be in, for either a feedlot cow or a human being.
There is no such thing as hate speech or violent speech, there is just speech.
Back to the days of UUCP/UUCIO and blocking trolls one by one.
Anything else leads to the re-education camps.
-XC
Bret and Eric Weinstein are liberals who have been extremely critical of the progressive orthodoxy so they need to be suppressed.
The funny thing is all that Facebook and Twitter are achieving with this sort of suppression is convincing more and more people that these companies are out of control.
Damn their oily hides!
Time to re-evaluate the state action doctrine? How can we guarantee the widest possible scope for public discussion of ideas on Facebook and Twitter?
It doesn’t even matter why it happened — the fact it happened at all is indictment enough.
A professional organization would *ensure* this cannot happen, ever.
Social media is cutting its own throat with power trip hubris and stupidity. And it’s totally an “own goal”, an unprovoked, unforced error.
If Weinstein, Lennon et. al. bothered to get worked up when other people get banned and deplatformed, I'd give a shit. Same goes for the "free speech for me but not for those icky deplorables" Bari Weiss. I know several people who long ago lost their income thanks to real speech suppression that didn't make the headlines. I know scores more (including Democrats and centrists) who never got a chance to make a living in the first place when the iron fist descended on academia in the early 90s. These folks with giant payouts from taxpayer-funded schools, who quietly clung to their tenure as their own graduate students were burned at the stake, and thingies like Weiss rolling in praise for their easy little rebellions once the first raindrop of suppression tinkled on their windowpane are lazy. And cowards.
They can't go back in time now and behave courageously. I don't give a damn what they think now. It was apparent to any thinking person thirty years ago where all this was headed.
I'm reluctant to support government intervention in the case of social media (Facebook and Twitter) because I fear it will be worse.
But the actions of these technology giants is deplorable.
Check out Mike Rowes recent Facebook post:
https://m.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/photos/a.151342491542569/3732110833465699/?type=3&source=48&ref=bookmarks
It’s what we’re dealing with
You have the tags "Facebook" and "evil". Add an "=".
I confess, I have never used Facebook, and don't plan to, so I don't really see why anyone gives fuck zero what Zuckerbucks does. But I guess the rest of you somehow rely on it to communicate with your friends. Weird.
Congratulations for sticking with your independent blog!
This is a test comment. I have been locked out of commenting on blogger sites since last night's debate ended. I couldn't even sign out and sign back into my account either- it first told me my password wasn't recognized. So I requested a new one be sent to my e-mail address. Nothing after almost 10 hours of waiting, nothing on trying again this morning.
So, I created a new account with a new e-mail address. I am now trying to comment to see if it goes through. I am not joking here.
Clearly they are not winning the PR wr in this area. In this they strengthen the sense that they are a monopoly and in the control of Dem partisans
I don't do Facebook, and this reinforces why. Don't twit, either.
Ok, that seemed to work. You do get paranoid, though, when this happens.
Facebook delenda est.
Social media depends on their algorithms to process the massive amount of content produced. These algorithms are well known to be faulty and make all sorts of mistakes, some of the most ridiculous kind, plus they are quite obviously politically biased, so some of it is intentional harassment. The review process is murky at best and you can never really be sure what is going on since there is no transparency. You appeal. The site's manual review kicks in. Was the appeal actually manually reviewed by a real person? Who knows! They may be lying to you because, frankly, they don't want to bother. Or maybe it was reviewed by one of the army of staff they have, mostly made of people who wish they were doing something else with their lives. Some of them have a script to follow, a script which they may or may not understand, and follow it wherever it leads no matter how absurd. Heck, they may not even understand what they are reviewing. Some of them hate their job and just want to do the minimum that won't get them fired and just rejecting everything probably won't get them fired. Others are activists who have their own agendas. In any case, they get back to you and tell you this is final, because they have already spent too much time and money over your crappy Facebook page. You are a cog in the machine and they don't need all the cogs.
Social media is not your friend. Primarily, you are their product through which they make money. Secondarily, you are a target to be propagandized for whatever the powers that be decide is important that day. Don't ever forget it.
I don't DO Facebook, nor Twitter. This just reinforces my decision.
The far left liberals become bullies once they gain power.
For example, Robert Reich, the 4 foot 8 inch far left know-nothing wants a truth and reconciliation commission to punish those who have been Trump supporters. While, Keith Olbermann, wants to execute Trump for the Wuhan flu deaths.
I assume that Sean Ono Lennon is Yoko and John's son. Is Bret Weinstein related to Harvey? Why should I care what either one of them has to say. Seems like they are only famous because of their parents.
"You could not find a more measured and reasonable man than Bret."
#FactCheck true.
All this it's at FB is warrented. But the real crime is this is a reflection of the left.
The tech companies are so hard to reach in person. We are having an issue with one of our social media companies (it's not a bad thing) and we cannot get anyone on the phone. Ever. And the email responses and "help" on their website are just auto responses.
"It was apparent to any thinking person thirty years ago where all this was headed."
I've done a little thinking in my time, but I have to confess, it did not occur to me in 1990 that the DFC's running the Womyns Studies Department would someday be running the whole university. We occasionally spoke of "weapons grade stupidity", but we didn't realize it actually existed. I suppose I should have realized that what was possible in Russia is possible here.
The far left liberals become bullies once they gain power.
For example, Robert Reich, the 4 foot 8 inch far left know-nothing wants a truth and reconciliation commission to punish those who have been Trump supporters. While, Keith Olbermann, wants to execute Trump for the Wuhan flu deaths.
Astonishing how much time and attention people expend on Facebook and Twitter. To what benefit? Speaking with limited knowledge, not having an account in either, but:
..Facebook seems mostly self aggrandisement;
..Twitter seems mostly jabber and noise, like The View or a Presidential "Debate."
Taking to Twitter to complain about treatment by Facebook Inc. is bizarrely illustrative.
It rankles that entities funded with public money use these restricted access information channels. "Program Information Available On Our Facebook Page. Follow Us On Twitter!"
The information channel may be free to the County Library, but the cost to me is is divulging personal data to Zuckerberg and Dorsey.
For all the thousands of people who work for the big social media companies, it is almost impossible to get anyone on the phone or in a real email to get help when there is a problem, or a mistake. Everything is automated, and when there are so many ways things can go wrong there is no way they are ready with all those fixes.
It was probably Bret Weinstein trans intransigence that got him thrown off Facebook.
Facebook is transparently lying: the one claim you do review is imposture. Can the account holder prove he is who he says he is?
I am so tired of people complaining about how they are treated by twitter and facebook. I am even more tired of having to wade into the cesspools of twitter and facebook to obtain information from a wide range of sources. Quite being so lazy and develop your own web site. Stop making me support people who hate me so I can get the information I need.
mockturtle said...
Sean Ono Lennon is living proof that insanity is not inherited.
10/23/20, 8:20 AM
John was more Conservative than people realize. Read the words for Revolution...he is making fun of what passes as Progressivism today...and then there's this...https://www.today.com/popculture/was-john-lennon-closet-conservative-1C9486980
Rory said...
I sometimes feel like this blog is a couple years behind.
There are three kinds of Democrats.
Some are evil.
Some are stupid.
Some are both.
"Please welcome our new Overlords."
You mean the Chinese? I agree.
One day last Fall I noticed that my posts - political and not - were getting MUCH less traction all of a sudden. I went, in short order, from around 60+ likes and 5-15 comments per post (not counting my replies) to less than 10 likes and often no comments at all.
Checked with some friends. They had thought I had slowed down my posting, because they hadn't seen any on their timeline recently. Rarely do folks click over to a friend's account to see what's up without a compelling reason. By and large, people react to their timelines, and maybe follow up on things at the account level a few times per day. Despite having many recent posts of the sort that would garner reactions and spur conversations (my favorite part of the platform), the vast majority of my friends never saw them. Some even bypassed my wife, who had me on "See First" (and I with her), which should have guaranteed that MOST of them crossed her timeline. Almost none did.
Shadowbanned.
I spent 3 days testing my theory. One thing I noticed was, after contacting FB friends over their Messaging app, they'd suddenly start seeing my posts again, for a few days at least, before I seemingly vanished again. I started texting friends instead, asking a few of them to keep an eye on my appearances on their timeline. For 3 days, only about 1 in 10 posts ever made it to their timelines, even though I was making an effort to post things germane to stuff they were sharing (one was really into snowmobiles and I posted a bunch of articles about the new 2020 models and reviews - none ever got to their timeline, despite this being something they'd ABSOLUTELY have seen only a couple weeks before). I tried using more tags on posts to no effect.
I decided not to grovel. I logged out one day last Fall, and haven't logged back in since. The app isn't even on my phone anymore.
I do intend to try getting back on after the election, to see if things have improved. But I'm not counting on it, or pining for it. The only reason I haven't outright deleted my account is because there are pics I've saved there that I don't think I have anywhere else, and I need to get around to finding out what I ought to download and archive before final deletion. But it's coming, and probably soon. It had been getting old even last year, and after the first few weeks of abstaining, I stopped missing it. It was a rush to interact and garner reactions to my opinions and experiences, but I can get a rush in better ways than that.
I was booted from Twitter for referring [often] to Biden as the senile retard. There is no recourse for the average Joe like me. They just kick you off. I look forward to the class action lawsuit. I do think the beta boys and beta girls relish their roles and gatekeeper bullies but they will find what goes around comes around.
"Sean Ono Lennon is living proof that insanity is not inherited.”
There was a rumor that his father had turned conservative in a lot of ways and used to mock his liberal friends.
From a host of younger Leftists in D.C. over 20 years ago (Journolist comes to mind), to pretty much all of the humanities departments a few generations ago, to the general 'Zeitgeist' of (W)omen/(B)lacks/(T)rans are the new Freedom/Equality (especially in Silicon Valley), it's taken a while to arrive here.
If you think people with such ideas, taking over institutions, won't eventually fail to their Left, you're likely mistaken. If you also think they won't use their authority, abuse it, and punish dissent until those institutions arrive at broader failure, you're also mistaken.
So, well done Althouse.
You've spotted a horrid injustice
Now, what are you going to do about it?
Nothing?
Of vote straight ticket GOP, including Trump?
Because Trump will happily go to war with FB for this kind of thing, and Biden / the Democrats will fight to support FB et. al.
So, is this a problem that you want solved?
Or do you just want to complain about it, while not doing anything to stop it?
I now see the comment I made under the old account has now appeared.
What I saw on this end was hitting "Publish Your Comment", but when the window reloaded, the text was still in the comment box- like it is when it refuses to publish. I made at least another 5 comments last night in the debate and the overnight thread, none which seemed to go through. I am still waiting for Google to send me a code for the old account so I can create a new password.
I was on facebook for short time a long time ago. hated it. Walked away. No regrets.
Joining Facebook is giving in to Zuckerberg's high school social club popular kids fetish.
If you elect Biden-Harris, this is who you are putting into government, the faceless authority that will grant you no review. If they reverse their decisions, it is by their grace. Be grateful. This is who they are. This is what they do.
I see several people noting how they avoid Facebook and don't understand why others do. I get this. I avoided it until my children became teenagers, and yeah, I wanted to track their behavior. They are adults now, and like a telephone, Facebook is a good way to communicate.
However, the big aspect is a decision to participate in the discussion or not. You can choose not to participate. I don't care to participate in Twitter. In doing so, I have no voice to the hundreds of people that do read my Facebook posts, and likely hundreds more that would do so on Twitter. For Althouse, that's thousands, and for many celebrities, that's millions. Perhaps you don't want that much attention or you don't want to hear their responses to you.
Lack of participation is part of the perception that free market values are fading while socialism is on the rise. Socialist have no problem participating in forums like these. They also have no problem trying to drown out other voices, whether by convincing you to stay silent or by other means.
Thistlerose said...
I am so tired of people complaining about how they are treated by twitter and facebook. I am even more tired of having to wade into the cesspools of twitter and facebook to obtain information from a wide range of sources. Quite being so lazy and develop your own web site. Stop making me support people who hate me so I can get the information I need.
Are you a parody account?
Because "well done".
You want "to obtain information from a wide range of sources", from the insane Left to the really insane Left? Because Bret Weinstein is on the Left, just not "left enough" for the lunatics at Facebook. And they deleted him.
WHERE THE HELL IS NASIM AGHDAM WHEN WE NEED HER
Field Marshall and Failed Social Commenter Freder: "I assume that Sean Ono Lennon is Yoko and John's son. Is Bret Weinstein related to Harvey? Why should I care what either one of them has to say. Seems like they are only famous because of their parents."
This is an absolutely perfect Field Marshall Freder post and for all the usual reasons.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google are evil.
They know they have us.
time for an update..
I got the complete and total Twitter banhammer for referencing a movie quote from Tropic Thunder and saying "They went full retard. Never go full retard."
I started an anonymous account and according to Shadowban.eu it's already shadow banned. All my replies are hidden under a "see more" button.
John Borell said...
I'm reluctant to support government intervention in the case of social media (Facebook and Twitter) because I fear it will be worse.
The only government intervention needed is to take away Section 230 protections for any "platform" that discriminates based on politics.
Without that government subsidy, FB, Twitter, & Google would all quickly go bankrupt from lawsuits for the libel and copyright violations they publish,
Then we get new companies, because the market will be open for competition
Like Meade, I never joined Facebook. Family members have pleaded with me to do so. I'll never be part of that shitshow.
My wife asked me to join and said I'd enjoy it. IT WAS HELL. I am still working! The freaking notifications, the security hacks, AAAAAAAA! Have you tried to quit Facebook?
I HAVE TRIED. I actually saw a warning one day years ago on what I believed to be somewhere in the dim miasma of the Faceboook dungeons, words that said something like "IF YOU DO NOT RESCIND THE REQUEST TO DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT IN 10 (or whatever) DAYS, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE DELETED AND CANNOT BE RECOVERED."
I deleted, I ignored it. And then, months later I started getting texts "You have 45 friend recommendations...yada yada yada", sometimes in t he middke of the night.
It explains a lot that some Democrat is on the staff at facebook beause THAT OBVIOUSLY CONFERS POWER AND CONTROL OF OTHERS AND SHE CAN SEND THREATS TO PEOPLE AND I BET SHE'S INSANELY GRATEFUL TO BE PART OF THE FACEBOOK-BORG COMPLEX.
Thank you.
And also, what Static Ping said.
The algorithms are really the only entities capable of steering such enormous quantities of data. The AI modeling requires enormous quantities of training data and feedback as well, and scaling up as a company is one of the only ways to stay alive throwing capital from successful revenue streams at new bets and emerging threats.
So....you're an ID tag in an enormous machine, trying to monetize your data from an avatar.
Meanwhile, the deeper cultural currents rewarding loudest, authoritarian activists and liberation are also at work inside the organization, as well as these same and different political coaltions, factions and parties seeking more accountability and control through the law and politics as well.
Most of the commenters here that dont do facebook or twitter, so are happy to move on with their simple lives, are choosing ignorance at their peril.
By proxy, facebook and twitter have supplanted "the public". Without our consent. You may not give these media giants the time of day, but those that have the power to influnce your life, source a wide swath of their power through these platforms.
Check any media source. A large source of content you get, is sourced through twitter. So twitter is a gate keeper of facts.
Same is true of facebook. You may never darken their digital door, but 100 million people consider themselves informed and never stray from their facebook account.
This is all foreign to commenters here. But that is todays reality.
Insty has said for a long time, if Conservative fat cats want to influence and convert peoples views, they should be buying up teen, and womens media sources. In the old days that was magazines, today its digital. Look what happened to Drudge, sold out to leftists. Why don't conservatives play that game?
Rush is not going to be a player much longer. Then what?
I briefly read through Brett Weinstein's tweets for the last month or so and the most controversial thing I found was this retweet of a tweet by Yuri Deigen on Oct 8th.
There most be some way to link to this, but meanwhile, quoting from it:
"The censors are making it WAY more obvious they are trying to cover smth up. They deleted the PhD thesis that revealed that 2012 Mojiang miners with a SARS-like pneumonia tested positive for SARS IgG antibodies.
Btw WIV ran those tests. Question: can we PCR those samples?"
and then that links to a tweet by The Seeker on Oct 8th, quote:
"The PhD thesis by Huang Canping is now deleted."
To put that in context, this may, or maybe I should say very likely, relates to the origin of Covid-19, and obviously the government of China is trying wipe out the puzzle pieces.
So if we assume some backdoor CCP influence on Twitter, it would be tempting to remove Brett Weinstein from Facebook because he has a large audience and he's spreading significant information into the non-scientific community.
Social Media platforms are all busy biting their own asses as they desperately try to circle the wagons around Democrats during this election cycle.
The crickets you hear? Yeah, that's the MSM silently approving because they're doing the same thing.
When Trump wins reelection there will be no self reflection from them because they know they'll do it again in another 4 years, so why bother?
The internet is a public highway pretended to be Owned by private businesses that close it down to destroy whomever they want to whenever they want to. Go build your own highway system or else. Breaking them up is the answer.
I'm actually OK with fb and the rest of them acting like trolls, censoring who they want and all the rest. It is a business. Your first amendment rights don't apply on their servers. You don't like it? Leave.
On the Althouse post about the Google antitrust suit i commented that Facebook would be easier. Zuckerberg and his henchmen need to be brought up short.
"Biden as the senile retard”
You probably could have made your point without resorting to the r-word. He did flunk the third grade, however, per Giuliani. And he seems numb as a hake, not to put too fin a point on it.
It turns out twitter-facebook speak for "Don't be evil" = "Be evil"
Brett Weinstein has a pretty good, consistently interesting, podcast, Darkhorse.
Although pretty on the left, he regularly hammers SJWs, academia and social media.
Looking forward to what he has to say about this.
"Like Meade, I never joined Facebook."
Find/like Meade off Facebook.
It's not just Facebook. There's a proprietor over at Powerline who will shut you down and tell you that his decision "is irreversible and no appeal will be heard". I think the real reason was that I disagreed with Paul Mirengoff's point of view one too many times--but another "explanation" was offered when I asked what happened.
Of course Facebook and Twitter are the big dogs on social media and the sheer volume of traffic there means that their actions are more egregious.
Great to have Sean Ono Lennon on our side against the Chinese-style propaganda media. Maybe it will cause some people to wake up?
The ignorance of Freder Frederson is a beautiful thing to behold.
Greg The Class Traitor said.
Are you a parody account?
Because "well done".
You want "to obtain information from a wide range of sources", from the insane Left to the really insane Left? Because Bret Weinstein is on the Left, just not "left enough" for the lunatics at Facebook. And they deleted him.
I don't think you understood what I said. I don't want people who I get information from to force me to go to twitter to get that information. I sometimes play an online game, when the servers are down they post it on twitter, why is that information not on their website? Why would a church use facebook to keep in contact with there members rather then a website they can control. Stop using these platforms that spew hate and use your own website that contains information you want to provide to your followers.
I've never joined FB, either. Nor twitter nor instagram. Nor do I own, nor would I own, an Alexa home monitoring device. Have people lost their reason? Are they not thinking through these technologies?
Control of information is far more dangerous to our country than NK or Iranian missiles. And yet many people are too blind or naive to see it.
"I assume that Sean Ono Lennon is Yoko and John's son. Is Bret Weinstein related to Harvey? Why should I care what either one of them has to say. Seems like they are only famous because of their parents."
Oh, Freder.
This is exactly what I think an AI would say. This fails the Turing test. Bot check.
I'm sending this to Bret. Spit take material.
Thank you, Althouse! And testify! Yes, this is wrong.
And many here mock or belittle Sean Ono and Weinstein without realizing that they are your ally on this issue. And they have a much more powerful voice than most of us ever will. If the combined total of this post's commenters erased facebook; the company wouldn't notice or care. But these two speaking out can get people in facebook, in academia, and in the larger culture to at least have to address uncomfortable issues, at least for a minute. But then what?
Many here resort to what I call the "Retreat" position. I did. I'm not on *any* social media, much to the consternation of friends and family.
But that ain't going to stop 'em. It would take literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of cancellations for them to take notice and alter (or better cover) their actions. And even then, they would have to believe these cancellations were all for the same reasons. And even then they might not change.
> One solution would be for different states to offer much, much better incentives for technology start-ups. The Bay Area of California dominates the tech sector (especially social media) so thoroughly that it's political biases were bound to be imported into the platforms.
> One solution may be the anti-trust approach. Perhaps, but there's no guarantee that the broken up companies wouldn't share the same willingness to place political bias into the function of their apps anyway. However, this break-up could cause enough waves to create an opportunity for new, hopefully less biased, companies to arise.
> One solution would be for a non-politically biased company to arise on it's own and capture the audience. A long shot for lots of reasons at this point. Ten years ago maybe, now that's a toughie. But still do-able with the right set of circumstances and literally tons and tons of money (and celebrity / political/ etc. buy in - but well, Quibi didn't do sh*t and it had tons cash and celebs).
> One solution would be a much heavier hand of government interference into this companies daily activities. This is the nuclear option.
Release the "Section 230" Exemptions! This option obliterates many comments sections almost entirely due to legal liability. It just won't be worth it to have one.
Including on this blogger platform I would think. There is a danger here to supporters of free speech. This obliterates tons of free speech online. Some sites like CNN, MSNBC, FOX who can afford to have carefully, constantly monitored comment sections could keep it up but that places the expression of speech into a smaller and smaller group of peoples (biased) hands. I would think this would radically affect facebook unless they can carve out exemptions - in which case it would be pointless.
> EMPs. Ok this is the real nuclear option. But grow up, no one's going to contribute to this on a scale large enough to disrupt a global social media company.
Also they would be destroyed (rightly) by that nations forces.
> Convince the companies to stop being so overtly political in their operation through constant positive engagement, "infiltration", *credible* threat of boycotts, shareholder expectations, etc. etc.
This is the least sexy, most realistic approach I see.
> The only other "free market, small government" solution I can think of is passively expecting 100's of thousands or millions of people to disengage with social media of their own free will. But, that's fantasy land. That's like saying millions will just suddenly stop watching TV and start going outside. Some have. There's whole facebook groups dedicated to it (see what I did there). But realistically, I don't see TV going anywhere. Until, that is, VR takes over.
For those who think Weinstein is milquetoast, why would they ban him: the folks who've sent me links to things he's written or his podcast over the last year or so are all progressive/recently ex-progressive. His audience is dissident liberals, and through his personal connections and his brother he's deeply plugged into the so-called intellectual dark web. That stuff might seem milquetoast to many of the folks here, but it is a group of people pointing out the problems with the orthodoxy and those enforcing it, to people who would never read even this site. It's fucking dangerous, way more so than the voices in the right-sphere who are already contained in an echo chamber. The bots are getting smarter.
Weinstein is like an emerging Jordan Peterson in terms of how big a deal he's becoming, how desperate his audience is to hear someone respectable say the things he says.
"Most of the commenters here that dont do facebook or twitter, so are happy to move on with their simple lives, are choosing ignorance at their peril."
My life ain't that simple. But to quote The Great Bob Dylan, "And if my thought-dreams could be seen/ They'd probably put my head in a guillotine ..."
But what I really don't understand is why none of you seem to be using ad-blockers. If you block their ads, they don't get paid. Do you really want someone to get paid to help people who want your money to lie to you? I suppose some people might feel that being shown ads carefully chosen to appeal to their known interests is a service.
BleachBit-and-Hammers (10:47am):
No, the Google-Twitter-Facebook motto really is "Don't be evil", they just don't advertise that it's accented on the "be" and is short for "Don't BE evil, DO evil". The secret commentaries on the book of Google (as closed to outsiders as a Mormon temple) explain that this is short for "It's not enough to sit around BEing evil all day, you have to get out there and DO some evil, some really evil evil, every day of the week, if you want to work here. And that includes your off-days: 'Don't be evil' is not just a motto, it's a lifestyle." The faithful believe that the Singularity will occur when the number of Evil deeds for Google + Twitter + Facebook reaches one google.
I joined Facebook, never used it, then deleted my account. I never wanted to give FB any of my information, and never wanted anyone else to see it. I'm not missing it.
I kind of agree with the people who want to remove the 230 protection. But I feel like this is a bit like the people who claim they want to legalize drugs; Do you really mean it? No rules at all? Anything goes, anywhere? ISIS beheading videos on your FaceBook Wall (whatever the Hell that is)?
There’s nothing for ordinary folks
I got censored and doxxed on FB until I deleted, not just deactivated the account.
No one in the Bay Area can handle a black conservative without literally trying to beat him down as witnessed just this past weekend.
Of course, since I use ad-block, Althouse doesn't get paid either. I would use her Amazon portal, except that I very much include Amazon in with FaceBook/Google/Twitter/CCP. Sorry, Ma'am, you will just have to be content with monetizing all this great commentary I provide for nothing.
It is kind of weird, that the richest people in America all seem to want to hollow out America so they can sell its guts to China. I don't think any of them would want to live in China, so why are they so eager to bring the very worst it has to offer here? Just to control an additional billion or two?
A vote for Joe is a vote for Putin and Ayotola Khamenei. Higher gas prices, higher energy prices, more brown/black outs, more poverty, lower wealth, higher unemployment. Joe will eliminate independent contractors to benefit his union buddies. He'll relax sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea.
He'll be out of office by Easter, 2021. Kamala will be president.
No rules at all? Anything goes, anywhere? ISIS beheading videos on your FaceBook Wall (whatever the Hell that is)?
I'm not sure removal of 230 protection has much to do with that. As I understand it, yes, 230 allows providers to remove "objectionable" content without liability, but it (with some exceptions) their judgement about what is objectionable. IANAL, but I believe 230 actually protects Twitter from liability from ISIS tweeting beheading videos. It also protects them from liability from a lawsuit against them for blocking that beheading video as "objectionable." But does anyone think such a lawsuit would not get laughed out of court?
daskol said...
Weinstein is like an emerging Jordan Peterson in terms of how big a deal he's becoming, how desperate his audience is to hear someone respectable say the things he says.
I very much enjoy his DarkHorse podcasts with his wife Heather Heying. My initial thought was that they focus on the insanity of modern universities and their insights had limited applicability to the larger world. I was wrong.
I enjoy their banter, but don't always agree with their progressive views. However, I do not find their views annoying in the least. They are reasonable people with strong intellectual skills and honesty.
The Streisand Award is gonna be hard to decide this year. I don’t envy the committee. Who ever heard of this guy before some dweeb at Facebook with a vendetta cancelled his account?
I kind of agree with the people who want to remove the 230 protection. But I feel like this is a bit like the people who claim they want to legalize drugs; Do you really mean it? No rules at all? Anything goes, anywhere? ISIS beheading videos on your FaceBook Wall (whatever the Hell that is)?
Yes. I really mean it. I certainly don't support legalizing drugs. It is not the same issue. However, if a reasonable distinction can be made between blogs and comment sections, on the one hand, and large monopolistic gargantuan platforms like Twitter and Facebook and Instagram on the other, then they should certainly be treated as publishers when they decide what content can be posted. If ISIS beheading videos are posted, so be it.
People can control what they wish to see and what they believe when they have read it. Actually, each person MUST control those things. One of the central problems I have with lefties is that they treat people as infants who must be coddled and protected and supported and underwritten, and there must be equal outcomes.
People must learn to exist on their own terms and find their own way. We used to do it that way, and it worked very well. We don't need morally superior lefties to do that for us.
- Krumhorn
"It's not just Facebook. There's a proprietor over at Powerline who will shut you down and tell you that his decision "is irreversible and no appeal will be heard". I think the real reason was that I disagreed with Paul Mirengoff's point of view one too many times--but another "explanation" was offered when I asked what happened."
Same thing happened to me- I just critiqued Mirengoff's constant NeverTrumpism- and really only a couple of times, and those comments vanished within 20 minutes each time. I basically stopped commenting on Powerline at that point for over a year, but then Mirengoff wrote something, I don't remember what now- I would have to go into Discus to find it- and I was responding to one of the comments by a guy named Paul Dueffert, who any Powerline comments reader will instantly know who I am talking about. I basically wrote a mocking comment addressed to this commenter as "Paul", and the comment was deleted within a couple of minutes. I wrote another comment telling Mirengoff to go fuck himself because he was too stupid to waste my time on, and they should just ban me, which they did.
I found the thread that got me banned at Powerline in my Discus history: Here are the comments that were removed that ticked me off:
Yancey Ward to Paul Dueffert a year ago
You have heard of Google, haven't you, Paul? I mean, this story link isn't hard to find if you have an IQ out of the double digits.
Yancey Ward to Paul Dueffert a year ago
Removed
You have heard of Google, haven't you, Paul Doofus? I mean, this story isn't hard to find if you have an IQ out of double digits.
Wow, Paul Mirengoff- you really are thin-skinned!
Me again:
The first comment got deleted, so I reposted it, adding the Doofus, I think, to change the comment enough that Discus would take the submission. That comment also was deleted, so I wrote second comment above. It was also deleted.
Mirengoff then had subsequent post where he made the assertion that Ross Perot took 50/50 from Bush and Clinton in the 1992 election. I disagreed with this assertion when I wrote the following:
Yancey Ward a year ago
Removed
"studies have shown that Perot took about as many votes away from Clinton as he did from Bush" [quoting Mirengoff's piece]
All of those studies are nonsense. To determine this, you just have to look at the states Clinton won, like MT, CO, NV. At best, 1/3 of Perot's support came from Clinton's potential vote. A detailed analysis shows that Perot cost Bush states like KY, Ohio, NV, MT, ME, NJ, GA, NH, WI and CO. Now, this wasn't enough to cost Bush the win- he might well have lost a narrow vote in the electoral college anyway- he would have needed to win all those states above, plus IA, MI, or MO- and Clinton/Gore was such a southern ticket that states like AR, LA, and TN were out of reach even heads up- so Bush had a tough needle to thread anyway. However, it is just nonsense to not recognize that at least 2/3 of the voters for Perot were natural Republicans pissed off at Bush. Without Perot, perhaps they don't show up to vote at all, but not for Clinton.
This comment was removed almost immediately- I reposted it and it was removed again. At that point, enough was enough, and I told him to go fuck himself in my very last comment on the site.
I'm not sure everyone would find ISIS beheading videos inappropriate. Distasteful, to be sure. I saw one such video--the same one many have seen, most likely. But it displays ISIS brutality in a way that words cannot.
Up front disclosure, I don't use or need "Facebook" or "Twitter"! I'm at a loss for words as to why people on these "Blogs" complain about these two services when they can just cut them out of their lives. Tell me what's so critical about these two services. Google on the other hand has a 80 - 90% market share of the Internet. Just like AT&T of 'old' they will get broken up by government who's suing them for monopolistic practices. One blogger - Kai Akker - had the best observation and was factually correct about companies disappearing:
"...In 1958, corporations listed in the S&P 500 had an average stay of 61 years. By 1980, numbers from research firm Innosight reveal that the average stay had declined sharply to 25 years. In 2011, the average tenure dropped to 18 years. At the present rate of churn, Innosight’s research estimates three-quarters of today’s S&P 500 will be replaced by 2027..."
https://hbr.org/sponsored/2017/07/digital-transformation-is-racing-ahead-and-no-industry-is-immune-2
That's why I really don't care, except in the case of Google, no monopolies should be allowed period - cause they stifle innovation via removing competition.
10/23/20, 8:24 AM
I confess, I have never used Facebook, and don't plan to, so I don't really see why anyone gives fuck zero what Zuckerbucks does.
Because this time it's Facebook. The next time may be something you do use.
Twitter made a business decision that they could make more money with and be more attractive to advertisers by exercising control over content. They didn’t have to do that, but they wanted to make more money, so they did. They publish comments and exercise editorial control.
Since they decided to become a publisher to make more money, a cost of doing business as a publisher is lawsuits. Too bad so sad.
Jupiter said...
I kind of agree with the people who want to remove the 230 protection. But I feel like this is a bit like the people who claim they want to legalize drugs; Do you really mean it? No rules at all? Anything goes, anywhere? ISIS beheading videos on your FaceBook Wall (whatever the Hell that is)?
Those two don't follow. They're free to ban anything that's illegal in the US. They're free to act in a non-political manner (say, their ban against adult females showing their breasts).
Anything political? No Section 230 for you
I just want to add that Sean Lennon is a talented musician and his work with Les Claypool of Primus in the Claypool Lennon Delirium is stellar. If you like psychedelia. So, maybe only famous because of his parents, but there's more there.
"Anything political? No Section 230 for you"
I don't think that's how it works. How it would work is, someone would sue them for something they had published, and they would say, "We didn't publish it, we aren't a publisher." And then the lawyers would argue about whether they were a publisher. But once it is determined they are a publisher, they would be liable for everything they ever published.
Jupiter said...
But once it is determined they are a publisher, they would be liable for everything they ever published.
Precisely. Once you start acting like a publisher, you ARE a publisher, and you're subject to all of the rules a publisher faces, forever more.
Don't want to be treated like a publisher? Then don't ever make a politically based "editorial decision"
The AI is growing. This is just the immature AI at work. In a few years the AI will be able to judge the social score of your posts at Althouse and deny you access to the Apple Store based on facial recognition as being of the deplorable class. You won't be able to get around it.
You would have to go cash only, off the grid, fake ID every week while the AI recognizes you are an anomaly and searches to destroy you. AI data feeder? Karma Aware Remote Entry Negation.
Blogger Jupiter said...
"Anything political? No Section 230 for you"
I don't think that's how it works. How it would work is, someone would sue them for something they had published, and they would say, "We didn't publish it, we aren't a publisher." And then the lawyers would argue about whether they were a publisher. But once it is determined they are a publisher, they would be liable for everything they ever published.
************
I don't think that's how it works.
Sec 230 currently protects Facebook et al from civil suits for defamation.
Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service ** shall be treated as the publisher** or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Facebook et al are "providers of an interactive service" under Sec. 230.
So it is immaterial whether a court would decide to "treat" Facebook as a publisher, unless the judge ignores the plain meaning of the statute IOW ignore the law.
Such a decision would establish no new cause of action against the companies Sec. 230 protects.
Far better to repeal the damn statute, now that it is being blatantly abused. Then break up those monopolies. (but that will be hard to do, as Facebook et al spread a lot of "walking around money" among our political masters.)
Yancey Ward said...
"It's not just Facebook. There's a proprietor over at Powerline who will shut you down and tell you that his decision "is irreversible and no appeal will be heard". I think the real reason was that I disagreed with Paul Mirengoff's point of view one too many times--but another "explanation" was offered when I asked what happened."
***********
Same thing happened to me. But Powerline's just a blog, and if Mirengoff wants to be known as a thin-skinned prick, that's his right. Not a good look for a lawyer, though.
(Maybe he should come right out with it and rename the blog, "VEE vill ask ze qvestions!"
One of many reasons to vote against Biden is that the press will go to great lengths to cover for him.
RE: SECTION 230:
I urge every American citizen that cares about their free speech and the capability of free speech in this country for all (especially including commenting on or, even, reading this or any other web content - to educate themselves on what is actually in Section 230. Don't just take it from me, or Trump, or Pelosi or any one else.
You owe it to yourself and to this country we all claim to care about.
Make up your own minds.
Section 230 has nothing to do with "political" speech or "neutrality".
Basically, it says internet sites that allow user published comments or the linking of comments (Blogger, Facebook, Ebay, Youtube or really most websites you go to) to be immune from most liability from what is communicated in those user comments.
That's it. There is no rule about political neutrality and it's not a "subsidy" except in the most abstract usage of that word. The government doesn't pay these companies for this. It just acknowledged in the 1990's that the internet is an amazing platform for communication that can be opened up to the masses and the companies that facilitate this communication shouldn't be sued for every little thing that is posted in that communication. Because that means no one would take on the risk of allowing user generated content (i.e. comments, youtube videos, etc. etc, etc.)
Note: It doesn't cover statutory federal crimes or copyright violations they're still liable for those.
If Section 230 is repealed all that will happen is comment sections, youtube, all other user generated content will probably disappear. But it doesn't necessarily mean that Facebook or Twitter would disappear. Facebook or Twitter could easily become the largest (mostly progressive) news and content aggregation service in the world. It's just that now, without Section 230, you can't comment on it.
Overturning section 230 largely removes the voices of the Average American from the online conversation. I can not imagine the Blogger platform (i.e. this blog) allowing comment sections anymore - it would just be too big of a liability.
I *completely* understand the frustration of conservatives / populists in wanting to fight against Facebook/Twitter/et al. apparently biased approach to political speech. But I would consider that removing Section 230 could be akin to "cutting off our nose to spite our face."
I suppose there is an argument that this could be better for society ultimately.
But that is an argument that requires eliminating the ability of the Average American from freely speaking their minds online.
Here's a good Reason youtube video about it (note: Reason is a libertarian site):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOxa7ATkPg
RE: SECTION 230
I previously said 230 covers user "comments" but that should really read "user generated content" (including comments).
q12345q6789,
I think the law is a good thing overall, but Facebook, Twitter, and Google are abusing its actual intent. The intent was to protect open forums for speech- in other words, Comcast or ATT couldn't be sued for defamation and libel because of the content they provided with their pipelines. It also protects people like Althouse from being sued for what us deplorables write in her comments sections. It was meant to protect interactive platforms like Twitter and Facebook from being treated as publishers of user content, but it was expected that such platforms wouldn't act like publishers. I think the problem is that the writers of the law didn't anticipate how it would be abused.
I am going to put out a hypothetical for the forum here to make my point: does Section 230 protect the NYTimes from being sued for libel for the articles they publish only in the online edition of the newspaper? Does it protect an author, like Althouse, from libel for the things she writes on the blog? Neither is protected by Section 230, of course- you must still stand behind your own writing no matter what forum you put it. Let's now suppose that a forum for comments actively curates the comments, allowing some commenters to defame someone by name, while deleting comments that defend that person. Is the forum liable? Section 320 was never intended to shield such behavior, surely- it was meant to provide open forums with minimal editorial direction. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have greatly violated the spirit of the law, and need to be reined in. This can be done with a simple change to the law that doesn't end the protection altogether- strictly limit, by law, the editorial power of the forum owners.
You would have to go cash only
Aye, there's the rub. In their quest to eliminate cash in favor of digital currency, they are also seeing to it that brick and mortar stores where one might be able to use cash are mostly closed due to 'covid' or a 'pickup only' [credit card prepaid]. I've already encountered several businesses---pre-covid--that do not accept cash.
One response to FB and T's constant publishing decisions and subsequent removal of 230 could well be the elimination of commentary.
However, that would eliminate the publisher. what is Twitter but commentary?
Rather, the publishers would revert to being platforms, and would allow all non-obscene, non-illegal commentary. You know, like the comments that are being banned now from conservatives. Or they would cease to exist. no great loss.
Reason is in the pocket of Google.
What is so critical about facebook and twitter -- and google and wikipedia because the same forces of extremist leftist censorship operate there?
What is critical is their ability to suppress or promote news, suppress or promote false allegations about private citizens through guilt-by-association, and especially to prevent dissident facts and opinions from reaching the public square.
They control what people see -- and can't see -- far beyond their own platforms. And there is no reason to assume that all independent blogs will not soon fall under their control. That is why it is unacceptable to sit out this election. If you care about protecting free speech, you have to vote for Trump.
I fought against the first hate crime bill in Georgia in 1999. And yes, these laws not only criminalize speech but are used to "flip" law enforcement agencies and the courts into tools for enforcing radical social justice/identity politics regimes. wonder how the FBI got radicalized? Their hate crime agenda.
We eventually won in the courts in 2001 in Georgia. But by 2020, legislators were afraid to oppose the law. The few brave ones who did were openly called nazis from the House floor. By other Republicans. The local media refused to run op-eds or interview ANYONE opposing the law. Violent protesters with no permits (as everyone else must have) were allowed to swarm the galleries and.chambers and hallways, chanting and screaming for days.
So. You have a choice. Fight for free speech now at the ballot box.or continue to lose it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा