LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices


Closed Thread
  Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2018, 11:39 PM   #16
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 2,662

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727

here you go jsbjsb001 - a western source from the British (BBC) - does that placate you now?


"Facebook shuts down 'spammy' politics pages"

"Facebook has removed more than 800 pages and accounts that sought to profit from politically themed spam.

In a blog, Facebook said the 559 pages and 251 accounts abused the network to try to make people visit sites that make money from adverts.

Scammers no longer sent messages about disasters or celebrities, it said, but used politics to generate traffic.

The action has drawn criticism from some accounts that said they were legitimate activists."

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45836081

Effectively the same story - only it is treated as "spam" in this article. Or I take it you have something against the Brits too? Well I might actually, since the UK is pretty much a nanny-state at this point - why even bother with Brexit if you ask me.

I am sure though that you will have some sort of apologist answer; and the sources weren't from an "authoritative" source. Question is, who decides that? Facebook, or the individual? I am inclined the latter, but thats just me, I guess though you probably like having a big tech giant just TELL you what it considers to be authoritative right?
 
Old 10-14-2018, 01:34 AM   #17
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,551

Rep: Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204
You may find this hard to believe Jeebizz, but I actually find the BBC to be far more honest than RT any day of the week. It's called "editorial independence" as in; while the BBC is publicly funded, the BBC does not let their government tell them what stories to run and dictate the content of those stories. As an example of what I'm saying, perhaps you should read this. It says it all about RT, which is just a mouthpiece for the Russian government. Why would you think anything has changed since ?

I have nothing against anyone in the UK, there's no reason I would. I don't live there, but I can read between the lines. It's not the normal private citizen's fault as to what their government does - in any country. If you think the UK is a "nanny-state", then you clearly don't live in Australia, as the country I live in (being the same one) is probably one of the biggest "nanny-states" you'll find anywhere on Earth - this doesn't mean that I agree with my government - I don't. They are just a bunch of fools as far as I'm concerned. Personally I'm a favour of a revolution here, it's exactly what we need here.

I'm sorry Jeebizz, but if you are going to believe the crap that RT puts out, then good luck, as you'll probably need it.
 
Old 10-14-2018, 10:34 AM   #18
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 2,662

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
You may find this hard to believe Jeebizz, but I actually find the BBC to be far more honest than RT any day of the week. It's called "editorial independence" as in; while the BBC is publicly funded, the BBC does not let their government tell them what stories to run and dictate the content of those stories. As an example of what I'm saying, perhaps you should read this. It says it all about RT, which is just a mouthpiece for the Russian government. Why would you think anything has changed since ?

I have nothing against anyone in the UK, there's no reason I would. I don't live there, but I can read between the lines. It's not the normal private citizen's fault as to what their government does - in any country. If you think the UK is a "nanny-state", then you clearly don't live in Australia, as the country I live in (being the same one) is probably one of the biggest "nanny-states" you'll find anywhere on Earth - this doesn't mean that I agree with my government - I don't. They are just a bunch of fools as far as I'm concerned. Personally I'm a favour of a revolution here, it's exactly what we need here.

I'm sorry Jeebizz, but if you are going to believe the crap that RT puts out, then good luck, as you'll probably need it.
The article on RT and BBC are essentially the same though. As for BBC, while it is publicly funded - it still has its own bias. Your problem is this, you do not give credit where credit is due. Had this article been on CNN, I would have linked to CNN as well. The fact that the leaker chose to leak to breitbart originally is irrelevant. Or, lets say the leaker chose RT, does that just invalidate the information, because it is RT?

Going back to the main topic of this entire thread - is censorship and manipulation of information in general. Again, you are fixated by how bad Russia is, yet the irony as I pointed out, and will so again - is that what the big tech corporations are doing now - IS what you would see in Russia , and not here in the states, but ok I guess I am the one I that needs help.
 
Old 10-14-2018, 11:23 AM   #19
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,551

Rep: Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
The article on RT and BBC are essentially the same though. As for BBC, while it is publicly funded - it still has its own bias.
Care to explain this "bias" ?

Quote:
Your problem is this, you do not give credit where credit is due.
Okayyyyy, and hows that ? Are you talking about this topic or something else ?

Quote:
Had this article been on CNN, I would have linked to CNN as well.
And so what ? What's this have to do with it being on CNN or not? Let me guess, because everyone except RT is "fake news" ? And/or anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is just "fake news" and/or has "bias" ? Which is it?

Quote:
The fact that the leaker chose to leak to breitbart originally is irrelevant.
And you can't see the "irony" there ? Hint: maybe have a look at what you're saying here. But I guess it's ok here?

Quote:
Or, lets say the leaker chose RT, does that just invalidate the information, because it is RT?
The "leaker" I linked to, was working for RT and was talking about why they quit working for RT.

Quote:
Going back to the main topic of this entire thread - is censorship and manipulation of information in general. Again, you are fixated by how bad Russia is, yet the irony as I pointed out, and will so again - is that what the big tech corporations are doing now -
You linked to an RT article, that's why I was talking about Russia, had it been CNN (or whatever else), then I would be talking about them.

Quote:
IS what you would see in Russia , and not here in the states, but ok I guess I am the one I that needs help.
Yes, I can see that in the US of A, like your President Trump for starters. Like his good mate Vladimir Putin. I seem to remember a court case involving, now what was it, oh, that's right, something about Trump having to unblock Twitter users that said some not so good things about him. I'm sorry, am I "fake news" now? I guess I need some help then...
 
Old 10-14-2018, 12:03 PM   #20
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 2,662

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Care to explain this "bias" ?
Can you not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Okayyyyy, and hows that ? Are you talking about this topic or something else ?
This topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
And so what ? What's this have to do with it being on CNN or not? Let me guess, because everyone except RT is "fake news" ? And/or anyone who doesn't agree with your world view is just "fake news" and/or has "bias" ? Which is it?
I merely posted the article, I am not the one whining about where it came from. I can post from the "most credible" source - whatever that is, and someone will always jump in this thread and say that source is somehow bogus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
And you can't see the "irony" there ? Hint: maybe have a look at what you're saying here. But I guess it's ok here?
I am pointing out how suddenly companies like Facebook and Google take it upon themselves to now be "arbiters of information". This argument is has become more murky, because now the debate is are these platforms like Facebook, publishers or platforms? The internet is essentialy like the public square in some sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
The "leaker" I linked to, was working for RT and was talking about why they quit working for RT.
Ok, so it is established leaker works for RT, is it better had the leaker been from BBC?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
You linked to an RT article, that's why I was talking about Russia, had it been CNN (or whatever else), then I would be talking about them.
So in other words, all sources are not sources then.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Yes, I can see that in the US of A, like your President Trump for starters. Like his good mate Vladimir Putin.
Aaaaaaand, here we go - Russia responsible for everything. You know, my cat has fleas, its because of that damn Putin. You know, I hear also Putin has ties to....Russia. I love how this is not a conspiracy theory, but whenever you bring up how Hillary OUTRIGHT cheated Bernie Sanders - oh well, thats ok - and there is clear proof that she cheated, no real proof yet about Russia. Oh, Russia bought a few ads, and somehow THAT swayed the election? Sorry, who is the conspiracy theorist here?

Let me ask you this then, should then Putin and Trump have the same relationship like Obama had? Would that make you feel better, that two of the world's nuclear powers - are on bad terms? The democrats here seem to rather want that; because they feel somehow their "anointed one" was deprived of the presidency, well lets just burn the whole house down because we lost, right? Or, how about this Hillary cheats Bernie, and then Putin cheats Hillary - poetic justice then?

Here is another hint: I did not vote in the 2016 election, I sat it out - but from what I have seen lately - I see no incentive NOT to vote for Trump this time. I like having more money in my tax return, I like not having to be penalized for that crappy obamacare. What do the democrats even have as a platform, impeach Trump - thats it? Not a platform, but I digress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I seem to remember a court case involving, now what was it, oh, that's right, something about Trump having to unblock Twitter users that said some not so good things about him. I'm sorry, am I "fake news" now? I guess I need some help then...

Twitter CEO pretty much admitted, that those working in the company have a left-leaning bias (linked to Dailymail). Though that article quotes as nobody in Twitter discriminates, that is an outright lie, just check out any of the undercover stuff from Project Veritas (another shady source probably?) I myself consider myself in the middle - but when you have a company like Twitter - giving preference to certain kind of content, why is nobody taking Twitter to court for that? Also, if POTUS is on Twitter, then shouldn't anyone on Twitter not be banned for whatever reason, ergo Twitter is depriving someone else from tweeting POTUS? Or does your argument only go one way?

Thanks so much for derailing my topic all the way and bringing Trump into this

Last edited by Jeebizz; 10-14-2018 at 12:20 PM.
 
Old 10-14-2018, 12:29 PM   #21
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,551

Rep: Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
Can you not?
If you are saying that the BBC has "bias" then it's up to you to explain why, not me. Otherwise it's clearly just nonsense.

Quote:
This topic
Fair enough. But you're wrong tho.

Quote:
I merely posted the article, I am not the one whining about where it came from. I can post from the "most credible" source - whatever that is, and someone will always jump in this thread and say that source is somehow bogus.
Like I said before Jeebizz; if you are going to believe the rubbish RT puts out, then good luck. You'll probably need it, that's all I'm going to say.

Quote:
I am pointing out how suddenly companies like Facebook and Google take it upon themselves to now be "arbiters of information". This argument is has become more murky, because now the debate is are these platforms like Facebook, publishers or platforms? The internet is essentialy like the public square in some sense.
And they are the only ones being "arbiters of information" are they? Methinks not.

Yes, the Internet is like "a public square", that we can clearly agree on.

Quote:
Ok, so it is established leaker works for RT, is it better had the leaker been from BBC?
No, not really, but it says a LOT about RT though.

Quote:
So in other words, all sources are not sources then.
Maybe you should apply for a job with Trump, he could do with someone who thinks that way. I think someone like that would fit in quite nicely.

Quote:
Aaaaaaand, here we go - Russia responsible for everything. You know, my cat has fleas, its because of that damn Putin. You know, I hear also Putin has ties to....Russia. I love how this is not a conspiracy theory, but whenever you bring up how Hillary OUTRIGHT cheated Bernie Sanders - oh well, thats ok - and there is clear proof that she cheated, no real proof yet about Russia. Oh, Russia bought a few ads, and somehow THAT swayed the election? Sorry, who is the conspiracy theorist here?
I wouldn't say "Russia is responsible for everything", you could look at a number of countries in the same light. The Russians ain't the only ones there. Your country is also responsible for quite a few things too, like perhaps a guy called George Bush, who funnily enough, doesn't seem to be a fan of Trump either...

And you say "I've de-railed your thread", while talking about your countries elections ?

Quote:
Let me ask you this then, should then Putin and Trump have the same relationship like Obama had? Would that make you feel better, that two of the world's nuclear powers - are on bad terms? The democrats here seem to rather want that; because they feel somehow their "anointed one" was deprived of the presidency, well lets just burn the whole house down because we lost, right? Or, how about this Hillary cheats Bernie, and then Putin cheats Hillary - poetic justice then?
No, it wouldn't make me feel any better or worse really.

Quote:
Here is another hint: I did not vote in the 2016 election, I sat it out - but from what I have seen lately - I see no incentive NOT to vote for Trump this time. I like having more money in my tax return, I like not having to be penalized for that crappy obamacare. What to the democrats even have as a platform, impeach Trump - thats it? Not a platform, but I digress.
Guess what Jeebizz? I haven't voted for anyone where I live for years. I also see no "incentive" either, what's that tell you? I trust the government? Don't make me laugh.

Quote:
Twitter CEO pretty much admitted, that those working in the company have a left-leaning bias (linked to Dailymail). Though that article quotes as nobody in Twitter discriminates, that is an outright lie, just check out any of the undercover stuff from Project Veritas (another shady source probably?) I myself consider myself in the middle - but when you have a company like Twitter - giving preference to certain kind of content, why is nobody taking Twitter to court for that? Also, if POTUS is on Twitter, then shouldn't anyone on Twitter not be banned for whatever reason, ergo Twitter is depriving someone else from tweeting POTUS? Or does your argument only go one way?
So once agin, everyone has "bias", but we can trust you or perhaps maybe Russia? Once again, don't make me laugh.

Quote:
Thanks so much for derailing my topic all the way and bringing Trump into this
I'm sorry, next time I'll say "I seem to remember a court case involving, now what was it, oh, that's right, something about [name withheld] having to unblock Twitter users that said some not so good things about him." Happy?

Honestly Jeebizz, get a grip.
 
Old 10-14-2018, 12:30 PM   #22
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 2,662

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727
WEB EXCLUSIVE: Dissident Voices PURGED From Facebook & Twitter! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY80X6H72gU

Quote:
Published on Oct 13, 2018

Our content is being suppressed by major social media platforms, but there are two ways you can keep track of our content. The best is to join our email list by texting “REDACTED” to 444-999: It’s free in the U.S.

Secondly, please double check that you're still subscribed to our channel (YouTube is apparently unsubscribing people), and click the bell icon next to the word “Subscribe.” You're the best. Keep fighting.

Last edited by Jeebizz; 10-14-2018 at 01:09 PM.
 
Old 10-14-2018, 12:58 PM   #23
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 2,662

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
If you are saying that the BBC has "bias" then it's up to you to explain why, not me. Otherwise it's clearly just nonsense.
All sources have bias, but I am in a no win situation here - whatever source I will use - you'll find something to say - surprised you haven't said anything yet about The Verge article or Daily Mail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Fair enough. But you're wrong tho.
Kinda ad-hominem there, but ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Like I said before Jeebizz; if you are going to believe the rubbish RT puts out, then good luck. You'll probably need it, that's all I'm going to say.
Again, would you stated the same thing from the BBC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
And they are the only ones being "arbiters of information" are they? Methinks not.
Google sure likes to think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Yes, the Internet is like "a public square", that we can clearly agree on.
Right, and we can both agree that Jones is a nut - but like any nut - why can't you just ignore him? Why should he have been removed from facebook, and youtube - and apple and spotify, and paypal? Who decided this? Again I don't consume any of his content - but who am I to deprive someone else that? There are already blocks on said sites - why should he have been removed? Because he's fake news? Same can be said for fox/cnn etc. Why are they still on these platforms then? Oh, because they are the press?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
No, not really, but it says a LOT about RT though.
What does it say?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Maybe you should apply for a job with Trump, he could do with someone who thinks that way. I think someone like that would fit in quite nicely.
I like how you immediately assume that I support Trump 110%, and think I do not disagree with anything he might do or say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I wouldn't say "Russia is responsible for everything", you could look at a number of countries in the same light. The Russians ain't the only ones there. Your country is also responsible for quite a few things too, like perhaps a guy called George Bush, who funnily enough, doesn't seem to be a fan of Trump either...
Though there seems to be a lot of Russia hysteria - Reds under the bed - sort of thing. As for George Bush - have you noticed (probably not) how suddenly the democrats here, suddenly LIKE him? Also so do people on the left in general? Nevermind that he is responsible for 500k deaths in Iraq, and turned that place into a *cough* ahem...shithole. He's not Trump, so now suddenly he's great. K....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
And you say "I've de-railed your thread", while talking about your countries elections ?
I made no mention of Trump, the presidency - or anything. My sole purpose of this thread was censorship by Google, and now Facebook.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
No, it wouldn't make me feel any better or worse really.
Perhaps you know something I do not then. Perhaps lets say (insert_whatever_god(s)_you_believe_in) forbid, that if the bombs between the US and Russia fly, you probably have a nice fallout shelter, and the rest of us poor suckers are doomed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Guess what Jeebizz? I haven't voted for anyone where I live for years. I also see no "incentive" either, what's that tell you? I trust the government? Don't make me laugh.
Well, like I said - I sat out the election because I honestly thought the anointed one would win too; and again I see a reason to vote now actually - again for fiscal reasons mainly. I like not having to pay a penalty if I choose not to have health insurance. Is that bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
So once agin, everyone has "bias", but we can trust you or perhaps maybe Russia? Once again, don't make me laugh.
At this point, I'll trust RT over CNN or FOX anytime of the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I'm sorry, next time I'll say "I seem to remember a court case involving, now what was it, oh, that's right, something about [name withheld] having to unblock Twitter users that said some not so good things about him." Happy?
Again, in regards to that case - Twitter should not be allowed to ban anyone then - because by them banning someone; they are now depriving the right of that person to follow or read any of POTUS' tweets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Honestly Jeebizz, get a grip.
You too then - about what sources I use.

Last edited by Jeebizz; 10-14-2018 at 01:03 PM.
 
Old 10-14-2018, 06:00 PM   #24
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,551

Rep: Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
All sources have bias, but I am in a no win situation here - whatever source I will use - you'll find something to say - surprised you haven't said anything yet about The Verge article or Daily Mail.
While this may come as a surprise to you Jeebizz, to some extent I understand where you're coming from there. But I can't agree that everything has a particular "bias". Yes, there clearly are some sources that you could take with a grain of salt. But there are believe it or not some sources that do call a spade a spade. From what I've seen of the BBC, I have not seen anything you could call a clear "bias" in favour of one party over another.

Quote:
Kinda ad-hominem there, but ok.
You may see it that way, but it actually wasn't meant as any kind of "ad-hominem attack".

Quote:
Again, would you stated the same thing from the BBC?
No, not once again as I said above. However, if the BBC DID have a clear "bias", then yes, I would say the same about them too.

Quote:
Google sure likes to think so.
That may be, but once again, they are not the only ones out there doing that. But, they are arguably one of the biggest players out, so you might say it goes with the territory.

Quote:
Right, and we can both agree that Jones is a nut - but like any nut - why can't you just ignore him? Why should he have been removed from facebook, and youtube - and apple and spotify, and paypal? Who decided this? Again I don't consume any of his content - but who am I to deprive someone else that? There are already blocks on said sites - why should he have been removed? Because he's fake news? Same can be said for fox/cnn etc. Why are they still on these platforms then? Oh, because they are the press?
I'm sure many people did ignore him before he was de-platformed. I can tell you now it was only when he lost his platforms that I even bothered to try and find anything from him. There's a show on the ABC where I live called "Planet America" that mocked him quite often, and it was easy to see why they did.

I'll agree with you that if people want to look at his content, then that's their choice to do so. I don't disagree with you on that particular point. But I think you're forgetting that while we agree the Internet is a public place and that I agree should be open for all; individual sites have every right to decide what content they allow and what content they don't. Let's take this site for example; here Jeremy as the site's owner has every right to decide what rules there are and what content we can and can't post here - the same therefore applies to any other site, regardless of which site it is. I'll also agree that when it comes to FOX, I don't rate them one little bit and would not trust anything they say.

Quote:
What does it say?
Exactly what the link I gave you before says - they (RT) are a mouthpiece for Putin - simple as that.

Quote:
I like how you immediately assume that I support Trump 110%, and think I do not disagree with anything he might do or say.
You misunderstood the context I was saying it in, as in: if you think that the Russians don't have an agenda anymore than Trump or anyone else, particularly saying things like "So in other words, all sources are not sources then.", then that's exactly the sort of FUD and misinformation (aka, bullshi*) that people like Trump promote to avoid taking responsibility for what they say.

Quote:
Though there seems to be a lot of Russia hysteria - Reds under the bed - sort of thing. As for George Bush - have you noticed (probably not) how suddenly the democrats here, suddenly LIKE him? Also so do people on the left in general? Nevermind that he is responsible for 500k deaths in Iraq, and turned that place into a *cough* ahem...shithole. He's not Trump, so now suddenly he's great. K....
Other than the bit about the "democrats liking Bush" and the "Russian hysteria", then that's pretty much the point I was getting at. It's pretty funny how someone like Bush can seem better than someone else, it speaks volumes, it really does. More precisely: it speaks volumes about Trump if Bush seems more transparent for one thing (but far from limited to) than someone else (almost anyone else).

Quote:
I made no mention of Trump, the presidency - or anything. My sole purpose of this thread was censorship by Google, and now Facebook.
I never said you did. I was only making the point that it's not just about "censorship", the so-called "fake news" is a part of the same thing - what's real and what isn't - if you know what I mean.

Quote:
Perhaps you know something I do not then. Perhaps lets say (insert_whatever_god(s)_you_believe_in) forbid, that if the bombs between the US and Russia fly, you probably have a nice fallout shelter, and the rest of us poor suckers are doomed.
I think if the nukes start dropping, then it may not be just your country that feels the effects of that. It's likely to lead to a world war if that happened. I'll also say it's clear to me that you simply don't like the Democrats and feel they are trying to "burn the house down" so to speak. Either way, and while it's up to you who you support, I don't have the inside perspective about them. The only thing I could say would be that, like Russia has Russia's best interests at heart, the Democrats have there's at heart just as much - it couldn't be in their interest to support Trump, how's that a surprise to you?

Quote:
Well, like I said - I sat out the election because I honestly thought the anointed one would win too; and again I see a reason to vote now actually - again for fiscal reasons mainly. I like not having to pay a penalty if I choose not to have health insurance. Is that bad?
I can't answer that - only you can. I got a fine for not voting where I live because it's compulsory to vote where I live - over $500 that I don't have it cost me too. So at least you have a choice unlike in this god forsaken nanny-state I'm living in.

Quote:
At this point, I'll trust RT over CNN or FOX anytime of the day.
It's your choice who you want to trust or not. While I wouldn't trust FOX as far as I could throw them either, I'd trust RT even less and I would not being trusting FOX if my life depended on it.

Quote:
Again, in regards to that case - Twitter should not be allowed to ban anyone then - because by them banning someone; they are now depriving the right of that person to follow or read any of POTUS' tweets.
It's their site, they can do what they want - I've never had and likely never will have a Twitter account. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to even visit Twitter, anymore than they are forcing you to post here - it's up to you and anyone else.

Quote:
You too then - about what sources I use.
I maintain what I said. If you want to ignore the fact that RT is just a state funded mouthpiece for Russia, then you go right ahead - it's no skin off my nose. Once again, Russia has Russia's interests at heart, not yours or mine. So go ahead and ignore that fact, your choice.

Last edited by jsbjsb001; 10-14-2018 at 06:12 PM. Reason: correction
 
Old 10-14-2018, 11:58 PM   #25
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware14.2 64-Bit Desktop, Devuan 2.0 ASCII Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 2,662

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727Reputation: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
That may be, but once again, they are not the only ones out there doing that. But, they are arguably one of the biggest players out, so you might say it goes with the territory.
So then you are implicitly fine with what Google is doing, effectively curating search results.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I'm sure many people did ignore him before he was de-platformed. I can tell you now it was only when he lost his platforms that I even bothered to try and find anything from him. There's a show on the ABC where I live called "Planet America" that mocked him quite often, and it was easy to see why they did.
Yes, that is called the Streissand Effect - search results soared for Infowars and Jones afterwards - which only added to his popularity. Hence why now even Paypal dropped him. One can say - well it is a free market - but not when domain registrars, payment processors hold everything. Kinda hard to start your own payment processing, and I am sure the domain registrars will eventually seize infowars, wouldn't put it past them. The point is this - does it stop with Jones? No. I will not ask you if you personally take delight in his deplatforming, I just see those who do are clearly short sighted - because someone like Jones won't be missed by perhaps majority - but he still has a significant following. Ergo, my point remains - First they came for Jones, but I wasn't a Jones fan, so I didn't speak up. Doesn't that sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... - I feel it is rather apt, don't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I'll agree with you that if people want to look at his content, then that's their choice to do so. I don't disagree with you on that particular point. But I think you're forgetting that while we agree the Internet is a public place and that I agree should be open for all; individual sites have every right to decide what content they allow and what content they don't. Let's take this site for example; here Jeremy as the site's owner has every right to decide what rules there are and what content we can and can't post here - the same therefore applies to any other site, regardless of which site it is. I'll also agree that when it comes to FOX, I don't rate them one little bit and would not trust anything they say.
There are plenty of Linux forums, but going to your main point - Jones was found not only on his website, but youtube/facebook/twitter; because those are the common social media sites of today - also services like Apple and Spotify. These services have to contend or balance with removing him, and alienating a significant amount of other users. As for TOS, it seems that rather the TOS is in most cases for these sites (youtube,facebook,twitter) , either purposefully vague, and at times in the case of twitter - selectively enforced. Sure seems to be a lot more of those who do not conform to the leftist views, get banned, yet you see violent rhetoric from the left on said platform like twitter in particular - get a pass, but I digress - because twitter is a cesspool anyways, so is facebook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Exactly what the link I gave you before says - they (RT) are a mouthpiece for Putin - simple as that.
Just like BBC is technically a mouthpiece for the British government , just like Xinhua is a mouthpiece for Beijing, just like Washington Post is coopted by the CIA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
You misunderstood the context I was saying it in, as in: if you think that the Russians don't have an agenda anymore than Trump or anyone else, particularly saying things like "So in other words, all sources are not sources then.", then that's exactly the sort of FUD and misinformation (aka, bullshi*) that people like Trump promote to avoid taking responsibility for what they say.
No, everyone has an agenda - but what I was stating that I am sure I can find a source that nobody ever heard of and you would still find something to complain about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Other than the bit about the "democrats liking Bush" and the "Russian hysteria", then that's pretty much the point I was getting at. It's pretty funny how someone like Bush can seem better than someone else, it speaks volumes, it really does. More precisely: it speaks volumes about Trump if Bush seems more transparent for one thing (but far from limited to) than someone else (almost anyone else).
Funny though how Obama was the most opaque president actually, and the press loved him - and everyone on the left just turned a blind eye to what he was doing, because it was /theirguy/.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I never said you did. I was only making the point that it's not just about "censorship", the so-called "fake news" is a part of the same thing - what's real and what isn't - if you know what I mean.
I maintain my point - who decides it? One should be allowed all information and allowed to make their own decisions, and let the chips fall where they may - you know, the free market of ideas, but thats just me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I think if the nukes start dropping, then it may not be just your country that feels the effects of that. It's likely to lead to a world war if that happened. I'll also say it's clear to me that you simply don't like the Democrats and feel they are trying to "burn the house down" so to speak. Either way, and while it's up to you who you support, I don't have the inside perspective about them. The only thing I could say would be that, like Russia has Russia's best interests at heart, the Democrats have there's at heart just as much - it couldn't be in their interest to support Trump, how's that a surprise to you?
The reason why I do not like them is that they carry out the very things they claim Trump is guilty of. I do not see Trump supporters smashing things on the streets, or being violent, but there sure are a lot of black clad ANTIFA out there, but democrats don't seem to condemn them, hell CNN's Cuomo even stated it was a morality fight on their side. Now unless I see otherwise and an ANTIFA thug wearing a MAGA cap, I'll retract that. Or, what about that Brain Trust - Maxine Waters openly calling for 'harrasing' of Republicans, she wasn't exactly reprimanded for that, nor did twitter do anything. Seems to be rules for thee and not for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
the Democrats have there's at heart just as much - it couldn't be in their interest to support Trump, how's that a surprise to you?
Maybe because they are sore losers, and revealed themselves for what they really are, and why I would rather cast my useless vote for Trump for another 4 glorious years? Plus again, I rather like what impact Trump has on my pocket book, good for me in all respects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I can't answer that - only you can. I got a fine for not voting where I live because it's compulsory to vote where I live - over $500 that I don't have it cost me too. So at least you have a choice unlike in this god forsaken nanny-state I'm living in.
To reiterate, my pocket book and again I have not seen one thing the dems have other than the constant whining, "calls for action" , which at this point is a thinly veiled incitement for violence. Again, #Resist and #ImpeachTrump *is*not*a*platform - and thats all the dems are running on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
It's your choice who you want to trust or not. While I wouldn't trust FOX as far as I could throw them either, I'd trust RT even less and I would not being trusting FOX if my life depended on it.
If very same article was available on FOX, or CNN I would have linked it. Again at least I give credit where credit is due.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
It's their site, they can do what they want - I've never had and likely never will have a Twitter account. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to even visit Twitter, anymore than they are forcing you to post here - it's up to you and anyone else.
Yes it is their site and they can do what they want - but the question still remains about not only twitter, but youtube etc - being a platform. The debate about the internet as a whole being a public platform. I don't know how it is in your country, but here in the states - a bank, grocery store, phone company cannot refuse service for one's opinions/views - but the left sure wishes that were the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I maintain what I said. If you want to ignore the fact that RT is just a state funded mouthpiece for Russia, then you go right ahead - it's no skin off my nose. Once again, Russia has Russia's interests at heart, not yours or mine. So go ahead and ignore that fact, your choice.
Same thing can be said for the BBC, it is also state sponsored and paid for by taxes. Again, unlike you I at least give credit where credit is due. Like I said, if CNN posted it, I would have link them then.

Last edited by Jeebizz; 10-15-2018 at 12:05 AM.
 
Old 10-15-2018, 02:51 AM   #26
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,551

Rep: Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204Reputation: 1204
Jeebizz, while this has been an interesting discussion, given you wish to continue recycling pretty much the same arguments and we appear to be going around in circles, I will give you my final thoughts and then I must leave you to it;

1) Sources are important, more to the point, creditable sources are important. I cannot agree that RT is such a source, once again, "editorial independence" is very important for any media outlet to be considered "creditable" - which RT does not seem to have. Just because the BBC is publicly funded, it does not mean they don't have such and you have provided no evidence to prove they don't have such.

2) Government "censorship" is not the same issue as the rights of individual site owners/platform owners. It makes no difference if it's a Linux forum or a social media platform of some description. You could consider this site to be a "social media platform" to at least some extent - we don't just talk operating systems and Linux - here's proof of that - being this very thread. Internet freedom is the right of people to access information on the Internet and it's not the same thing as the rights of individual platforms to decide what content they allow or don't allow on their platforms.

3) The same as you have rights in respect to your house, site owners/social media platform owners also have certain rights over their platforms. Like what content you can and can't see and/or post on their platform. Nobody forces you to visit those platforms, you are not paying anything to use them. You could also consider moderation for sites just like this, a form of "censorship" - haven't seen you posting in the Non-technical General forum for a while? Probably because your posting rights to it have been revoked. Therefore, Jeremy with respect to this site has certain rights, because he's the owner of this site - it is what it is - like it or not. I cannot agree that you can just expect that anything goes, as there is also a legal side to it as well - particularly for the major platforms like Twitter, etc.

Good luck convincing the major platforms to give up those same rights. Over and out.

Last edited by jsbjsb001; 10-15-2018 at 03:03 AM. Reason: typo and additions
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: What's all the C Plus Fuss? Bjarne Stroustrup warns of dangerous future plans for his C++ LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-18-2018 08:11 AM
LXer: A digital dark age may be coming, VP of Google warns LXer Syndicated Linux News 7 02-24-2015 07:22 PM
LXer: China Plans to Replace All Windows Machines with Linux Rigs by 2020 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-01-2014 10:42 AM
LXer: Red Hat's off to China with ambitious growth plans LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-06-2012 08:10 AM
LXer: Microsoft warns of IE bug used in Chinese attacks on Google LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-15-2010 11:00 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration