Search the Community

While the goal, is important to approach discussions with fairness and respect, it is undeniable that certain labels are frequently employed on these forums or in the real world. First to admit again, not a saint, have used them, the ones according to one's BIAS. Poll: What is the perceived strength of political labels in shaping public opinion? Significant influence Some influence Minimal influence This is what I came up with: <-- used by the left when the debate gets heated: Fascists Racists Bigots Capitalist pigs Climate deniers --> used by the right when the debate gets heated: Socialists Snowflakes Communists Globalists MSM (=) used by the center when the debate gets heated: Extremist ideologues/Dogmatics Tribalistic partisans Populists Echo chambers followers Propaganda peddlers My Opinion: Labels in the social media world have a powerful impact on people, particularly politicians. Many blindly follow their leaders without thinking, leading to shouting matches via labels, on a daily basis, instead of meaningful discussions. In a world with a short attention span, a label can impact political discourse. In my view, is best to observe this phenomenon in the DeSantis vs Trump shout matches in the next couple of months. 😎

We all know my reputation as an anti-Maga, however, I do not like what I perceive as manipulation, from Institutions such as Google. A few weeks ago while searching Trump to see what other irrational things he said, his account used to show up on the first page. Go to any browser now in Canada, start Google, and search "Donald Trump Truth Social", only the platform's main website shows up, with no name of Donald Trump on ANY pages. Now, anyone else has a problem with this? or is it just me ranting? Who does Google think they are to stop people from reading, even lies? If I want to listen to Trump's lies, let me listen to what I think are his lies. Thought a few days ago Google promised that they will not censor anymore. Am I a communist for NOT agreeing with how Google Runs its platform? 😄 Why does Google not allow people to read the information, even lies? I can filter on my own. This is the kind of stuff that turns off people and they vote for the other side, in my opinion. Not me, though, not even in these circumstances, would still not vote for Trump, if I could vote there. 😄 Still, that's not the point, this is about what Google is doing, where am I going wrong on this one?

Poll: Will Elon Musk succeed with Twitter? Why or Why Not?

Utah became the first state to enact legislation that restricts children and teens from using social media without their parent's consent. Driving the news: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed two bills into law aimed at limiting when and where anyone younger than 18 years old can interact online, and to stop companies from luring minors to certain websites. Details: Under the law that's due to take effect on March 1, 2024, social media companies will have to instate a curfew for minors in the state, barring them from using their accounts from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/24/utah-limit-kids-social-media Do you agree?

A Woman, Star of Tik Tok gets kicked out from a gym after accusing Man of staring at her. Who is wrong? Full Dialogue: Woman: Are you looking for something? Man: Not. Woman: That's what I thought. Man: You are OK? Woman: Keep working there. Man: If you are rude, you can leave. No one looked at you in any way. Woman: You are not the owner of the gym. Man: No, I'm not the owner, but I work here. Woman: OK. Man: And if you're rude, you can leave. Woman: What does this mean? Man: I can call the police and get you banned here. Would you like? Woman: Come on, do it! Man: Ok, good. Woman: Come on, tell them! Man: I will do that. You can collect your things.

It's hard to find good coverage of this issue but it seems like it might have major repercussions: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/01/09/gregory_alan_elliott_frustrations_boil_over_in_twitter_harassment_trial.html http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/448441/alleged-harassment-over-twitter-leads-to-criminal-charges-for-toronto-man/ Depending on the source, Elliott is either being targeted and silenced for holding views that are in conflict with those of young feminist activists or he was actually stalking and sexually harassing young women online. Either way, this could be the first case of someone going to court for social media harassment. What I find curious is that the accusation of sexual harassment only seems to appear in the Metro version of the story. Based on what the Post and the Star report, it seems like Elliott's comments were relatively mild and he is in fact being targeted here. Unfortunately, it seems like most of the coverage of this story is coming from sources that I am reluctant to trust, such as MRA groups. Anyone have info or thoughts on this? Edited: added link to Christie Blatchford's piece from last week