Jump to content

Freedom of Speach Long Gone - COVID


cougar

Recommended Posts

Now look at the post below and explain to me how the poster named Alice Barton broke CBC rules in order to have her content disabled?

I believe Alice has an excellent case against CBC.

 

 

CBC-Censorship.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Case?

What case?

You don't actually have a right to post on a website.

Part of the problem is hysterical people who confuse rights with options.

You don't have a right to go into a McDonald's but if you follow whatever rules they lay down, you have the option.

What rule did she break?

 

Wrongthink isn't a crime yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Case?

What case?

You don't actually have a right to post on a website.

Part of the problem is hysterical people who confuse rights with options.

You don't have a right to go into a McDonald's but if you follow whatever rules they lay down, you have the option.

The actual case that needs to be made is that sites like FB and Twitter aren't held to "journalistic standards" (lol) and subjected to certain laws (which I don't recall) because they're not considered content creators or editors. 

They are, however, carefully cultivating their highly political narratives with the use of selective content-blocking, and in a lot of cases they get their "fact-checks" 100% wrong. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. The actual case that needs to be made is that sites like FB and Twitter aren't held to "journalistic standards" (lol) and subjected to certain laws (which I don't recall) because they're not considered content creators or editors. 

2. They are, however, carefully cultivating their highly political narratives with the use of selective content-blocking, and in a lot of cases they get their "fact-checks" 100% wrong. 

1. Well, they aren't.  Are you saying otherwise ?
2. The thing you are missing is that they want people to fight.  They have to be told to add fact checks and remove Qanon groups, under threat of government legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, they aren't.  Are you saying otherwise ?

For sure they are editing. They edit every narrative on their site by shadow banning, limiting the spread of content, deleting posts, covering posts with "fact-checked" etc.

Quote

2. The thing you are missing is that they want people to fight.  They have to be told to add fact checks and remove Qanon groups, under threat of government legislation.

Not really. They leave violent content on there, including calls to violent action by terrorist groups. 

They remove "things that the Dems want removed". Antifa can organize riots there, leftists can say whatever they want about Trump there regardless of how unsubstantiated and inaccurate it is, but conservative content is targeted bigtime.

Case in point, the Hunter laptop story was banned, and even the NYPost was banned. 

That may sound like a one-off to you, but it's normal for conservative content.

I've had FB posts removed before that weren't incorrect or inaccurate, and I've reported all kinds of bigotry that doesn't get removed. Just look at AJ+, it's 50% lies and bigotry. Nothing gets blocked there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Case?

What case?

You don't actually have a right to post on a website.

In reverse order:

You do have a right to post on a site when the right is granted to you by the site owner - like CBC in this case, and this forum, where we post now.

The case is that one personal opinion is published while the opposite opinion is removed after it is published.

The opinion did not contain offensive language or anything against CBC posting rules.

In other ways, it is an example of manipulation of public opinion by CBC.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cougar said:

1.  You do have a right to post on a site when the right is granted to you by the site owner - like CBC in this case, and this forum, where we post now.

2.  The case is that one personal opinion is published while the opposite opinion is removed after it is published.

3.  The opinion did not contain offensive language or anything against CBC posting rules.

4.   In other ways, it is an example of manipulation of public opinion by CBC.

1.  Nope.  Just like a restaurant can refuse service to someone based on what they are wearing (or not wearing), or their behavior, so too can public sites decide who shall or shall not join or post.  The right to enter a restaurant or post on a public website is actually a privilege granted by the owner and not an unassailable right.

2.  I don't know what the poster said after the first line, or how it differed from the previous post, but the trend is for public sites to delete content/people who post misinformation.  Opinion among readers and other posters may vary on what constitutes misinformation, but the site owner has the right to decide that.

3.  Doesn't matter.

4.  All media does that to some degree, whether it's left wing, right wing or centrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cougar said:

In reverse order:

You do have a right to post on a site when the right is granted to you by the site owner - like CBC in this case, and this forum, where we post now.

The case is that one personal opinion is published while the opposite opinion is removed after it is published.

The opinion did not contain offensive language or anything against CBC posting rules.

In other ways, it is an example of manipulation of public opinion by CBC.

On FB, when you see "Most Relevant" in the comments section, it means 'the post that they want people to see'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

1.  Nope.  Just like a restaurant can refuse service to someone based on what they are wearing (or not wearing), or their behavior, so too can public sites decide who shall or shall not join or post.  The right to enter a restaurant or post on a public website is actually a privilege granted by the owner and not an unassailable right.

2.  I don't know what the poster said after the first line, or how it differed from the previous post, but the trend is for public sites to delete content/people who post misinformation.  Opinion among readers and other posters may vary on what constitutes misinformation, but the site owner has the right to decide that.

3.  Doesn't matter.

4.  All media does that to some degree, whether it's left wing, right wing or centrist.

1) A restaurant can't refuse you service because you're black, but sites discriminate against commentary that is accurate and highly appropriate, but unwanted (ie, conservative).

You're protecting the restriction of people's right to free speech, and being coy about it because you personally like this brand of particular discrimination. That's disgusting.  

FYI CBC, which cougar mentioned specifically, is a public broadcaster. I pay them a lot more taxes than most people do, they have no right to stifle my opinion as a taxpayer. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, cougar said:

1. You do have a right to post on a site when the right is granted to you by the site owner - like CBC in this case, and this forum, where we post now.

2. The case is that one personal opinion is published while the opposite opinion is removed after it is published.

3. The opinion did not contain offensive language or anything against CBC posting rules.

4. In other ways, it is an example of manipulation of public opinion by CBC.

1.  And when they say you can't post - you can't.   That doesn't make it a "right" it makes it a privilege granted by them.
2. And ?
3. And ?
4. If you say so.  There are 1,000,000 other things that could have happened.

In any case, there's no case, and certainly not much of a legal case.  Get Parliament to make posting on anybody's website a RIGHT if you can - we'll call it "Karen's Law"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


4. If you say so.  There are 1,000,000 other things that could have happened.

From your post above this is about the only valid point.  But not 1,000,000 things.

There is always the possibility of a mod disabling the wrong post by mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  And when they say you can't post - you can't.   That doesn't make it a "right" it makes it a privilege granted by them.
2. And ?
3. And ?
4. If you say so.  There are 1,000,000 other things that could have happened.

In any case, there's no case, and certainly not much of a legal case.  Get Parliament to make posting on anybody's website a RIGHT if you can - we'll call it "Karen's Law"

What you're saying equals editing, which is a form of content 'creation'.

It's also disinformation to have a section called 'comments' when it's really only 'favourable comments'. 

Lastly, CBC shouldn't be editing the comments of their own tax base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, cougar said:

1. From your post above this is about the only valid point.  

1. So ... what is the 'case' ?  How exactly does this moderator action get reversed in your mind ?

You seem to have the mindset that 'choice' and 'rights' are the same thing.  And I have noticed this a problem across the political spectrum.  I would suggest we offer people maximum options as long as we take away their right to vote and that might fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So ... what is the 'case' ?  How exactly does this moderator action get reversed in your mind ?

You seem to have the mindset that 'choice' and 'rights' are the same thing.  And I have noticed this a problem across the political spectrum.  I would suggest we offer people maximum options as long as we take away their right to vote and that might fix it.

A case is when one can prove on the balance of probabilities that whoever disabled the post acted on CIBC orders to stifle vaccination resistance / manipulate public opinion.  If they claim human error , there is no case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, cougar said:

A case is when one can prove on the balance of probabilities that whoever disabled the post acted on CIBC orders to stifle vaccination resistance / manipulate public opinion.  If they claim human error , there is no case.

 

Prove to whom?  What would be the result if proven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, cougar said:

A case is when one can prove on the balance of probabilities that whoever disabled the post acted on CIBC orders to stifle vaccination resistance / manipulate public opinion.  If they claim human error , there is no case.

 

Alice, what if they claim that they considered your post to be insulting to other posters and that’s why they deleted it?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The actual case that needs to be made is that sites like FB and Twitter aren't held to "journalistic standards" (lol) and subjected to certain laws (which I don't recall) because they're not considered content creators or editors. 

They are, however, carefully cultivating their highly political narratives with the use of selective content-blocking, and in a lot of cases they get their "fact-checks" 100% wrong. 

The day Facebook and Twitter end in the grave yard I will be dancing in the streets.  Both selectively ban people.  But Isamics who make death threats at other former Muslims do not get banned - ever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Prove to whom?  What would be the result if proven?

I am starting to feel like a teacher in a kidergarten here with many of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

and in a lot of cases they get their "fact-checks" 100% wrong. 

I'm finding that "factcheckers" most often agree with whomever is funding them.  And the majority of them don't know a fraction about the subject they are supposedly factchecking, compared to the experts being "factchecked".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...