It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Twitter deletes Russian bots, right wingers freak out!

page: 12
52
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.


And, again, the right to speech is that the government cannot restrict it.


No. You’re confusing the first amendment with the principle it enshrines and protects.




posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ketsuko


When you disallow an entire voice on the presumption that "they're all Russian bots" rather than real people, it completely hampers the ability of certain facets of that debate to express itself.


They are a private entity. They can restrict whatever speech they choose.

Funny, I seem to recall that if it is made public you can't discriminate against anyone because of their beliefs......

Or is that only if you bake a cake?


Nice try.

That's not free speech (or expression).

That's discrimination.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.


And, again, the right to speech is that the government cannot restrict it.


No. You’re confusing the first amendment with the principle it enshrines and protects.


It sounds like you don't understand the first amendment as it applies to free speech.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.


And, again, the right to speech is that the government cannot restrict it.


No. You’re confusing the first amendment with the principle it enshrines and protects.


It sounds like you don't understand the first amendment as it applies to free speech.


I do. It sounds like you don’t understand free speech.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.


And, again, the right to speech is that the government cannot restrict it.


No. You’re confusing the first amendment with the principle it enshrines and protects.


It sounds like you don't understand the first amendment as it applies to free speech.


I do. It sounds like you don’t understand free speech.


Apparently you don't. Government can't restrict speech. Private entities can.

That's still the point.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

You are arguing legality, not principle.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Censorship is not exclusive to government.


I’m not sure why people have gotten it in their thick heads that free speech and censorship applies only to governments. It’s strange.


Because that's the foundation of the right to free speech, that government cannot restrict/censor it. That's the whole point.

Private entities are entirely different. You know this.


No. The whole point is to not censor someone.


No. The whole point is that government cannot censor speech.


That’s false. The principle of free speech has existed long before there was governments.


But the right of free speech in the US is granted by the Constitution and prevents the government, not private entities, from restricting it.


They didn’t come up with the idea. Free speech is a principle. You either believe in it or you don’t.


And, again, the right to speech is that the government cannot restrict it.


No. You’re confusing the first amendment with the principle it enshrines and protects.


It sounds like you don't understand the first amendment as it applies to free speech.


I do. It sounds like you don’t understand free speech.


Apparently you don't. Government can't restrict speech. Private entities can.

That's still the point.


Governments do restrict speech, and so do companies, and for the exact same reason—they do not believe in free speech.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence



Apparently you don't. Government can't restrict speech. Private entities can.

That's still the point.


So you agree that companies are censoring free expression.


Sorry, late to the party.
edit on 21-2-2018 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

You are arguing legality, not principle.


I think Liquesence is taking the position that if a private business censors *gestapo-style*...people just have to bend over and take it because it's not illegal.

Obviously, people are free to abandon Twitter for their *gestapo-style* approach to online speech. It doesn't appear s/he understands that if conservatives made a mass exodus from Twitter...then Twitter would be reduced to a pathetic online support group for 'fragile, like-minded folks who hate Trump and all his supporters.'

I'm not sure anyone could convince him/her that consumers have great power.
edit on 2/21/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've never been a Twit, but Liquiescence is making the technical argument. The same approach was once used with slavery too.

And I think if this position stands and social media platforms want to take this road, then other companies need to stop factoring social media presence and feedback into their policy and business decisions because not all of their consumers' voices are being heard.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   
*BEEP* *BOOP* DOSVEDANYA COMRADE




posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I dont think people actually know what bots are and do. Twitter haven't gone through individual peoples accounts and said "delete this". None of us are that special.

A bot is a tool designed to chase after key words, through that they will look at highly tweeted at accounts and follow through them to other high interest accounts (determined by shares, hashtags, followers).

Twitter have targetted all accounts through an algorithm that does not have any tweeting activity or sharing activity but all follow accounts that use the same or similar keywords. The purpose of these are, Twitter sees accounts with a large following and promotes that content in front of smaller people like everyday folk tweeting about their tea.

They havent targetted "Russian bots", thats just a name/face given on to the fake accounts to give a more understandable narrative in the media "oooo the scary Russians are coming, keep tuning in after the break so we sell more advert space".

They aren't also targetting Right wingers. Bernie also had a lot of bots deleted. These were the populist candidates that had a lot of social media attention that these bots were used to elevate their message opposed to the big candidates that already had a large following. It just so happened that one of these was a conspiracy theorists wet dream candidate Trump who had his followers reduce and it is a "massive libtard conspiracy". Id bet the Kardashians have lost a third of their following too. But that wont be reported.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Twitter is a private company isn't it?

Is there a monthly fee to use there servers?

Maybe I'm getting old, but having a twitter account diminishes my already low opinion of any politician.

Stop using twitter if is so frustrating, its all bullocks anyways, the bots, the people, the left, the right, all of it!

Go get a dog, they know where it's at.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
Twitter is a private company isn't it?

Is there a monthly fee to use there servers?

Maybe I'm getting old, but having a twitter account diminishes my already low opinion of any politician.

Stop using twitter if is so frustrating, its all bullocks anyways, the bots, the people, the left, the right, all of it!

Go get a dog, they know where it's at.


Yeah well, there is a lot more to Twitter than just bots and bullocks. When you see the Orwellian propaganda machinery the MSM have become, Twitter is actually a good place to keep track of other news sources and voices that can provide a bit of sanity in the rotting stew of gas lighting, brain washing, spinning and blatant lies that pretends to be "journalism" in the corporate news outlets.

The MSM have become such a useless joke that it is better to bypass the pundits as much as possible and find info on social media (like Twitter) instead.

Just saying.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

In light of the discovery that sone social
Media like Facebook and google were developed and/or used by 3 letter agencies to trawl the populace then censor .... murky waters here.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Again. The effects don't HAVE to be equal if the number of bots favor one side or the other. This isn't Communism where everyone gets the same treatment.

If there are 100 liberal bots and 1000 conservative bots then the purge would be conservative biased even if the algorithm detecting the bots is programmed apolitically. This is true for the reverse as well.

If we were to follow your idea then 100 liberal bots and 100 conservative bots would be deleted and 900 conservative bots would remain. That is dumb.

This is just common sense.


There can be one million conservative bots and 10 liberal ones deactivated or vice versa. I'm not arguing that is a red flag about Twitter's bias.

What I am saying is the number of REAL accounts that were deactivated should be similar for liberals and conservatives based on the criteria you quoted Twitter used.




Ehhh... I feel like that is a stretch at best. I could MAYBE agree if you said the ratio of humans to bots would be similar between both partisan aisles but the total numbers could be anything between the two. Though even that is iffy at best if the amount of bots is extremely lopsided in favor of conservatives.


Clearly, you didn't understand what I wrote.

Twitter essentially claims that 'real people behaving badly' may have been caught up in the purge because of the criteria used. The number of actual bots caught isn't relevant to whether Twitter targeted and purged real conservatives' accounts and have required them to provide a phone number to prove they are *real* and reactivate their accounts.

There should be a comparable number of 'real people behaving badly' on Twitter between those who support both parties.

One party is not just so much more *well-behaved.* That's a bunch of crap if you expect me to believe that.



Actually it could be as simple as one partisan side using particular trolling tactics that bots favor more so than the other side. If conservatives are more apt to repeat things that bots produce and say then it reasons that more human conservatives would be swept up in a purge like this than liberals.
edit on 22-2-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

were they all really russian bots or did someone in dem party with deep pockets pay or threaten controllers of twitter.
which of the too seem more likely?



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
experts believe that Russian bots are boosting the hashtag #twitterlockout. lol



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Combination maybe. Maybe they allowed the bots till they didn't allow them. Very typical of the Democrat machine.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: soundguy

Your OP is a heaping pile of BS.



Immediately followed by a heaping pile of BS.


Jack Dorsey suspended any account with any ties to anything that could be conceived as right leaning.


You guys are hilarious.




top topics



 
52
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join