Facebook ends "fact checking"

[K Frame]

Actually admits that it went too far.

Gee, really?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/meta-ends-fact-checking-program-zuckerberg-vows-restore-free-expression-facebook-instagram

[RocketMan]

This is how to perform layoffs without calling them layoffs.  The fact that the fact checkers were third-party contractors gives them even more deniability.

[lee n. field]

This is how to perform layoffs without calling them layoffs.  The fact that the fact checkers were third-party contractors gives them even more deniability.

Woke wine moms, picking up a few bucks and feeling the warm glow of seeing a righteous person in the mirror.

[Perd Hapley]

Now can YouTube stop reminding me who won the election every time I watch a political video?

[cordex]

Now can YouTube stop reminding me who won the election every time I watch a political video?

That one hasn't gotten old for me yet.

[K Frame]

Now can YouTube stop reminding me who won the election every time I watch a political video?

What?

You mean you don't watch the "Liberal pundits cry crocodile tears of rage and hate when Trump wins!" on loop?

I do!

[WLJ]

Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok
HOLY SHLIT. Mark Zuckerberg says the Biden admin called his employees and “screamed and cursed” at them to take down Covid/vaccine content. They wanted Meta to censor memes too.

When he pushed back, the Biden regime started investigating his companies.

“It was brutal.”

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1877785122314875330

[230RN]

Meh.  If I want true facts, I go to Snopes and figuratively multiply everything they say by minus 1.  You want a fine example of pure BS?  Look up the ACLU's screed on the Second Amendment.  Words words words words words words words.  Want words?  Try "infringed" and "not."

G-damned hypocrites

 A lot of people seem to forget that the Constitution formed a new and revised "Common Law" distinct and independent of English customs.  Yeah, that kind of "Independence," too.  So don't give me contradictory Blackstone Common Law stuff, hear?

The Constitution is the highest law of this land.

And don't you forget it.

<snarl>

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

[Hawkmoon]

You want a fine example of pure BS?  Look up the ACLU's screed on the Second Amendment.  Words words words words words words words.  Want words?  Try "infringed" and "not."

This one? https://www.aclu.org/documents/second-amendment

Rather astonishing, considering it was written several years after Heller and MacDonald.

[230RN]

They aren't writing factually.  They're writing idealogically.  And they've got Membership appeals on TV touting how they are defending your rights. "Oh, well, yes... except for that one.  Yuck.  Poo. Ick."

I wish the big gun orgs would take turns publicly bashing their 2a stance over and over, rinse and repeat.

But they aren't really that big a force in the anti-gun movement in terms of the ongoing Court and Legislative processes, at least I don't think so. Maybe they're afraid to bring it up too obviously since they know, down deep, that they are wrong. <eyeroll> They'd look pretty stupid vigorously defending every other right that's been put into the Bill Of Rights "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse" of the government's powers.  Except for 2a, which they fear.

Damned "skinny-jeaned" jerks.  (Thanks for that term, Bogie!)

[MechAg94]

Whatever Zuckerberg said, it is a classic argument about attempts to censor "some" speech.  Censoring any speech just starts you down the path to censoring everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDW9cmYVRQc
The Hodge twins played some footage from the View.  I am not sure it is worth listening to, but you can see that none but maybe that one lady believe in Free Speech.  The others are all hypersensitive and want to censor everything they disagree with or are offended by.  They keep trying to claim they believe in Free Speech, but they don't. 

[230RN]

As the saying goes, "Any book worth banning is a book worth reading."      --Isaac Asimov

Ancillary ammunition:  https://earlybirdbooks.com/banned-books-quotes

More directly related to online ostracism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
On point: scroll down to "Political Controversies."

My personal opinion is this is the lowest, most scurrilous, form of management ethics. 

[dogmush]

As the saying goes, "Any book worth banning is a book worth reading."

This is old and outdated.  The woke weirdos took it as a challenge, and made so e *expletive deleted*ed up *expletive deleted*it.

[230RN]

This is old and outdated.  The woke weirdos took it as a challenge, and made so e *expletive deleted*ed up *expletive deleted*it.

I'm not clear on that one.  I just turned 86; gettin' slow on the uptake.

[dogmush]

I'm not clear on that one.  I just turned 86; gettin' slow on the uptake.

There are books in existence today that are both worth banning, and not worth reading, refuting the "old saying".

Books that are geared towards children  and teach them how to perform explicit sexual acts, which websites they can find adults to help them with these acts, and how to hide communications with these adults from their parang other people in their lives.

Also books that tell tales of child sexual abuse in a positive and/or normalizing fashion.

Yes books with this info exist.  They are a large part of those "Book bans" liberals have been cry8ng about four 3 or 4 years.  Sadly the books are not, in fact, banned.  Just removed from government funded schools.

[MechAg94]

There are books in existence today that are both worth banning, and not worth reading, refuting the "old saying".

Books that are geared towards children  and teach them how to perform explicit sexual acts, which websites they can find adults to help them with these acts, and how to hide communications with these adults from their parang other people in their lives.

Also books that tell tales of child sexual abuse in a positive and/or normalizing fashion.

Yes books with this info exist.  They are a large part of those "Book bans" liberals have been cry8ng about four 3 or 4 years.  Sadly the books are not, in fact, banned.  Just removed from government funded schools.

Those types of books are the first thing I thought of when I saw that quote.  You beat me to the comment and probably said it better. 

I don't know if I would say the books should be completely banned, but they shouldn't be in schools and libraries should make sure kids can't access them. 

These were the books the media refused to acknowledge, but when Ron DeSantis started reading from one of them at a press conference, the national media was forced to cut the coverage to avoid violating FCC rules. 

[dogmush]

I don't know if I would say the books should be completely banned, but they shouldn't be in schools and libraries should make sure kids can't access them.   

I thought like that, then I bought and read "This Book is Gay" and " The Lawn Boy" to give them a fair shake after the FL "bann8ng" kerfuffle.

They are child porn child grooming material. I would ban them completely.   "The Lawn Boy" is supposedly semi autobiographical,  so perhaps the author got some catharsis from writing it all out.  But then they should have burned the manuscript  and buried the ashes on holy ground to co tain it.

I can believe in free speech without also agreeing that I have to let people try and groom and victimize children to fulfill their fetishes.

[Ben]

I don't know if I would say the books should be completely banned, but they shouldn't be in schools and libraries should make sure kids can't access them. 

I've probably made my position crystal clear regarding what I think should happen to the writers of these books and the parents or other "guardians" who would promote them to minors - especially preteens.

I'm not sure about an outright ban as I'm already complaining about stealth editing of great works (also actual bans of classic literature) and even down to TV shows and cartoons. I hate that the books (and the culture that creates them) exist, but I worry about outright bans in the vein of "Those who do not know their history..."

That said, keeping them from minors in not a ban.

[dogmush]

Do you agree with an outright ban on child porn?


ETA: Again, for clarification,  because I read it: "This Book is Gay" teaches minors techniques they can use to contact adults to have sex with, and how to hide those contacts from their parents.

Per Amazon  it is for readers 14-17 years old
This Book Is Gay https://a.co/d/8ipTNCy

[MechAg94]

Do you agree with an outright ban on child porn?


ETA: Again, for clarification,  because I read it: "This Book is Gay" teaches minors techniques they can use to contact adults to have sex with, and how to hide those contacts from their parents.

Per Amazon  it is for readers 14-17 years old
This Book Is Gay https://a.co/d/8ipTNCy

Yeah, that ought to be considered child porn.  And, no, I don't want to click that link and have it show up in my Amazon searches.

[Ben]

Do you agree with an outright ban on child porn?

Yes. I would also agree with a ban on things like drag queen story hour. I would also agree with at the very least, the firing of "teachers" who start out the year with a classroom of boys and girls and end the year with a classroom of "nonbinary" ten year olds.

I recognize that it makes me sound hypocritical, but I have become very sensitized to the editing, censoring, and banning of the written word, and I want it to stop. It means that I have to consider how to handle written words that I abhor. I don't know the answer. I know that "banning" it only from children is a stopgap at best, as I remember I was far from adulthood when my friends and I first got our hands on a Playboy.

[230RN]

Without actually conceptualizing it, I would assume Asimov (and others besides myself) was referring to folks in the population who had assumed their majority.  Regarding minors, the issue hangs on their guidance units (parents, teachers, guardians, and the like.)

Child porn?  Or children exposed to porn?Different ball of wax and pretty much outside my ken.  I tend to agree with most of the above without analyzing the problem in detail.  My own "kids" (ages around 50 yo) pretty much grew up before computers were much of a "thing," and there wasn't much of an internet although dial-up boards were just beginning to get popular.  1200 baud telephone modem anyone?

As far as what should be "controlled," that's up to the individual "guidance units," and the problem there is "guidance units" vary on what's "good" or "bad"  or "moral" or "immoral" for their own "guidees," and not yours.

Blanket controls may infringe on some of their rights, and we are unalterably against infringements, aren't we?  (I use that term here to encourage thinking about other infringements, such as on alcohol, drugs, and... ohhh, something else, but I forgot what...  Oh, yeah, free speech for those who've reached their majority.)

And as I've said before, don't you dare use the term "reasonable" in my presence.  Think about that.  I get a little fussy about the word "reasonable."  It means my "off the wall" premises are better than your "off the wall" premises.

Terry. 230RN

[dogmush]

Blanket controls may infringe on some of their rights, and we are unalterably against infringements, aren't we? 

And as I've said before, don't you dare use the term "reasonable" in my presence.  Think about that.

Terry. 230RN

We used to be against infringement, then I was saw what our civilization protects us from.

I am still close enough to a free speech zealot for most conversations in our society, but there is speech that would not be said, and not allowed to be recorded if we are stupid enough to allow it.

Evil exists.

YMMV

[230RN]

We used to be against infringement, then I was saw what our civilization protects us from.

I am still close enough to a free speech zealot for most conversations in our society, but there is speech that would not be said, and not allowed to be recorded if we are stupid enough to allow it.

Evil exists.

YMMV

OK, but:

Pogsnorg dufelnik, sufmerty in the wongnigel (pesfilch dufelnik) until basselting Blugnop, 1962.

Terry, 230N

[dogmush]

You lost me there Terry. I'm not talking about Eldritch horrors from the deep.

There are real people, in the US now, talking and writing books about victimizing children, and writing books that convince children to assist in their own victimization.

We, as a free society, should not allow this, and Freedom of Speech doesn't necessitate that we do.  Those books should be banned.