Censorship of videos on social media

wan

wan

Well-known member
david starling said:
From what I can see, they're censoring false claims, especially if they could lead to violence. That's okay with me.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that censorship is fine, as long as you feel that you have a good reason/that it can bring about some kind of positive change.

The problem I have with your reasoning is that it can be abused. It is too loosely defined and subjective that it can easily be used to silence pretty much anything one doesn't like. Someone says Maga, and the moderator on facebook says, "this could lead to violence! Ban him!" and so on and so forth.

How would you feel if I tried to silence you this way? I call every post you make "false claim that can lead to violence" and delete all your posts, and furthermore there is no way for you to contest it. Is this the kind of environment you want for yourself?
 
Last edited:
wan

wan

Well-known member
David: if I think murdering someone can bring about some sort of positive change, does that make murder OK now?
 
B

blackbery

Well-known member
Where do people go when they have a monopoly?

Even Parler which was set up as a rival to Twitter is being taken down.

Why should a PUBLIC social media platform be allowed to ban or censor anyone they like just because they hold a different opinion? It's NOT allowed since they are NOT a 'media outlet'.

btw, the 'fact-checkers' are all Democrats, hired by the Big Tech Oligarchs. Not ONE Republican would ever be hired. The goal of the MSM.Big-Tech.Dems is to shut down ANY opposition. They want total control.

What if it were the GOP that were in partnership with them, you wouldn't approve. You would have your accounts banned & censored.

We are truly now living in Communist China who don't have access to anything except what the Party allows them. Many of them don't even know about Tiamammen massacre!




david starling said:
If you don't agree with what they do, then boycott them. You can delete their websites.
Click to expand...
 
B

blackbery

Well-known member
What are you talking about?

The death penalty????

It wasn't Trump that introduced it; it's not up to Trump to dismantle it.

How many convicts had their death sentences carried out under Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. I'm sure the #s are pretty similar.

I'm against the death penalty too...BUT the POTUS is not responsible anymore than the Warden of the prison.




david starling said:
Trump's murdering Federal convicts. 3 still to go before he's out of office.

Who's Zuckerman murdering?
Click to expand...
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
blackbery said:
What are you talking about?

The death penalty????

It wasn't Trump that introduced it; it's not up to Trump to dismantle it.

How many convicts had their death sentences carried out under Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. I'm sure the #s are pretty similar.

I'm against the death penalty too...BUT the POTUS is not responsible anymore than the Warden of the prison.
Click to expand...

Trump amped up the death penalty for Federal convicts. This is a record year for them after a 17 year hiatus. And, none at all in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/11/biden-federal-executions/

https://time.com/5923973/trump-executions-death-penalty-covid-19/

In early 2019, Trump had to go to court to get permission to begin his killing spree.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
chiamaria said:
I see a dangerous precedent being set with people justifying arbitrary reasons for banning a whole host of twitter accounts. If you didn't condemn the media for portraying looting and burning down buildings by BLM or antifa protests as "mostly peaceful" and asked them to call it out for what it is, then you don't have much of an argument for defending big tech corporations for this latest purge. This is a clear show of double standards. The 6th Jan rally would actually truly fit the description of "mostly peaceful". 99%+ of people were peace-loving, but no, if even just one person at a Trump rally incites violence, then it's already a violent rally. And the great majority of those who were being riotous were antifa/BLM infiltrators masquerading as Trump supporters, btw.

You can spin anything any way you want if you want to portray an action, event or post a certain way using clever wording. It's a dangerous slippery slope. I think big tech should reset themselves and go back to basic common sense with their rules and regulations, then there wouldn't be pages here on astrologyweekly debating over whether what they did was right or wrong.

Or maybe astrologyweekly should adopt Twitter's rules for bans? Would you like that? Something tells me that the likes of Dirius, ElenaJ, Wan, Blackbery, JA and me would be banned for anything not anti-Trump cause, you know, inciting violence.
Click to expand...


Why isn't there a pro-Trump version of Twitter?

That would be like we have a Trad forum, where you can't even mention Pluto as an astrological planet, and a Mod board, where you can't criticize people for giving Pluto astrological importance. And, if one ignores repeated warnings to stop violating the rules, one gets banned.

I don't remember Twitter banning anyone for accusing BLM of provoking violence in some cities. That wasn't a reason for banning. These bans are about declaring the 2020 Election so fraudulent and illegitimate, that the results are therefore null and void. Which takes "not my President" to a dangerous new level.
 
Last edited:
E

ElenaJ

Well-known member
A Facebook group of almost 2 million people was removed by facebook.
Name of the group?
Biden is not my President.

Meanwhile, the group called Trump is not my President, has been online on Facebook for 4 years! No problem.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
ElenaJ said:
A Facebook group of almost 2 million people was removed by facebook.
Name of the group?
Biden is not my President.

Meanwhile, the group called Trump is not my President, has been online on Facebook for 4 years! No problem.
Click to expand...

That's because Trump was ACCEPTED as President. No was was saying he wasn't elected POTUS, only that he SHOULDN'T have been, mostly based on the belief that the Electoral College should be abolished and replaced by the Popular vote.

There are ultra-Right pro-Trump individuals who are calling for an insurrection!

And, claiming that anyone who accepts the Election as legitimate is a "traitor".
That's a very heavy and ominous opinion.
 
Last edited:
E

ElenaJ

Well-known member
A national newspaper here in Italy, LaRepubblica as well as USA Today have both published articles to the effect that the electoral fraud link to Italy is false news.
So much for that.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
ElenaJ said:
A national newspaper here in Italy, LaRepubblica as well as USA Today have both published articles to the effect that the electoral fraud link to Italy is false news.
So much for that.
Click to expand...

It occurs to me that Powell's name for her allegations of massive election-fraud, "Kraken", is that of a mythological creature.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
chiamaria said:
Well, the election WAS fraudulent and illegitimate, so how about astrologyweekly go ban my post for saying that? Also go ban every other post where I stated this, including the ones where I provide proof. Apparently it's dangerous and inciting violence. Speaking of which, is there anyone on here who went and burned down a building after reading my posts about election fraud?

Also, aren't false accusations of Trump colluding with Russia also dangerous in the same vein? Accusing him of using foreign interference to win the 2016 elections when that is not true? Well, ban everyone who made that claim.
Click to expand...

As long as those claiming election-fraud accepted his Presidency, especially after collusion wasn't proven by the Mueller report, it wasn't dangerous.

It's a reasonable belief that the Russians could have interfered on their own, to prevent Hillary from winning. No collusion, just illegal foreign interference.

And, the reaction of Hillary supporters was reasonable: "We'll have to accept him as President, but get out the vote to defeat him in 2020.

Seven million more registered Democrats voted in 2020 than Republicans! And, about five million of those Democrats didn't even bother to vote in 2016.

Also, the Democrats finally realized that it's ALL about the popular vote in the swing-States, not the National popular vote. But, even so, without the Libertarian Party candidate taking votes away from Trump, he would have won the Electoral College Vote.

But, in the final analysis, it was the Pandemic that really cost him the Election. Especially because it ruined the economic situation, which was his greatest asset.
 
Last edited:
Top