Disinformation Update

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T13:15:34.003Z

Gaius:

You remind me of my ex-wife

Excellent. Did she also point out silly double standards to you?

SixFoot · 2022-10-27T13:16:18.675Z

FreeAndClear:

So restricting access to information

This isn’t corporate censorship?

Chinese information*

In other words, an inferior product.

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T13:16:44.517Z

SixFoot:

FreeAndClear:

So restricting access to information

This isn’t corporate censorship?

Chinese information*

In other words, an inferior product.

Lol. Probably produced by slave labor too!

SixFoot · 2022-10-27T13:20:08.749Z

FreeAndClear:

SixFoot:

FreeAndClear:

So restricting access to information

This isn’t corporate censorship?

Chinese information*

In other words, an inferior product.

Lol. Probably produced by slave labor too!

Which ever physical medium was used in the dissemination of the misinformation was probably, in fact made by American-sponsored, Chinese slaves. lol

Gaius · 2022-10-27T13:20:44.859Z

no she made up stupid species arguments just because she felt like arguing.

Me: “I am not saying this is the same as that, but here is the context.”
You:’ Why are you asking this, huh, huh? what does this have to do with each other? huh? huh? Tell me, Answer the question!!"
.
.
.
Okay you win.
One american adversary using social media to spread disinformation should never ever ever be discusses on a s 300-post thread about
American adversaries posting disinformation on social media

they are cats and umbrellas. I was really really really wrong to make any kind of comparison. Bad bad Gaius.

Happy now?

SixFoot · 2022-10-27T13:23:01.073Z

Gaius:

no she made up stupid species arguments just because she felt like arguing.

I’m sorry you had to be married before you realized what was being done to you. Those kinds were the worst. lol

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T13:25:31.811Z

Gaius:

no she made up stupid species arguments just because she felt like arguing.

Me: “I am not saying this is the same as that, but here is the context.”
You:’ Why are you asking this, huh, huh? what does this have to do with each other? huh? huh? Tell me, Answer the question!!"
.
.
.
Okay you win.
One american adversary using social media to spread disinformation should never ever ever be discusses on a s 300-post thread about
American adversaries posting disinformation.

they are cats and umbrellas. I was really really really wrong to make any kind of comparison. Bad bad Gaius.

Happy now?

No they both should be discussed. All i did was point out that we were repeatedly told that social media can’t influence decisions…. “Hahaha social media… hahahah 100k in spending won’t change anyone’s mind”. Apparently it can if China does it … or something. Which is of course nonsense. That’s not your nonsense by the way. You were just the unfortunate soul who posted an article which i used to make a point. For that you have my apologies

More importantly this entire thread seems to be celebrating corporate censorship. Starting with op with multiple likes by posters who proclaim their disgust with corporate censorship right on down for 200+ posts. It’s fun to watch. May be it’s not censorship people are railing about… may be it’s that their nonsense doesn’t get through the censors… again that’s not directed at you but to the thread in general.

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T13:27:15.020Z

I implore once again (That’s twice in a week) to ask if you don’t understand something. Because clearly the point was missed even though i made sure that it oozed out of every response to your posts in this thread. But it’s ok. Now you know.

STODR · 2022-10-27T13:49:41.025Z

Who in the he’ll said social media doesn’t influence people? Post link

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T14:02:42.141Z

STODR:

Who in the he’ll said social media doesn’t influence people? Post link

That was in reference the entire “Russian interference” 2016.

The small scale of their spend on Facebook ads etc was discussed at length here and continuously derided as laughable to have an effect. It was done to diminish the effect social media presence could have to effect people’s choices but of course as it is clear from this thread people now understand that it wasn’t the spend that was important but the effect of social media in general. Strange that it took a few years but i am glad it’s sipping through.

I even started a thread on it on the old board

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T14:05:19.220Z

STODR:

Who in the he’ll said social media doesn’t influence people? Post link

If you do a search for Russia Facebook ads the topic shows up but i can’t link it because i think it could be coh.

STODR · 2022-10-27T15:08:15.391Z

lots of people said it didn’t influence enough to change the election at the time. Not that it doesn’t influence people. That also doesn’t correspond to meaning it can’t in the future. Trying to claim that is what was said is just plain false.

fallenturtle · 2022-10-27T15:22:55.137Z

Samm:

fallenturtle:

Samm:

fallenturtle:

DougBH:

Well, actually 60% of Americans (your definition) from outside of the US don’t want to work in the US, so I guess you are mistaken About what they want.

Huh? My definition of Americans is American citizens.
…

Really? Then why have you made so many contrary statements about America for Americans?

For example?

Are you unaware of what you post?

I’m unaware of what I posted that you believe are contrary statements about America for Americans. I can’t read your mind.

fallenturtle · 2022-10-27T15:38:43.584Z

FreeAndClear:

More importantly this entire thread seems to be celebrating corporate censorship.

The funny thing is that they seem to only want to target large corporations, which is very old school Progressive.

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T15:56:55.139Z

STODR:

lots of people said it didn’t influence enough to change the election at the time. Not that it doesn’t influence people. That also doesn’t correspond to meaning it can’t in the future. Trying to claim that is what was said is just plain false.

Ok so at least we agree that people said that it didn’t influence enough. That minimization did take place.

Additionally derision was directed at advertising. It was done on purpose to minimize the effect russian interference can have on the electorate.

Of course it doesn’t mean that it can’t happen in the future because people got better at it. I am not implying anything to the contrary, just that it did happen in the past and people were dismissive of it…. Because of a narrative

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T15:58:14.291Z

fallenturtle:

FreeAndClear:

More importantly this entire thread seems to be celebrating corporate censorship.

The funny thing is that they seem to only want to target large corporations, which is very old school Progressive.

That’s actually a bigger problem for progressives imo. The fact that they are not as up in arms about big tech censorship is a problem.

STODR · 2022-10-27T15:59:48.014Z

FreeAndClear:

just that it did happen in the past and people were dismissive of it…. Because of a narrative

No they were dismissive of the narrative Hillary lost because of it. Not that it can’t have an influence.

FreeAndClear · 2022-10-27T16:02:00.176Z

STODR:

FreeAndClear:

just that it did happen in the past and people were dismissive of it…. Because of a narrative

No they were dismissive of the narrative Hillary lost because of it. Not that it can’t have an influence.

It was both. The Hillary thing was just an easy mark. The arguments i put forth throughout the whole keefuffle was that there is no chance in hell that she lost because of social media but it sure as heck affected how and what people thought. That too was dismissed

By the way thank you and i mean that for not turning this into “libs still sour that she lost” exchange

fallenturtle · 2022-10-27T16:13:12.637Z

FreeAndClear:

fallenturtle:

FreeAndClear:

More importantly this entire thread seems to be celebrating corporate censorship.

The funny thing is that they seem to only want to target large corporations, which is very old school Progressive.

That’s actually a bigger problem for progressives imo. The fact that they are not as up in arms about big tech censorship is a problem.

I’m not sure how you could address it without stepping on the 1st Amendment.

DougBH · 2022-10-27T16:36:23.196Z

FreeAndClear:

STODR:

FreeAndClear:

just that it did happen in the past and people were dismissive of it…. Because of a narrative

No they were dismissive of the narrative Hillary lost because of it. Not that it can’t have an influence.

It was both. The Hillary thing was just an easy mark. The arguments i put forth throughout the whole keefuffle was that there is no chance in hell that she lost because of social media but it sure as heck affected how and what people thought. That too was dismissed

By the way thank you and i mean that for not turning this into “libs still sour that she lost” exchange

My opinion was and is that Russian and/or Chinese propaganda should not be illegal. Freedom of speech means the freedom to listen, otherwise it would be met by allowing someone to talk in an empty room. However, I favor a legal requirement that if you are representing a foreign government, you be required to identify yourself.
Private corporations can ban whatever speech they want. However, people have a right to identify what they are doing, complain about it, and boycott that company. And there may be a problem if they represent to their clients that they don’t ban politically and are lying about that to keep customers.