What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bill Maher Back At It (3 Viewers)

Max Power said:
That's what they claim, although Facebook and Twitter have both been claimed to be larger coordination hubs for Jan 6th activity.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/parler-shutdown-dangerous-capitol-riot-berenson
Click to expand...
Thanks.  need to read up more on that.  

FB/Twitter larger hubs b/c they are bigger platforms?   I honestly don't know a ton about Parlor.   Just thought some of those were gained popularity b/c they let more fly as far as hate speech, etc.   similar to other boards vs FBGs. 

 
John123 said:
Much like the cop who pulls people over for a busted taillight to look for drugs, the tech companies always find some technicality to cite as their reason for suspending/banning people they don't like, but it almost always affects just one side of the political spectrum.  Eventually, much like the cops who when looking for someone to pull over for a busted taillight always seem to be doing it to POC, you start to see a pattern and that pattern is kind of ugly.  If you're looking at the data objectively.
Click to expand...
Is the Facebook Top Ten Twitter handle considered inaccurate? Because it seems to indicate Facebook is dominated by right-leaning commentators like Shapiro, Bongino, Hannity every week. 
https://twitter.com/facebookstop10?s=21

 
KarmaPolice said:
Thanks.  need to read up more on that.  

FB/Twitter larger hubs b/c they are bigger platforms?   I honestly don't know a ton about Parlor.   Just thought some of those were gained popularity b/c they let more fly as far as hate speech, etc.   similar to other boards vs FBGs. 
Click to expand...
Yes bigger platforms, and big tech worked against Parlor because they had different censorship rules. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
If the argument is YouTube should make an exception in their policy for this group, I can see that point.  I guess my point is I don't think this initially was a political or pro-China action.  
Click to expand...
They have made exceptions for posting nudity in the case of David or that horrible image of the running Vietnamese little girl.  I don't see why this wouldn't come under some similar reasonable exception (I agree strongly with the ones above).  So why not do that?

 
Sand said:
They have made exceptions for posting nudity in the case of David or that horrible image of the running Vietnamese little girl.  I don't see why this wouldn't come under some similar reasonable exception (I agree strongly with the ones above).  So why not do that?
Click to expand...
Right, exceptions or a limited change in policy might make sense. This is a good example of the challenges these companies face.

 
Max Power said:
I've only been here asking for consistency. Big tech isn't consistent and it's always to one side of the spectrum. 
Click to expand...
that's why I would love to see a list of examples of who or what they have taken down or banned.  

like someone and I posted, I've seen bs of all sorts from all sides of the political spectrum fly on FB.  exactly how bad does something have to be to get yanked? 

I also thought I read that the independent review board for these cases FB set up has also overturned damn near every ban or deleted post.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Thanks.  need to read up more on that.  

FB/Twitter larger hubs b/c they are bigger platforms?   I honestly don't know a ton about Parlor.   Just thought some of those were gained popularity b/c they let more fly as far as hate speech, etc.   similar to other boards vs FBGs. 
Click to expand...
They are far bigger hubs better Parlor because Parlor accounts are political specific.  People are not going on there to wish someone happy birthday.  

 
FairWarning said:
Disagree, social media couldn’t ban posts fast enough of the Covid coming from a Chinese lab.  
Click to expand...
That is their choice.  And I get it. 98% of the information coming out about the virus originating in the lab is bs and misinformation.  They are looking into it, and they should.  Unfortunately, the garbage that most people want to post about that, often misinformed and entirely politically driven, is deemed to dangerous for consumption by the platform’s users.  

And if the 2020 election has taught us anything, it is that they are 100% right about that.  

 
zoonation said:
That is their choice.  And I get it. 98% of the information coming out about the virus originating in the lab is bs and misinformation.  They are looking into it, and they should.  Unfortunately, the garbage that most people want to post about that, often misinformed and entirely politically driven, is deemed to dangerous for consumption by the platform’s users.  

And if the 2020 election has taught us anything, it is that they are 100% right about that.  
Click to expand...
But to this day we see all of these variants that MAY spread and do evil things to mankind.  Where is the outrage on these, outside of fear-mongering?  

 
So THIS article said in the correspondence with Parler, Amazon listed 98 examples that encouraged and incited violence.  No examples, so I am still curious what that exactly means.  

 
....and HERE was an article with an example:

Amazon said it kicked Parler off its cloud-computing servers, citing several instances of violent content that violated its rules. One example the tech giant identified from a post in early December said: “My wishes for a racewar have never been higher. I find myself thinking about killing n—s and jews more and more often.”

 
John123 said:
Here's an example why this is bad, and people should be allowed to do their own research and make up their own minds.  There is a drug called Ivermectin.  I don't know much about it.  But a Dr. testified in front of congress about it's benefits not too long ago.  YouTube pulled that congressional testimony as a violation of it's TOS against Covid misinformation:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-pierre-kory-youtube-ivermectin-covid-treatment

As you can see, this drug is viable and being studied all over the place:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Ivermectin&iar=news&ia=news
Click to expand...
Ivermectin is well known among those who care for covid patients. The data supporting its use are inconclusive, but several studies are ongoing.

Based on available evidence, promoting it as a covid cure is misinformation.

 
Terminalxylem said:
Ivermectin is well known among those who care for covid patients. The data supporting its use are inconclusive, but several studies are ongoing.

Based on available evidence, promoting it as a covid cure is misinformation.
Click to expand...
It's this.  It's how these things are promoted.  

Look, I don't know what the answer is.  We have entered a new age with all the online social media.  We can't let it be a place that stews hate and violence and disrupts process in extreme situations (like a pandemic)  I wish it wasn't the case but there are way to many people that can't think for themselves and fall too quickly for this.  

I'm honestly a believer if everything went full on 'free speech' we would have way more violence in this country, way more death and illness and way more suicide

 
Terminalxylem said:
Ivermectin is well known among those who care for covid patients. The data supporting its use are inconclusive, but several studies are ongoing.

Based on available evidence, promoting it as a covid cure is misinformation.
Click to expand...
Whether you believe it helps or not, there is enough support for it and evidence of it's benefits that congressional testimony about it shouldn't be censored.  Good article below btw:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf

 
As if on cue, Youtube has now permanently banned Right Wing Watch, a leftist organization that documents what they see as objectionable content emanating from the right hand side of the political spectrum.

Right Wing Watch has been permanently suspended from YouTube, the organization announced on Twitter on Monday.

According to screenshots posted by RWW, the Google-owned video platform informed the group that their official YouTube channel would be permanently removed from the site due to numerous violations of its community guidelines.

According to Right Wing Watch, their appeal of the suspension was also denied by YouTube, which again claimed that the watchdog group—which monitors disinformation, conspiracies, and violent rhetoric from far-right media outlets and personalities—was in violation of its guidelines and terms of service.

Meanwhile, many of the far-right extremists merely exposed by RWW remain on the platform.
Click to expand...
Link -- biased source, but the underlying information is correct as I understand it.  

Censorship -- and this is unquestionably censorship, regardless of tim's attempt to redefine the word -- is bad for lots of reasons.  But just in case you weren't already convinced, it's worth remembering that your side won't always control the censors.  You should just assume that any argument you give in favor of censorship will be applied first and most vigorously to people on your side first, and if you don't like the implication of that, then your argument probably isn't a good one.  

Edit: Fixed link.  Thanks to @Rich Conway

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assuming the info in the link is correct...  YouTube warned them about violations of ToS, they did it again, and YouTube banned them. :shrug:  I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

 
Rich Conway said:
Assuming the info in the link is correct...  YouTube warned them about violations of ToS, they did it again, and YouTube banned them. :shrug:  I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.
Click to expand...
If, by doing it again, you mean they posted something 8 years ago that YouTube used as an excuse to ban them, I guess you're right:

And then they found some video from eight years ago, that they flagged, took that down, and that was our third strike,” he explained. “And they took down our entire account.”
Click to expand...
But here's the thing.  We see over and over again these SM sites saying a group violated their TOS but then, after being pressured about it, they admit that the group didn't violate the TOS and then just say it was a "mistake" and reinstate the account.  And they never specify what TOS was violated.  Happens over and over again, and mostly to right leaning accounts.

 
John123 said:
If, by doing it again, you mean they posted something 8 years ago that YouTube used as an excuse to ban them, I guess you're right:

But here's the thing.  We see over and over again these SM sites saying a group violated their TOS but then, after being pressured about it, they admit that the group didn't violate the TOS and then just say it was a "mistake" and reinstate the account.  And they never specify what TOS was violated.  Happens over and over again, and mostly to right leaning accounts.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

By the way, this is an extremely liberal group that got banned, not a right-leaning account.  YouTube's site, YouTube's rules.

 
John123 said:
Whether you believe it helps or not, there is enough support for it and evidence of it's benefits that congressional testimony about it shouldn't be censored.  Good article below btw:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf
Click to expand...
That article is interesting, but it isn't completely accurate. Rather than debunk claims individually, I encourage you to read the NIH summary on ivermectin: 

Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals or have been made available as manuscripts ahead of peer review. Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use,21-24 whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19,25-28 greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels,26,27 shorter time to viral clearance,21,26 or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.21,26,28

However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias. These limitations include:

The sample size of most of the trials was small.

Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.

Some of the randomized controlled trials were open-label studies in which neither the participants nor the investigators were blinded to the treatment arms.

Patients received various concomitant medications (e.g., doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin or the comparator drug. This confounded the assessment of the efficacy or safety of ivermectin.

The severity of COVID-19 in the study participants was not always well described.

The study outcome measures were not always clearly defined.

Table 2c includes summaries of key studies. Because most of these studies have significant limitations, the Panel cannot draw definitive conclusions on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Click to expand...
One thing that really makes no sense: if Big Pharma/Big Data (I had no idea relying on well designed clinical trails was used as a pejorative) were trying to quash generic, cheap drugs like ivermectin, why are steroids like solumedrol (also old and cheap) advocated for the treatment of covid?

Also, you might be interested to know Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies have fallen out of favor, with more limited indications than previously. If this is some devious plot to quash the little guy in favor of expensive new stuff, how does that jibe with the anti-academia narrative?

And why did covid spike in places where ivermectin is available over-the-counter?

I'm not saying ivermectin is useless, but we've seen this type of social media science play out with hydroxychloroquine. Given our (disappointing) history of effective antiviral therapy, I'm not optimistic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John123 said:
If, by doing it again, you mean they posted something 8 years ago that YouTube used as an excuse to ban them, I guess you're right:

But here's the thing.  We see over and over again these SM sites saying a group violated their TOS but then, after being pressured about it, they admit that the group didn't violate the TOS and then just say it was a "mistake" and reinstate the account.  And they never specify what TOS was violated.  Happens over and over again, and mostly to right leaning accounts.
Click to expand...
Wow, it's like I'm psychic:

"Right Wing Watch's YouTube channel was mistakenly suspended, but upon further review, has now been reinstated," a YouTube spokesperson told Insider.
Click to expand...
Or else maybe it's just SOP for these SM sites.

https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-watch-banned-from-youtube-2021-6

 
Chaz McNulty said:
Dude.  Why would anyone in their right mind take anything Trump said seriously.  I think he has lied 30,000 times in 4 years.  Do you want the MSM take everything he says at face value and report it as truth?  
Click to expand...
Well, you were arguing that People go to Fox because Fox reports it in the way they want to hear it.  

I responded by saying CNN selectively reports what Trump says.  

You ignored the actual conversation and seem to be pivoting points.  Are we discussing people selecting biased news networks or Trump being a liar.

Trump lies.  Bad guy.  The end.  

CNN can do a good job of reporting what Trump says with full context and STILL show that he's a liar.  But they don't.  They're biased and have to create additional examples.  

 
jm192 said:
Well, you were arguing that People go to Fox because Fox reports it in the way they want to hear it.  

I responded by saying CNN selectively reports what Trump says.  

You ignored the actual conversation and seem to be pivoting points.  Are we discussing people selecting biased news networks or Trump being a liar.

Trump lies.  Bad guy.  The end.  

CNN can do a good job of reporting what Trump says with full context and STILL show that he's a liar.  But they don't.  They're biased and have to create additional examples.  
Click to expand...
Sorry.  You are right.  I did pivot.  Maybe I was meaning to reply to another post.

 
LOL.   So HERE  it says:

GETTR, a Twitter-style platform with posts and trending topics, advertised itself on the Google and Apple app stores as "a non-bias social network for people all over the world." It was first reported by Politico.

But basically every other thing I scanned was something about a Pro-Trump, wanting Trump on it, or at least conservative platform.    Funny to me that so many people complain about Big Tech and silencing conservative voices, but then I am guessing they are willing to join Pillow Guy's and former Trump aide's platforms that seem to be targeting Trump people.  We will see how they turn out as far as how receptive they are to liberal views, but on the surface it seems just a tad hypocritical.  

 
tymarsas said:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/02/trump-gettr-social-media-isis-502078

This is seems like a pretty negative consequence of not having a solid moderation team/policy for a social media network.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think moderation is inherently bad or censorious.

The Footballguys Forums don't allow other fantasy football sites to advertise for free on our message board. Does that mean we're censoring them? I guess you could define censorship in a way that yields an affirmative answer, but I don't think that'd be a great definition.

To me, censorship is about suppressing ideas or improperly suppressing information. (Yes, that begs the question. But what's improper depends on the totality of the circumstances in any given situation, and I don't think it can fit into a generic definition.)

If groups of propagandists are flooding a private platform with reams of disinformation, I wouldn't call it "censorship" to block those groups. I'd call it maintaining a useful forum that reasonable people will actually want to take part in. It's good business to enforce rules that prevent your forum from being overrun by spammers or vandals. I wouldn't consider that censorship because I don't consider it to be an improper use of a forum's moderation powers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yeah, I don't think moderation is inherently bad or censorious.

The Footballguys Forums don't allow other fantasy football sites to advertise for free on our message board. Does that mean we're censoring them? I guess you could define censorship in a way that yields an affirmative answer, but I don't think that'd be a great definition.

To me, censorship is about suppressing ideas or improperly suppressing information. (Yes, that begs the question. But what's improper depends on the totality of the circumstances in any given situation, and I don't think it can fit into a generic definition.)

If groups of propagandists are flooding a private platform with reams of disinformation, I wouldn't call it "censorship" to block those groups. I'd call it maintaining a useful forum that reasonable people will actually want to take part in. It's good business to enforce rules that prevent your forum from being overrun by spammers or vandals. I wouldn't consider that censorship because I don't consider it to be an improper use of a forum's moderation powers.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point, but I'd personally lobby for being less squeamish about the term "censorship."  Is it censorship for the government to tell networks that they can't air pornography in between Saturday morning cartoons?  Yes, obviously IMO, and that's the good kind of censorship.  It would be bad censorship to tell networks that they can't air political commentary.

I get that the word "censorship" has a negative connotation attached to it and people sometimes use that term as a bush-league way of winning an argument by vaguely appealing to those negative connotations, but we should be above that kind of stuff. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I agree with your point, but I'd personally lobby for being less squeamish about the term "censorship."  Is it censorship for the government to tell networks that they can't air pornography in between Saturday morning cartoons?  Yes, obviously IMO, and that's the good kind of censorship.  It would be bad censorship to tell networks that they can't air political commentary.

I get that the word "censorship" has a negative connotation attached to it and people sometimes use that term as a bush-league way of winning an argument by vaguely appealing to those negative connotations, but we should be above that kind of stuff. 
Click to expand...
I will only say there needs to be caution over what is "good" censorship. 

A few months ago all the social media sites and many Americans felt it was "good" censorship to forbid conversations related to corona coming from a lab in China.  Sites were suspended, banned, even permanently cancelled for even discussing it.  Now look where we are.

Censorship isn't a set rule. 

 
supermike80 said:
I will only say there needs to be caution over what is "good" censorship. 

A few months ago all the social media sites and many Americans felt it was "good" censorship to forbid conversations related to corona coming from a lab in China.  Sites were suspended, banned, even permanently cancelled for even discussing it.  Now look where we are.

Censorship isn't a set rule. 
Click to expand...


BladeRunner approves this message.  👍

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
10K
LawFitz
LawFitz
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
944
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
VP Kamala Harris Claims US Government Hurricane Ian Relief Will PRIORITIZE "Communities Of Color" (10/3/22 14:07 PST)
Replies
34
Views
892
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top