• PLEASE LOG IN TO VIEW MORE CONTENT AND PARTICIPAITE

Dangerous People Dangerous Ideas Dangerous Precedents

How do we decide what makes a Person Dangerous?
The recent Banning of Paul Joseph Watson and Milo Yiannopoulos is deeply concerning.
The statement that anyone who post information about these provocative people that is not critical of them will face the same fate of being banned. WTF
What is Dangerous is being able to define something or someone as Hateful or a terrorist without any rigid standards.
Who's next? who decides and where is the accountability? and when does a Company become a public utility?
14152
 

Comments

Interesting...wish the same effort was put forth in educating folks to be more interested in ferreting out what is true and what is false and even if what is false helps to promote a particular stance, don’t except it—demand honesty and integrity. That is the way to put those folks who traffic in lies and misrepresentations out of business. I totally believe in free speech and love that our people can spread lies if that is their desire, but also love that our people have the freedom to expose them for the liars and evil/hateful people that they are.

What I have seen over and over, sadly, is that people such as Alex Jones of Infowars who tried to convince people that a plane didn’t fly/crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 and people knowing what a despicable person he was—just as soon as he said something just as ridiculous about Obama or Hillary or liberals they would accept it as gospel and spread it without the slightest effort to ascertain if there was any truth to it, they simply don’t care so long as it speaks to their opinions (often formed from bad info to begin with). Those are the kind of folks who I think are dangerous, more so than the Alex Jones(s) in this country—all reasonable and responsible people know who and what they are.
 
What sort of things should we forbid from being questioned? Who is going to be the Athority that decides and determine if someone has been diligent before they bring a topic up to discuss or disseminate. How much responsibility is with the audience to be a critical thinker.
 
I don’t think any topic should be designated “off limits to be questioned”... people need to be smarter about what they accept as fact...don’t allow others to feed you a load of crap and accept it as a yummy treat.
 
What I have seen over and over, sadly, is that people such as Alex Jones of Infowars who tried to convince people that a plane didn’t fly/crash into the Pentagon on 9/11 and people knowing what a despicable person he was—just as soon as he said something just as ridiculous about Obama or Hillary or liberals they would accept it as gospel and spread it without the slightest effort to ascertain if there was any truth to it, they simply don’t care so long as it speaks to their opinions (often formed from bad info to begin with). Those are the kind of folks who I think are dangerous, more so than the Alex Jones(s) in this country—all reasonable and responsible people know who and what they are.
I am not familiar enough with Alex Jones to make those kind of declarations about what he has done. But I don't think you have listened to him long enough to be an Athority on him either. So you're basing those declarations on flavor and scent of what you have heard and been told and you accept it as gospel. I think people should be free to express Ideas no matter how absurd. And others should be able to rebuke those ideas with reason and evidence. But not with violence or censorship.

While I don't listen to Alex Jones, I have watched PJW and Milo and there is nothing they have said that warrant demonizing them and putting them in the deplorable basket along with Issis recruiting and violence promoters. It's getting too close to me fitting in the filter by those standards.
 
Nope, you would be wrong...I've read Alex Jones' stuff for years...I don't limit myself to only that which I find palatable, to my liking or that I agree with...in fact, I think it is much more important to check out the "opposition" and to know what the "enemy" is doing. And no one made my decision for me nor did I take anyone else's opinion about this nut case at face value--never have and can't imagine I ever will.

Besides the 9/11 being an "inside job" and no plane in the Pentagon....he said the Air Force created a flood in Texas to kill people, and that the Government causes tornadoes....that the Pentagon is creating chemicals to "turn people gay" so that they won't have children...that Sandy Hook was "staged" so that "liberals" could force gun control...while he didn't invent the "pizzagate" crap, an underling of his did and he promoted it on his radio talk show...he declared that Mueller was a pedophile...and on and on with the crap...and some people actually believe this crap.
 
There have been a lot of unbelievable things that turned out to be true, and some are so hard to swallow it makes others easier to believe plausible.
I think that a few of those that you mention have unanswered questions and inconsistencies that have not been explained. and of course others have real things at the core which have been imagineered to sensationalism.
I think its more important than anytime in history to have uninhibited reporters and thought provocateurs But we are still discovering what constitutes an Agent to violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

Gay Bomb.” The research, which was conducted in 1994, was intended to create a bomb that would douse enemy troops in female pheromones. The objective was to make soldiers sexually attracted to one another and negatively impact their effectiveness in combat. However, it was never pursued.

Leading up to the Gulf War, a young girl identified simply as “Nayirah” testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in 1990. She told stories about the treatment of the Kuwaitis by the invading Iraqis, which horrified members of Congress and many Americans. Although many people did die following Iraq’s invasion, her testimony was made up. She was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S., and her testimony was set up as part of a public relations campaign called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, run by a Hill & Knowlton, a public relations firm.

In 2015, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake published a report saying that the Department of Defense had spent millions of dollars to have sports organizations put on large shows to display American pride. This included several teams in the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, and others, including the athletic departments of several universities. These shows were meant to drive up military recruiting. In 2016, the NFL agreed to reimburse U.S. taxpayers more than $720,000 of this so-called “paid patriotism” money.

Operation Northwoods
Well cutting that short because this one guy I just looked up that you called an underling Cernovich Maybe he made mistakes and didn't predict how people would react but he is legit, This video here i just ran across questions some shady shit that we haven't been hearing about how influence is being made.
 
That is what conspiracy theorist do...they make up or take a grain or kernel of something and turn it into a whole false narrative to fit whatever agenda or position they want to bring people too.
 
But you say that like it's an act of deliberate manipulation for nefarious purposes. I don't think that's the case just because someone speculates about the nature of the implications and evidence.
Why does a question have to be an agenda or manipulation of people. sometimes there's actually a conspiracy and a theorist nails it.
 
When someone states for a fact that Sandy Hooks was staged and that an airplane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11 that is beyond any speculation and is “an act of deliberate manipulation for nefarious purposes” along with advertising his “survival” crap he was peddling on his online store.
 
It is not any crazier than someone stating the world will end in 12 years if we can’t stop the cows from farting!
Yup, that's pretty stupid as well...but, is it vicious? Does it suggest that others have done something nefarious, illegal and corrupt? Or is it just stupid and over the top? Do you actually put that in the same category and someone suggesting and stating that the government faked a plane crashing into the Pentagone where many people were killed and injured or a shooting where there were many deaths, the majority of them young children as being a staged incident so that gun control could be advanced?
 
When someone states for a fact that Sandy Hooks was staged and that an airplane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11 that is beyond any speculation and is “an act of deliberate manipulation for nefarious purposes” along with advertising his “survival” crap he was peddling on his online store.
still don't think that justifies stiffing him or anyone else does not rise to the level of what we hold dear as Americans
 
I am not sure what you mean “stiffing” him, unless you meant “stifling”...if that is the case, I agree. However, people would be smart to not buy into this crap...be smarter than the jackasses that prey on ignorant, bigoted and moronic people to help spread their asinine bull crap that pollutes social media. This would put the jackasses out of business if no one bought into their lies and bull crap.

Absolutely, under 1st Amendment right he has the right to put this kind of garbage out there, and others have the same right to expose it and call him on it and not repeat it or give it any credence.
 
FYI...

Americans have got to wise up...there is no excuse for this kind of ignorance in this country...sadly, it isn’t just people on one side...but, hatefulness and bigotry go a long way in fueling it.

 
FYI...

Americans have got to wise up...there is no excuse for this kind of ignorance in this country...sadly, it isn’t just people on one side...but, hatefulness and bigotry go a long way in fueling it.

So000000 Why is James McDaniel not banned as a dangerous person?
 
This Krass ass is always on top of harassing people, and he wants to silence someone like Candace
Krass.jpg

lest we forget how some think
n3qmtd1ihkw21.jpg
 
So000000 Why is James McDaniel not banned as a dangerous person?
I have no idea, and not sure if any should be banned for anything less than what is Illegal, such as inciting a riot, advocating to overthrow the government and such.
 
the question is going to become important if these platforms want to be a public square.
Many public officers and departments are using these platforms as official accesses places in fact a court ruled the trump twitter account could not block users. another judge might rule that twitter blocking a person constitutes the same restrictions.
We need to know how it can effect us here at flagler.app
 
The reason trump can’t block is because it was determined that the twitter account he uses to broadcast government information on is an extension of the federal government and people can’t be blocked from contacting or interacting with the federal government. If you use Twitter, you can block access.

Public vs private industry may be the key. If a baker can pick and choose who he is willing to make a wedding cake for, why can’t...... why does “slippery slope” and “opening a can of worms “ suddenly pop into my brain??? Then there’s always the law of unintended circumstances...
 
So, by extension, US citizens cant be blocked from using twitter to interact with official US accounts! Any filtering of those with access by the platform would make it a political organization ????
"Should Uber or PayPal be able to de-platform someone for voting for Trump, for being transgendered, or for being a pro-life Christian?"
 
Public vs private industry may be the key.
Facebook is a publicly trade company.
It is not privately owned by Zuckerberg.
He is only the major stockholder.

Your timeline/newsfeed, even though on a public platform, allows you to ban/block someone.
 
...

"Should Uber or PayPal be able to de-platform someone for voting for Trump, for being transgendered, or for being a pro-life Christian?"
Not in my opinion...IMO if you are in business to provide goods or services to the public and if you denied legal goods or services to someone based on them being or believing they are a member of one of the protected classes it is discrimination and should not be permitted licensed businesses. I thought the decision allowing a baker to deny making a cake for a same sex couple was “making bad law.”
 
Facebook is a publicly trade company.
It is not privately owned by Zuckerberg.
He is only the major stockholder.

Your timeline/newsfeed, even though on a public platform, allows you to ban/block someone.
Yes I know, Private industry/private sector are businesses and companies run by individuals or groups of individuals, usually for profit and not controlled by the “state,” meaning any level of government. In this context “public” means government, any level or agency, etc. As a member of a social media platform we do not offer goods or services to people...kinda like going into the mall, a public place, you don’t have to accept anyone coming into your “space” and insisting you have a conversation with them.
 
Yes I know, Private industry/private sector are businesses and companies run by individuals or groups of individuals, usually for profit and not controlled by the “state,” meaning any level of government. In this context “public” means government, any level or agency, etc. As a member of a social media platform we do not offer goods or services to people...kinda like going into the mall, a public place, you don’t have to accept anyone coming into your “space” and insisting you have a conversation with them.
The goods are information, opinion entertainment and communication. The platform is the service that allows you to broadcast or receive the goods from other contributors. When the Platform starts controlling the content (beyond established legality) it broaches on being a publisher and loses its protection from liability for third party content it host and takes on responsibility for that content. IMO when an entity begins a social credit score or calls out disinformation they inadvertently verify all that is not flagged as unreliable. Its an impossible game.
 
The goods are information, opinion entertainment and communication. The platform is the service that allows you to broadcast or receive the goods from other contributors. When the Platform starts controlling the content (beyond established legality) it broaches on being a publisher and loses its protection from liability for third party content it host and takes on responsibility for that content. IMO when an entity begins a social credit score or calls out disinformation they inadvertently verify all that is not flagged as unreliable. Its an impossible game.
When I said “we do not offer...” I was speaking of you and I who obtain the goods/services from the companies providing the goods or services—that is why it is not as issue with blocking someone from our individual accounts. We take/obtain/purchase that which is being offered by the business holder ... and it is not incumbent on us to share what we have obtained from the vendor. Once the vendor has made the jelly beans available to all who want them, we (the consumer) are not obligated to share them with others.
 
then the analysis has got to convoluted to relate it to the topic.
Nobody is asking someone to share their blue plate special at the Woolworth counter. I'm not sure if bringing your bagged lunch to occupy a paying customer seat has any of the aspects of the social media model.

I think the argument is more liken to anti trust and Utility issues, were a market has made a special kind of product that can be weaponized in the form of shunning and isolation of very individuals who the company does not like. s
If these companies have created a Utility then we have to look at what it would be in that sense, do we deny telephones and electrical service to people because of ideological stances the may hold.

I'm on neither side of the fence, these questions are not new . After all This site was born 10 yrs ago, out of my inside knowledge that Flaglerchat was restricting political opinions and doing things like outing Deputies that spoke against the Sherriff, Hiding unflattering discussions about people it was favorable too such a DUI arrest while at the same time doxxing those it didn't like. My refusal to administer the punishments over unresolved back room discussions was touted as a reason to remove me and establish accusations distrust.
 
Facebook is a publicly trade company.
It is not privately owned by Zuckerberg.
He is only the major stockholder.

Your timeline/newsfeed, even though on a public platform, allows you to ban/block someone.
then the analysis has got to convoluted to relate it to the topic.
Nobody is asking someone to share their blue plate special at the Woolworth counter. I'm not sure if bringing your bagged lunch to occupy a paying customer seat has any of the aspects of the social media model.

I think the argument is more liken to anti trust and Utility issues, were a market has made a special kind of product that can be weaponized in the form of shunning and isolation of very individuals who the company does not like. s
If these companies have created a Utility then we have to look at what it would be in that sense, do we deny telephones and electrical service to people because of ideological stances the may hold.

I'm on neither side of the fence, these questions are not new . After all This site was born 10 yrs ago, out of my inside knowledge that Flaglerchat was restricting political opinions and doing things like outing Deputies that spoke against the Sherriff, Hiding unflattering discussions about people it was favorable too such a DUI arrest while at the same time doxxing those it didn't like. My refusal to administer the punishments over unresolved back room discussions was touted as a reason to remove me and establish accusations distrust.
The post of mine that you quoted several posts above was in response to sundealer’s post I just quoted above...sorry, for the confusion. I was trying to explain the difference in Facebook banning someone because they don’t like the content and you blocking me from your Facebook account because you aren’t interest in anything I might post there. I think you and I are basically of one mind re: social media platforms banning because “they” don’t like the content.
 
I'm listening to another JRE now and hearing what Twitter has used to defend its position.
The slippery slope is upon us and we had best get some common ground, To be honest I recognized many years ago that rules were avery much on map to exceptions and would require extraordinary wording to negate circumvention. So while I have laid out some outlines of what is expected here.
It has been my personal opinion that dictated the actions the site took. I evolved from a no moderation of speech stance to one that is more about the culture of the community. It has forced me to advocate for unpopular opinions and protect the minority from undue harassment. When I started on this journey I had no white hairs at all and today I have almost none with color remaining and now we are seeing these major platforms trying to deal with the exact same kinds of human behaviors that were problematic in 2004 when Siren and I acted to lead disinfranchised members of flagleronline.co to palmcoast.biz. What I learned was Chris and Katrina had more right than they had wrong at the time.
 

Jack Dorsey is a computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur who is co-founder and CEO of Twitter, and founder and CEO of Square, a mobile payments company. Vijaya Gadde serves as the global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety at Twitter. Tim Pool is an independent journalist. His work can currently be found at https://www.timcast.com/
 
Read: Shutting down jihadist websites won’t stop terrorism
Shortly after the Werfalli arrest warrant was issued, Hadi Al Khatib, a Syrian-born open-source investigator based in Berlin, noticed something that distressed him: User-generated videos depicting firsthand accounts from the war in Syria were vanishing from the internet by the thousands. Khatib is the founder of the Syrian Archive, a collective of activists that, since 2014, has been scouring for digital materials posted by people left behind in Syria’s war zone. The Syrian Archive’s aim is “to build a kind of visual documentation relating to human-rights violations and other crimes committed by all sides during the eight-year-old conflict,” Khatib said in an interview.

In the late summer of 2017, Khatib and his colleagues were systematically building a case against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in much the same way ICC investigators pursued Werfalli. They had amassed scores and scores of citizens’ accounts, including video and photos that purportedly showed Assad was targeting hospitals and medical clinics in bombing campaigns. “We were collecting, archiving, and geolocating evidence, doing all sorts of verification for the case,” Khatib recalled. “Then one day we noticed that all the videos that we had been going through, all of a sudden, all of them were gone.”
It wasn’t a sophisticated hack attack by pro-Assad forces that wiped out their work. It was the ruthlessly efficient work of machine-learning algorithms deployed by social networks, particularly YouTube and Facebook.

 
P
The Trump administration has set up a website where people can file a report if they believe their social media accounts have been banned, suspended, or otherwise affected because of political bias.

“The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online,” the White House said in a May 15 tweet. “No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it!”

The website, wh.gov/techbias, asks its visitors a series of questions, including name, email address, what happened to their social media accounts, and on what social media, offering the options of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Other.

The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it! https://t.co/9lc0cqUhuf pic.twitter.com/J8ICbx42dz

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 15, 2019
“SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” the site says. “Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear ‘violations’ of user policies.”

If a specific social media post is involved, the website asks for a link to it. If the social media platform sent the user a notification, the website asks for a screenshot of it.

The site asks people to agree with a roughly one-page User Agreement, which outlines that people who submit their reports must be citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States and over 18 years of age. It also explains that the government can “use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute” all the information people provide.

President Donald Trump recently came to the defense of conservatives censored by tech companies, after Facebook banned several influential figures from its social media platforms in early May.

“This is the United States of America—and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH!” he said in a tweet. “We are monitoring and watching, closely!!”

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2019
The tech companies have denied that there is political bias in their content policing, but have increasingly cracked down on “hate speech”—a concept derived from the ideology of political correctness, which is shunned by a majority of Americans.

Only 36 percent of Americans would like the country to be more politically correct, according to a Nov. 28–Dec. 4 NPR/PBS/Marist poll (pdf).

Moreover, Americans significantly diverge on what “hate speech” is.

Democrats are much more likely to call a variety of statements “hateful,” while Republicans are more likely to call them “offensive, but not hateful,” a 2017 Cato survey showed (pdf).

Conservatives have been reluctant to call for government intervention into how social media polices content, but many worry that social media’s silencing popular, albeit controversial, conservative commentators could sway the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“Everyone Facebook has banned was instrumental in getting Donald Trump elected. This is punishment, this is political purge. This has nothing to do with ‘hate’ or ‘violating terms of service,’” said Paul Joseph Watson, chief reporter at InfoWars, in a May 2 YouTube video after his Facebook and Instagram accounts were deleted.

The most popular idea on how the government could push against social media censorship is to strip them of their designation as a “platform.”

Interactive computer service providers are shielded from liability for content created by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

The argument is that if the tech companies want to excessively filter, sort, and restrict content on their platforms, they should be treated as publishers and thus face liability if the content is defamatory. The hope would then be that the companies would lay off the censorship in order to avoid being designated as publishers.

 

A Pinterest spokesperson responded to Project Veritas, saying:


“Religious content is allowed on Pinterest, and many people use our service to search for and save Pins inspired by their beliefs. To protect our users from being targeted based on personal characteristics such as their religion, we have policies in place so that ads and recommendations don’t appear alongside certain terms.”
Despite great risk, the insider displayed incredible courage and helped expose one of the largest tech censorship stories of 2019.


In our first interview with the insider, he told Veritas the following:


“I think when public policies don’t match with how social media companies are actually implementing them, people have a right to know, people have a right to that transparency. And the thing is one person can make all the difference… one person can bring transparency to big tech.”
One person can make all the difference. If you are an insider in big tech, media, government, or education please come forward and share your story with Project Veritas.
 
Top