This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Nov 22 1.11pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
What Musk actually said was as long as they haven't broken the law. One of the major complaints about social media is about people who have been banned for no logical reason and being unable to restore their account. This is mainly done by AI rather than a human being. The other day an Instagram user who is an astronomer had their account banned for nudity, they had posted a picture of a asteroid. This will help a lot of people unfairly banned, of course if someone abuses this they will get banned again. But that picture of an asteroid - billions of miles from Earth - did actually have my cock in it. I woke up with a bit of morning glory.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 25 Nov 22 3.37pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
But that picture of an asteroid - billions of miles from Earth - did actually have my cock in it. I woke up with a bit of morning glory. No one can say you don't get around. In a sense I suppose you were between a rock and a hard place.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
HKOwen Hong Kong 25 Nov 22 10.09pm | |
---|---|
Many years ago I was in a bar in a Boston hotel watching the superbowl, an American lady asked me if she could " bum a fag ". When I replied something pithy with a prison reference she simply look bemused, I gave her one anyway, a cigarette that is.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Nov 22 2.27pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
What Musk actually said was as long as they haven't broken the law. One of the major complaints about social media is about people who have been banned for no logical reason and being unable to restore their account. This is mainly done by AI rather than a human being. The other day an Instagram user who is an astronomer had their account banned for nudity, they had posted a picture of a asteroid. This will help a lot of people unfairly banned, of course if someone abuses this they will get banned again. To actually do that is going to take a huge amount of work and require a lot of people to do it. Which is incompatible with cutting the numbers as Musk has. My take was that they were all going to be given an amnesty and only banned if they broke the law in future. Which opens up a huge can of worms. Surely in the incident you quote a simple appeal would suffice.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 26 Nov 22 2.54pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
To actually do that is going to take a huge amount of work and require a lot of people to do it. Which is incompatible with cutting the numbers as Musk has. My take was that they were all going to be given an amnesty and only banned if they broke the law in future. Which opens up a huge can of worms. Surely in the incident you quote a simple appeal would suffice. You would think so yes but back in the real world apparently not. These social media companies are laws unto themselves and they set the rules about what they think is offensive and that includes Musk. Once upon a time we have serious debates in parliament and the courts over this stuff e.g. Lady Chatterley's Lover, or OZ, now it is left to billionaire owners and their arbitrary views and to bloody AI machine. Edited by Badger11 (26 Nov 2022 2.55pm)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Nov 22 3.19pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
You would think so yes but back in the real world apparently not. These social media companies are laws unto themselves and they set the rules about what they think is offensive and that includes Musk. Once upon a time we have serious debates in parliament and the courts over this stuff e.g. Lady Chatterley's Lover, or OZ, now it is left to billionaire owners and their arbitrary views and to bloody AI machine. Edited by Badger11 (26 Nov 2022 2.55pm) Those debates were about what was considered acceptable, and lawful, to be published in the prevailing society. We still have those debates, though less so as it seems that almost anything goes these days. The situation with the social media businesses isn't the same. They are still bound by the law, but as private businesses are perfectly entitled to set their own standards on what they will accept on their platforms. It's their space, they decide how to use it. In the past a newspaper could decide whether to serialise Lady Chatterley's Lover, or not if it thought it wasn't in their interests to do so.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 26 Nov 22 3.39pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Those debates were about what was considered acceptable, and lawful, to be published in the prevailing society. We still have those debates, though less so as it seems that almost anything goes these days. The situation with the social media businesses isn't the same. They are still bound by the law, but as private businesses are perfectly entitled to set their own standards on what they will accept on their platforms. It's their space, they decide how to use it. In the past a newspaper could decide whether to serialise Lady Chatterley's Lover, or not if it thought it wasn't in their interests to do so. You are an idealist WE. Social media has a huge impact on millions of lives they should not get to dictate what is right or wrong according to the latest fashion or the politics of the owner. Edited by Badger11 (26 Nov 2022 3.40pm)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 26 Nov 22 6.25pm | |
---|---|
[Tweet Link]
An oldie but probably accurate.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Nov 22 5.14am | |
---|---|
How Google Stopped the Red Wave (an interesting article from the epoch times that I'm reproducing here) Google and other tech companies want you obsessing about conspiracy theories so you won’t look at how they tampered with the 2022 midterm elections What happened to the gigantic red wave that was supposed to crush the Democrats in the midterm elections? Every Republican in the country is blaming everyone else for this disaster, but almost no one is looking in the right place—and that’s exactly how the Big Tech companies like it. Based on my team’s research, Google, and to a lesser extent, Facebook and other tech monopolies, not only took steps to shift millions of votes to Democrats in the midterms, but they are using their influence to spread rumors and conspiracy theories to make sure people look everywhere for explanations—except at them. Two days before the 2022 midterm elections, I published an article explaining how Google and other tech companies were shifting millions of votes without people knowing, and I also explained how I knew, without doubt, that this was occurring. Google isn’t the only culprit, but since they’re the biggest, most aggressive, and most arrogant culprit, I’ll focus on them in this article. Over a period of months, Google nudged undecided voters toward voting blue by showing people politically biased content in their search engine, suppressing content they didn’t want people to see, recommending left-leaning videos on YouTube (pdf) (which Google owns), allegedly sending tens of millions of emails to people’s spam boxes, and sending go-vote reminders on their home page mainly to liberal and moderate voters. These manipulations (and others) don’t affect voters with strong points of view, but they can have an enormous impact on voters who are undecided (pdf)—the people who decide the outcomes of close elections. I know Google did these things (and more!) because, in 2022, my team and I were doing to them exactly what they do to us and our kids 24/7: We were monitoring the politically related content that Google and other tech companies were showing to actual voters—our politically diverse panel of 2,742 “field agents,” who were located mainly in swing states. In particular, we were tracking what Google employees call “ephemeral experiences”—content that appears briefly, affects people, and then disappears. In 2018, in emails that leaked from the company, Googlers were discussing how they might use ephemeral experiences to change people’s views about Trump’s travel ban. They know how powerful ephemeral experiences can be. That’s one of the most closely held secrets of Google’s management. Ephemeral content is ideal for manipulation purposes. If you get a go-vote reminder on Google’s home page (see the image below for an actual go-vote reminder sent to a liberal voter on Election Day), how would you know whether anyone else was getting it? You wouldn’t, and if you didn’t receive such a reminder, how would you know that anyone else had?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Nov 22 7.16am | |
---|---|
[Tweet Link]
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Nov 22 3.28pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
You are an idealist WE. Social media has a huge impact on millions of lives they should not get to dictate what is right or wrong according to the latest fashion or the politics of the owner. Edited by Badger11 (26 Nov 2022 3.40pm) No more than newspapers did in the past! Better to have ideals than none. As any attempt by a government to regulate what a private business should be allowed to publish would be greeted with horror by the right, as an abuse of free speech, I cannot see how your aspirations will be met.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Nov 22 3.36pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
[Tweet Link] Anyone can groom, whatever their sexual orientation. That's not the point. It's the deliberate targeting of certain groups which is. Heterosexual "white" men can groom. So can gay "non-white" women! Attack the grooming!. Not any other attribute.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.