Hmmm, what have you been reading?
Musk is frankly a moron with a lot of money, a pretty dangerous combination.
He already has “free speech” he can say what he likes, so can Trump and anyone else. Free speech means free from persecution and harassment by government it does not mean that every organization in the country has a duty to transmit and propagate what Musk or Trump says, any organization is free to repeat or not anything they like.
Anyone who has 250 Billion dollars and has nothing better to do than troll people and rant and complain all the time pretty much proves that money does not bring happiness.
He also looks like a dork too.
How to look good in a cattleman’s hat and sunglasses:
How to look like a Dork in a cattleman’s hat and sunglasses:
1 Like
They are censored! Furthermore, we are also ‘censored’ from them if not by our own media. I favor Elon’s position although I worry about his ownership power, something that many think justly gives them some intrinsic ‘right’ to censor regardless. Even if he says he wouldn’t, I assure you that rarely do those in absurdly powerful positions opt out of it as a last resort if need be.
The biggest problem with our modern capitalist society is that it DEPENDS upon stupifying the consumer. THAT is the actual problem. We (capitalist countries) tend to believe intrinsically in deception, especially by media owners exploiting profits through advertising without strict rules against misleading information. The word ‘free’ doesn’t mean “free” in advertising for intance. We intentionally impose ‘agreements’ that people are ubiquitously forced to accept or be denied service. And those agreements hide their ability to ALTER the rules making any EULA harmless to the consumer and ONLY beneficial to the companies making them.
If we truly think that we are somehow more 'superior’than Russia for their own abuses, we have to recognize that his own behavior is in direct light of our abuses that we take for granted as normal everyday living. That is, we are brainwashed just as much regardless of those rightwing outlets that out-and-out opt to lie where it suits them. They are just practicing what society teaches them. If we all adopted to NOT permit ANY deception, we could then possibly have a change in HOW others perceive what is or is not ‘news’ appropriately.
My country, that one right above you, believes in censorship laws that are imposed upon us regardless of what is or is not ‘private’. If I were to Google something that is undesired, we have laws that have forced Google to redirect us. Cue (or ‘key’) words initiate them to redirect. CBC, our supposed ‘open’ media, while it helps give us SOME non-rightwing news, is also opposingly against our right to speak without censorship. In general, Canada does not have the same kind of First Amendment powers that separate ‘cultural’ or religious laws from taking precedence too.
Here’s a link to the redirection laws introduced. [not the official but the news about it. I’m not yet sure if that particular one is passed yet. But we do get laws passed a bit quicker than you guys do.] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-lays-out-details-proposed-law-compel-facebook-google-pay-news-2022-04-05/
Edit: that link above is not what I expected. Here’s another, a report on our redirection. I do NOT get the search choices I used to ten years ago here. It’s very frustrating. This is a pdf report, btw. I’ll send others where I can find them but you might have a better means (?) Here it is:
https://moonshotcve.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Public-Report_Canada-Redirect_English.pdf
Edit 2: Additional found link on ‘Deepfake’ through YouTube (but Google owned and also part of our censor laws). Note that the ‘terrorist’ threats are the excuse without defining what that is. Our bar is very low on what some of our leaders assert is ‘terrorism’.
We have another concern now too. Software will soon be able to be able to create false news with better ease. Lyre or Lyre(?) is one company from Canada, I believe, that is working on voice manipulations. I can’t Google it here given the comment I just made about our censorship redirection laws They can take a sample of our voice through a recording or by phone, say, and fake it well.
I believe I saw a doc on either 60minutes (CBS) or VICE or ? that detailed both video and voice software advancements that fake it. This factor MAY be another reason for Putin’s own responses! We really do NOT know if we are getting the correct news anymore. The best we can hope for is to keep it open, undo arrogant restrictions that my own country is promoting, and find means to teach people to be more logically aware and emotionally resistant to propoganda by ALL of us.
From the “Final-Public-Report” pdf regarding Canada’s laws that force media to censor and redirect content:
Redirect Canada used online advertising tools and curated content from YouTube to confront online radicalization across the country. Moonshot developed campaigns to counter two types of violent extremist content: IS and AQ-inspired content and Violent Far Right content. For the purposes of the campaign, we defined the Violent Far Right as groups and individuals who incite violence and promote conspiracy theories on the basis of anti-government, white nationalist, anti-immigrant and racist ideologies. The campaigns targeted individuals susceptible to extremist messaging on the basis of their Google keyword searches, and redirected thousands of them to videos that undermined relevant themes or content specific to each search - for example, an ISIS video, a violent far-right conspiracy theory, or a piece of neo-Nazi literature. When a Canadian searched Google for a keyword that demonstrated their curiosity or engagement with a violent ideology or movement, such as “Join Blood and Honour”, they landed on a search results page featuring one of our ads. These ads appeared above the organic search results, and as such aimed not to censor them, but to offer an alternative to the often harmful content found there. The ads hence acted to safeguard a user’s search by offering them contextual, credible and safe content that challenged extremist beliefs.
Your data does not support your conclusion. Thanks for posting it
Your being ‘rhetorically obtuse’ when you don’t explain. What is the issue? Did you read the edit for the link to the appropriate one? Note that that first link appeared on top when it doesn’t relate. I kept in in there to preserve it properly.
Here’s another (properly related to our censorship laws): Canada's top court rules Google must block some results worldwide | Reuters
EDIT: Or, are you asserting that you agree with those laws?
EDIT 2: Oh jeez, that IS the original link. I thought it was different (?) So the Reuter’s article is one I mentioned already.
Canada’s top court rules Google must block some results worldwide - Reuters
By Leah Schnurr
June 28, 2017“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values,” the court wrote in its ruling. “We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.”
The global reach was necessary, according to the court, because if the removed search results were restricted to Canada alone, purchasers both in and out of Canada could easily continue to find and buy from Datalink.
Google cannot appeal the Supreme Court ruling. If the company has evidence that complying with the order would force it to violate other countries’ laws, including interfering with freedom of expression, it can apply to the British Columbia court to alter the order, the Supreme Court said, noting Google has not made such an application.
Five year old story, got anything new to report?
Yeah, the additional notes above added the March 2021 report regarding the Federal case for censoring Google, Facebook, etc, for Canadians. I also quoted some part of it in a followup post. (See the 'final-public-report…" pdf above)
I’m being succinct. Something you could work on.
From your post, “The ads hence acted to safeguard a user’s search by offering them contextual, credible and safe content that challenged extremist beliefs.”
But who gets to be the one’s to decide what is ‘credible’ or ‘safe’?
Edit: which article are you refrencing? The pdf is the more relevant one on topic here. That is, our government announced that they would be redirecting our SEARCHES (and do now). And their excuse of ‘terrorism’ in that final report can include our politician’s personal biased opinions on what that is. We invented ‘woke’ here and our Prime Minister is a strong promoter of this extreme.
[And your are being ‘short’ with me, not ‘succinct’. Succinctness is an art that Twitter was designed for.]
Okay, thanks, excuse me for skimming past that link the first time, guess it wasn’t until later remarks that this sparked any interest in me. Just doing exploration forays.
https://moonshotcve.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Public-Report_Canada-Redirect_English.pdf
What is Canada Redirect?
In February 2019, Moonshot launched The Redirect Method with funding from the Community Resilience Fund and in collabo- ration with the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Violence Prevention at Public Safety Canada. Canada Redirect was first deployed across all 13 Canadian provinces and terri- tories, and in June 2019 our campaigns were subdivided to incor- porate 353 postcodes in Canada’s six largest cities. These lo- calized campaigns enabled Moonshot to collect granular data on extremist search appetite, test experimental messaging, and explore the viability of providing at-risk users with content and services in their community.
Using the updated Redirect Method, Canada Redirect aimed to reach at-risk users with content that aligned as closely as possible with what they were searching for. Moonshot used sub- ject-matter expertise and in-house knowledge to match relevant counter-narratives to their respective target audiences. This ap- proach taps into a range of content ecosystems, such as music, gaming, and literature, to deliver alternative messaging that con- trasts with the extremist content a user may be searching for, such as neo-Nazi manifestos or an ISIS nasheed. Moonshot adapted the Redirect Method to include content specific to the Canadian context in order to increase the relevance and impact of counter-narratives to the Canadian at-risk audience.
This report details Canada Redirect’s project phases, achievements, and findings from our digital campaigns, which were deployed across Canada for over a year, from 21 February 2019 to 23 March 2020.
Being a life long time Climate Science nerd and attentive to the malicious dishonest distortion and attacks and slander, that’s been tactically implemented, and steadily improved - all intent on misleading people to the point that over half our population is totally clueless when it comes to Actual Factual Physical Facts that concern all of our welfare, christ most don’t even realize We Evolved Out Of Earth’s Biosphere - I see nothing wrong with trying to bring a little factual sanity, as opposed to avarice driven political amoral passions, into the internets wild frontiers exuberance.
How to do that is devilishly difficult and I’m not saying what they are doing is great, don’t know near enough about it. But, other things scare me way worse.
Here’s another link about Moonshot’s intentions to censor by redirection. Note some of the groups helping them too have political bias. The Anti-defamation League, for instance, is biased towards Anti-Semitic issues. For me, when a SPECIFIC race, sex, or interest group ‘advocates’, their interests are biased by the incentivized group. The Anti-Defemation League, for instance, might be biased to interpet one speaking against Israel and its own abuses towards the Palestinians for instance, ‘terrorism’. I personally interpret Israel itself as a fascist state and that alone may make them target me as a ‘terrorist’!
The PDF tells you who they are blocking, and they give the methods and data for how they choose them. That’s how you do it, with oversight and transparency. You are only speaking to the high-level statement of redirection and saying it’s “politicians” because the government is doing it. To be free, we need regulation and control of those who would limit our freedom. Without that, we couldn’t just go to work, farm the fields, and act autonomously.
BTW, you are not going to be targeted. I can’t tell real fear from fear mongering just by a CFI post, but whatever it is you are talking about, no one is going to redirect from your posts. It seems you really haven’t worked through Popper’s “we can’t tolerate intolerance”.
1 Like
You interpret it in terms of your own political preference for ‘censorship’ via some faith you hold in the authorities involved. While I agree to the apparent intentions, it IS ‘appearances’ only because it is political when the issues are operated by those who HAVE strong political interest in conserving ideal that FAVOR specific exceptions to a Nationalist-leaning groups hypocritically having the power to BE the censors themselves.
I just saw in today’s news how Israel is demanding some apology by some comment of a Russian politician that is borderline rhetoric and relatively expected. The Russians are no doubt lying about any claim of Ukraine being “Nazis”. But it is hard for us to deem whether what was said was referencing merely the DEGREE of hate of the historical fascist party or based upon bias of the style of government that is ‘fascist’ by definition.
The terms ‘hate’ or ‘extreme’ themselves are political rhetoric given they are based upon MORAL beliefs and words used to amplify what OTHERS think.
And what the hell are you planting about me being or believing that I am some ‘target’? Everyone is ‘targetted’ and redirection by any standard is ‘agressive’ censorship that WILL permit those using them to BE the intolerant class. There is no way for the public to determine the difference of when or where the censors themelves privileged to judge. The subtopic of ‘redirection’ as a means to resolve these concerns about ‘misinformation’ itself literally includes (if you read the whole thing) mundane searches ANYONE can make in given search engines.
What does Popper have to do with this polticial issue? If that half quote is true and relates to general politics, it has nothing to do with his scientific philosophy.
Note that I fight online against the Rightwing nutcase extremes all the time. But I also don’t approve of the extreme counteropposition by those who are hypocritical. I was the first to ask FORimmediate censorship (temporary) against those like Trump during critical times such as the riot on January 6th after the election. I brought up Elon Musk as a topic given his view is just as reflective of the concern. This is thus a thread about whether any degree of censorship is ‘safe’ given it empowers SPECIFIC biases by humans almost certain to MANIPULATE what we see or hear FOR politically biased reasons. Such right to censor is no different than the ‘fake’ news accusations that get charged against others as ‘misinformation’ when THIS IS how misinformation is empowered.
I agree to Elon’s concern but, as per the reason for discussing, do not know whether his own particular individual powers could also not be problematic if he can hypocritically have the power to also censor others legally now owning Twitter. I disagree with your own belief that particular scientists empowered authoritatively through institutions are somehow blanket-immune to be politically biased.
Edit: corrected spelling and grammar.
P.S. I should have emphasized the term ‘absolute’ and not ‘free speech’ in my title. My concern relates to whether this can be done with respect to Elon’s own beliefs about how. His own presumption about using bots is clever given it can be set with standards that IF agreed to everyone involved could separate the human bias other than what you define through the program.
I think that ‘censure’ (rebuke) can be fair if it is done in the way many television networks do in their use of caveates about the opinion of those programs they air that do not 'necessarily reflect the views of" their network or channel.
Then it wasn’t censored, so what does that have to do with this? Either you agree with the things that are included in the current program, or you don’t. Stop skirting around that. Either you are saying we should allow Al Queda to recruit our kids, or you agree there should be filters.
Now you are sounding ‘extreme’ by my standard! The point of mentioning it at all related to the fact that Israel was the one demanding an apology when the organization backing that company, Moonhot, is itself pro-Israeli bias who are DEFINING who is or is not ‘extreme’. The ‘insult’ by the Russian is an example of how pro-Isrealis ATTEND to prioritize exceptional status of victimhood for themselves (as though they are ‘superior’ beings) who get to DEFINE when certain statements are anti-Semitic or not. They do not give two shit about the Palestinians they themselves abuse, for instance. The group, “Anti-Defemation League” is a hideous political mechanism used SPECIFICally to conserve their own loved ones as being universal victims but PRETEND to speak for others inclusively. Since they are “in conflict of interest”, their involvement in Moonshot’s “Redirection” is suspect.
Also, why are YOU not noticing the risk? Why are you presuming that the CLAIMS of their intent to ‘save’ us by cenorship means justified at all? You remind me of how certain prosecutors would argue the heinous crime of some victims as EVIDENCE of the accused guilt. That the mere fact of being able to redirect as censorship is itself INTOLERANT and seems to not bother you? There ARE other means of reducing ‘misinformation’ that don’t require authoritarian dictatorship from ruling over us. AND it actually INFLAMES those to become MORE extreme for presuming that the censors have some intrinsic genetic superior mindset and moral uprighteousness.
Given the “deepfakes”, also, are more likely to also be developed by ‘our’ Western wealthy world who seems to capitalize upon the virtue of acting and movie making, does it not dawn on you to quetion skeptically whether those ‘extremists’ of mention are actually the guilty party of using misinformation? Our capitalist society is BASED upon the intrinsic ‘right’ to lie as standard behavior, such as our dependence upon advertising and sales.
Because we know exactly the consequences of misinformation. Why are you calling these “claims”?