By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Is free speech suppressed on the internet's main public squares

Yes 56 53.33%
 
No 45 42.86%
 
Undecided 4 3.81%
 
Total:105
Ryuu96 on 11 April 2024
Pajderman said:
RolStoppable said:

That's what happens when you refer to the minority of the far-left as "the left" repeatedly. It also makes you sound like an American.

No, that is what happens if one does not agree with all of "the left"s narrative. 

What's their narrative? Lol.

The "far-left" barely exist in America and don't exist at all in the actual government. There's barely any "far-left" in the UK either, the frigging Tory Party has ruled for the past 14 years.

The worst people I can see on the far left are the commie idiots who ironically share the same opinion as the far right on things such as Russia, I can't say outside of those I see many "far-left" unless telling someone they're a twat for having bigoted opinions is considered far left.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 11 April 2024

Around the Network
Ryuu96 on 11 April 2024

Omg...

Elon Musk Admits He Has Two Burner Twitter Accounts in Bizarre, Popcorn-Worthy Libel Deposition | The Independent

Though the court's transcript named that account as "baby smoke 9,000", this is likely a misnomer for @babysmurf9000, an existing account that has given many signs of affiliation with Mr Musk.

The identity of the other suspected alt, @ermnmusk, was confirmed by court exhibits seen by HuffPost, which first reported on the deposition.

Elon Musk Confirms He Used Burner Account On X To Role-Play As Toddler Son | HuffPost UK U.S. News

Gets even more hilarious/creepy/weird.

Bitter Divorced Dad Energy.

This dude is a fucking loser, there is no way he only has two alt accounts either, Lmao.

Can't believe this dude is a idol to some people, Christ.

Having alt accounts to praise himself, kind of reminds me of someone else 🤔

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 11 April 2024

hellobion2 on 18 April 2024

Wait Twitter is X. I remember being worried for the first month after this change.



BiON!@ 

Jumpin on 20 April 2024



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Ryuu96 on 22 April 2024

Lol. Lmao. Toss a coin and that's the odds of a blue checkmark being a Nazi nowadays.





Far-right idiot gets attacked for saying Hitler was bad, the state of Twitter in 2024.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 22 April 2024

Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 on 22 April 2024
Ryuu96 said:

Lol. Lmao. Toss a coin and that's the odds of a blue checkmark being a Nazi nowadays.





Far-right idiot gets attacked for saying Hitler was bad, the state of Twitter in 2024.

I don't have enough hands for the amount of facepalm needed here

Even this doesn't do it enough justice



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

Hiku 5 days ago
Hiku said:
SAguy said:

That's not true at all. In fact this comment shows why the checkmark was an issue for Twitter for so long. It was never meant to convey any sense of Authority just that the person was who they said they were. Hell long ago all you had to do for a checkmark was send Twitter a valid form of identification and boom you got one.

Are you going to explain why that supposedly was an issue though?
What problem was there that when Will Smith with a checkmark replied to viral tweet about Men In Black, I could safely assume it was the actor Will Smith who starred in the film, and that his tweet is relevant to the subject?
If I'm interested in the subject, then I automatically know that I probably want to read what he has to say.


But in your scenario, I instead see a bunch of checkmark accounts from random people posting cute animal videos, crypto schemes, etc because their posts get pushed above everyone elses.

How is it better that I'm forced to sift through a bunch of (usually) irrelevant comments from people who paid for the checkmark, fishing for clout so that they can earn ad revenue?
It's at the point where I find that it's better to just not read them as soon as you see the checkmark, and not have your time wasted.

And even if they made a relevant comment to the subject, why on earth would I have any interest whatsoever in whether this random person has verified who they are?
You can see why it matters in the Will Smith example. But I don't see how it would matter to me for random users.
Just like it doesn't matter to me right now if you had verified who you are. And vice versa.

That it was more difficult to get the checkmark in the past also matters.

I know of several public figures who tried to get it for years and didn't get it. Usually until they managed to speak to the right person who had connections at Twitter.

Nowadays, spam bot accounts buy them in droves because they easily can, and it pushes their visibility above everyone else.

Quoting my post, because it's about a month later, and I'm still waiting on that explanation for why the example I gave with Will Smith was supposedly an issue. @SAguy 
The only thing I can think of is that this mindset is driven by some sort of inferiority complex towards celebrities. 

The alternative we got when everyone can get a checkmark (in particular bots and engagement farmers love that) is this:

^ That's what it looks like going through the comments below a video, when trying to find comments explaining the video above.
Just unrelated memes and ads.

Why is this better?

Last edited by Hiku - 5 days ago

the-pi-guy 4 days ago

I know I'm late on this, but I want to add to Hiku's comment.

SAguy said:

That's not true at all. In fact this comment shows why the checkmark was an issue for Twitter for so long. It was never meant to convey any sense of Authority just that the person was who they said they were. Hell long ago all you had to do for a checkmark was send Twitter a valid form of identification and boom you got one.

@underlined.
I find this hilarious. 
You say that as if it means nothing. 

Taking Hiku's example, if Will Smith talks about Men in Black 4, that is obviously more meaningful than if random guy named Bob who lives in Arkansas says the same things. It doesn't necessarily mean that Will Smith is right about MiB4, but the chances are substantially higher than for Bob to say it. 

If Taylor Swift says she's not pregnant, that means more than if (at)TotallyReliableTaylorSwiftNews says she is. 


Knowing that the person is who they say they are, means something. You can reliably figure out what their domain of expertise is. 

Taylor Swift knows more about her body than some random guy in France.

Will Smith knows more about MiB than some random guy in Arkansas.

The head of Warner Bros knows more about Warner Bros operations than some random guy in Alaska. 

The PlayStation twitter announcing Bloodborne 2 would actually mean something; whereas the 35 random twitter accounts announcing that Bloodborne 2 is coming for the 15th time in the past 9 years doesn't mean anything. 

Last edited by the-pi-guy - 3 days ago

Ryuu96 4 days ago

Famous centrist Musk still harping on bullshit to attack Democrats with, like the belief that illegal immigrants can vote in an election.

The reason why Musk screams and cries about "free speech" 24/7 is because he knows how much bullshit comes out his own mouth and he wants to be able to lie without consequence and spread whatever right wing nonsense he reads or for example, accuse someone of being a paedophile because they hurt your feelings.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - 4 days ago

Ryuu96 4 days ago
Hiku said:
Hiku said:

Are you going to explain why that supposedly was an issue though?
What problem was there that when Will Smith with a checkmark replied to viral tweet about Men In Black, I could safely assume it was the actor Will Smith who starred in the film, and that his tweet is relevant to the subject?
If I'm interested in the subject, then I automatically know that I probably want to read what he has to say.


But in your scenario, I instead see a bunch of checkmark accounts from random people posting cute animal videos, crypto schemes, etc because their posts get pushed above everyone elses.

How is it better that I'm forced to sift through a bunch of (usually) irrelevant comments from people who paid for the checkmark, fishing for clout so that they can earn ad revenue?
It's at the point where I find that it's better to just not read them as soon as you see the checkmark, and not have your time wasted.

And even if they made a relevant comment to the subject, why on earth would I have any interest whatsoever in whether this random person has verified who they are?
You can see why it matters in the Will Smith example. But I don't see how it would matter to me for random users.
Just like it doesn't matter to me right now if you had verified who you are. And vice versa.

That it was more difficult to get the checkmark in the past also matters.

I know of several public figures who tried to get it for years and didn't get it. Usually until they managed to speak to the right person who had connections at Twitter.

Nowadays, spam bot accounts buy them in droves because they easily can, and it pushes their visibility above everyone else.

Quoting my post, because it's about a month later, and I'm still waiting on that explanation for why the example I gave with Will Smith was supposedly an issue. @SAguy 
The only thing I can think of is that this mindset is driven by some sort of inferiority complex towards celebrities. 

The alternative we got when everyone can get a checkmark (in particular bots and engagement farmers love that) is this:

^ That's what it looks like going through the comments below a video, when trying to find comments explaining the video above.
Just unrelated memes and ads.

Why is this better?

░M░Y░P░ U░S░S░ Y░I░ N░B░I░O ░