|
They should have just let them burn the place down, they helped create this situation with their rage bait after all.
|
|
|
|
I don't want you(nor any other troll) in my SM topics, I know it is hard to accept it but you will just have to. Quote me part of that topic where I listed all DT1 members by name (including you)  Stop lying and accusing me for things I didn't do over and over again, shill. "To all DT1 members, please exclude another abuser from DT system" Literally the title of the post. Here you list me by name: TECSHARE "But oh I didn't list everyone!" You say. I reply "and?" You still literally titled your OP: "To all DT1 members" If you don't want a reply from "all DT1 members" maybe just label your post "To only those that agree with me, please exclude another abuser from DT system" |
|
|
|
The point was, if a relative stranger suddenly appears on DT, regardless of who put them there, people are going to check to see if there's a good reason for them to be there or not. If people arrive at the conclusion they shouldn't be there, it may be the right course of action to distrust an unknown quantity. Why do you immediately have to turn it into something sinister about who does or doesn't like you?
You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you. It's clearly affecting your judgement. You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing. That would make sense if they had any information whatsoever to judge them upon, other than the fact that I included them. You call me obsessive but Suchmoon is literally picking through my trust list canceling out additions for no other reason than the fact that I added them as if any inclusion needs Suchmoon's approval otherwise they get an exclusion automatically. This isn't about me to anyone except Suchmoon. This is sad collective punishment by guilt via association and it directly effects me in no way whatsoever other than having Suchmoon's nose lodged firmly up my ass sniffing for peanuts about to come out. They aren't random people to me. They have earned my trust and I have had long standing interactions with them outside of the forum, but I guess unless I get Suchmoon's approval first, I don't get to vote on people I trust. This is the definition of gate keeping. |
|
|
|
These companies are illegal monopolies
What you are describing is a 'free market'. A 'monopoly' is when one (1) company dominates an industry and prevents any sort of competition - not when when more than one company does something similar...even if you'd prefer they did it differently. Monopolies have a legal definition (not the garbage you just pulled out of your ass), standards which these social media companies meet. [logical fallacies, memes, and really stupid arguments] Cool story bro. Funny you mentioned the fact that you stupid cunts were calling a few thousand dollars of Facefuck ads election interference, but selectively cutting off, censoring, and editorializing a political candidate and his party is not. Not really an argument that supports you, but maybe if you put it in Drake format no one will notice your hypocrisy. They should be state actors, that's the whole point, right everybody?
On what basis should they be state actors when they are a private company? They aren't a public utility and the only argument you could make for Twitter regulation is that it's a forum open to the public, but not a public forum, that alters discourse. Even then, you're talking about stepping on a private companies toes for the reason of wanting to shift a platform to benefit your political party. If they were state actors then they wouldn't harass Trump with fact checks and then they could have the legal right to close Twitter accounts on the basis that they are threatening the government's power. Seems like a win/win. Twitter is disrespecting (questioning) our dear leader. That is never ok. /s
This guy gets it. But what does "/s" mean? I have no knowledge of this sort of thing. It is all so simple when you get to define what facts are. Also forcing social media companies to obey laws is not equivalent to it being "state run", but whatever fuels your fascism LAARPing fantasy to give you an excuse to burn everything down and pretend you are freedom fighters while you literally destroy freedoms in the name of corporate behemoths trying to interfere in our elections. |
|
|
|
You are a liar that thinks the ends justify the means.
False. The government wouldn't need to tell private companies these things if they weren't run by criminals
Wouldn't it make more sense to prosecute the supposed criminals instead of creating more red tape? Well since you are full of shit, that doesn't mean much. Prosecute who? The corporation? Meanwhile they have the opportunity to interfere in the results of the upcoming election while it works its way through the courts for years? Good plan. |
|
|
|
I am very much on topic. You think all this censorship is great so you pretend it doesn't exist. You are too dense to realize once this is a permanent precedent, that standard is going to be turned around to censor you too, then no one will be able to speak freely. Of course that is not important, what is important is you defeat Trump at all costs, even if you have to burn down the country and destroy all of our freedoms to do so. Of course when that happens, that will be Trump's fault too of course.
No, I don't think that censorship is great, therefore I don't like the government attempting to tell private business what kinds of otherwise lawful speech they must allow or disallow. You are a liar that thinks the ends justify the means. The government wouldn't need to tell private companies these things if they weren't run by criminals subverting free speech while screaming that it is being violated when forced to actually be the neutral platforms they pretend to be so they can enjoy protections set out for public platforms of under the law. These companies are illegal monopolies intentionally seeking to interfere with the election process and subverting free speech. They need to suffer consequences. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nj-naacp-leader-calls-for-paterson-mail-in-vote-to-be-canceled-amid-fraud-claims/2435162/https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/pendleton-county-mail-carrier-charged-attempted-election-fraudWeird, the "fact checkers" assured me this doesn't happen. Must be fake news! |
|
|
|
You know what is really surreal? The actual entitled assholes in each and every one of these platforms telling you that you have the option of going to the other place with the same assholes who think they are entitled to tell you what you can and can not say.
Since I already realize that I can do that, then someone telling me so wouldn't be surreal. A bit redundant perhaps. You are a mob of idiots cutting your own throats never once questioning your correctitude. Unfortunately you aren't going to realize this until just before you bleed out.
Fascinating. Any chance you can get back on topic? How about limiting your outbursts to one vituperative diatribe per page, would that work for you? If you don't like something the solution is more regulation.
This is exactly why the REAL crooks get into government.
Are you calling Trump a crook?  I am very much on topic. You think all this censorship is great so you pretend it doesn't exist. You are too dense to realize once this is a permanent precedent, that standard is going to be turned around to censor you too, then no one will be able to speak freely. Of course that is not important, what is important is you defeat Trump at all costs, even if you have to burn down the country and destroy all of our freedoms to do so. Of course when that happens, that will be Trump's fault too of course. |
|
|
|
personal vendettas
That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system. You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive. I can't possibly imagine any other excuse for these three names being on their distrust list considering their activity levels being almost nil.
Trust is earned. I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me. Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people? There are lots of others on your exclusion list I suspect are there only because I include them, but I chose these three names because they have almost zero interaction with anyone else here, proving that your only contact with them was via viewing my inclusions. Excluding people because of who includes them is not only childish but abusive of the trust system.
With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them. " Oh, the persecution!"  Weird how it is always the same people over an over again saying things like I am being obsessive as if these complaints happen in a vacuum. No one has to trust some one just because I do, but excluding some one just because I trusted them? You are calling me obsessive? That is pretty pathetic to punish other people for no other reason than you don't like me. Gamesmanship? If I was trying to game the system why would I spend so much time pissing in the faces of the people most able to rank me up within it if I just kissed their asses? Nothing you said makes any sense, good attempt though. I look forward to you working up the nuts to try again soon. |
|
|
|
I don't remember asking you to post anything in that topic, I am not sure why you did. Actually, I told you not to post: ~
TECSHARE and other trolls AKA peloso and cryptohunter and altsTM are not allowed to post here!
This just proves that you don't read anything, you just go straight to reply button and spam. Whats more they actually did it!
Oh, no! Moderators removed post which shouldn't have been there in the first place! Lemme teach you something: [img width= 1000]https://i.imgur.com/markThc.png[/img] Don't break rules and you will be fine  Topic subject: " To all DT1 members, please exclude another abuser from DT system" Which you then list all DT1 members by name (including me) You want to be free to slander people without anyone disagreeing with you, and if they do disagree you not only delete any disagreement to maintain the illusion everyone agrees with you, you then abuse the trust system because they dared to disagree with you. None of that matters though, because you suck all the right dicks. |
|
|
|
It's so sad to see that when it comes to poor, no one cares. This disease is what I call as disease of the rich. Since this virus can reach them, those who are rich, they are extending the lock-downs without any concern for those who are living under poverty. It's kind of God's slap and his power that shows that no matter how rich or how powerful you are, you can't even fight a virus properly let alone think you are the ruler of the world because you have money and power  Fuck those selfish poor people. They just want haircuts and to go bowling! |
|
|
|
It quite surreal to have this discussion on a forum where most people (except for a few entitled assholes) seem to realize that if they don't like the way it's moderated they can go to Reddit or wherever. You know what is really surreal? The actual entitled assholes in each and every one of these platforms telling you that you have the option of going to the other place with the same assholes who think they are entitled to tell you what you can and can not say. You are a mob of idiots cutting your own throats never once questioning your correctitude. Unfortunately you aren't going to realize this until just before you bleed out. |
|
|
|
I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it?
Please refrain from making shit up. No, election interference is not ok. Fact checking is ok. Switching to Facebook is ok if you don't like Twitter. Creating your own site is ok. Nobody "reads" the whole Twitter either. People follow content that they want on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, whatever. And Twitter has a lot more stuff on it than just Trump so obviously it's going to be more visited. But Trump could easily tweet "go to whitehouse.com to read my shit". It's not like opening twitter.com has Trump's shit on the front page anyway so he gets the exposure from elsewhere. OOo you found a whole handful of them, I guess that means they aren't locked out, censored, silenced, and muted by all the most popular services claiming to be public forums while they act as publishers selecting who gets to have a voice. If any of you had a halfway decent argument you wouldn't be afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard. The only people who rely on silencing opposition are ones who have no argument to stand on.
Not being popular doesn't mean you're censored. Breaking TOS of a service and getting banned doesn't mean you're censored. The government telling a private business what kind of content it must allow or not allow might be considered censorship. I'd love to see this dispute in the Supreme Court. The pretzels of Trump-supporting free speech and anti-regulation advocates would be delicious. Well then, I guess all you need to do is just yell "FACT CHECK!" before you burn the books containing the ideas you don't like then it makes it all A-OK! That is funny you think Facefuck is any different than Twatter, or that these companies aren't illegal monopolies that are impossible to compete against. Interesting you bring up the terms of service, because thousands of people who didn't even violate it are banned, censored, or muted in violation of that contractual agreement when not even violating any terms of the TOS. Kind of like when you see a drawing of one of your butt buddies getting made fun of and pretend it violates the rules to get it removed. There is so much wrong with what is going on here, but your pretend to not see it because you think it means you will get what you want. In the end you are going to get it in the end. He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?) Should I go on? I am sure you will regardless of the facts of the matter. You will note all of your examples are the equivalent of yelling out of a window in the middle of the night, while the platforms claiming to be for public use are broadcast into nearly every home globally onto multiple devices all day every day. They are not at all comparable. Yeah. They are comparable. Few people in the world have a platform comparable to the President of America. Just being the president is a platform. If you don't like how Jack Dorsey runs the app that he literally built from scratch....go build your own or become a majority share holder? You smug disingenuous cunts have no idea what you are doing. You think this serves you, but there is going to come a day when this machinery is turned upon you too, and then it will be too fucking late to do anything about it. It is too bad you all are too stupid to recognize a trap when you see one. Enjoy your cheese before you get your neck snapped.
Hey we're just having a discussion. No need to get all worked up like that. No, they aren't. Comparing regular people to the president and small reach venues to the instantaneous information superhighway is just completely disingenuous. These platforms are enjoying the protections of public platforms while operating as publishers free from liability. They are also operating as illegal monopolies, intentionally interfering with elections, and violating user agreements with their users. None of this is acceptable and they need to be held accountable. Yeah, no need to get upset, you are only short sighted morons selling out the precious right of free speech, the linchpin to our free society, unique to the USA and nearly unheard of in human history because orange man bad. No big deal. You are cutting your own throats regardless if you comprehend that or not, unfortunately you are taking the rest of us with you. |
|
|
|
<snip>turning the topic itself into an off topic focus on me by all the abusers and promoters of said abuse that the moderators refuse to act on.
Well, this thread does involve you and your accusation against marlboroza so I don't think all or even most of the discussion is off-topic when it starts to come back to talking about you and how you're perceiving things. I'm not saying all of this is in your head, because I've seen you make some valid points before, but when your mode of thinking is so rigid and inflexible, even constructive criticism (which is what I'm trying to give you) is seen as a full-blown attack. Speaking only for myself, that isn't how I intend it. Welcome back to the mob.
I'm not in a mob against you. But on a related note, when I speak of a persecution complex (and paranoia), statements like that are what I mean. Yes, of course your "mode of thinking" is above reproach, but mine is "rigid and inflexible" because I don't agree with you, or any of the other red nosed klan members around here who have demonstrated themselves to be very reasonable, flexible, honest, and understanding now haven't they? After all, ones opinions must bend to the will of perceived "popular" consensus in order to be valid right? Unless I bend the knee, then I am just unreasonable and everything I say is invalid, along with my judgement. Does that about sum it up? I saw a good deal on red noses and white face paint yesterday if you want a link. They also had a BOGO coupon for ball polish you might find useful. |
|
|
|
I exclude a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons. I include a few that I personally do not know. I have reasons. Seems clear enough of a summary of my stance  That is not the same thing, nor the question I posed. |
|
|
|
He could also have a rally, a press conference, he could write a book, address the nation from the oval office, he's got the State of the Union every year, he could pick whoever he wanted and give them an exclusive interview, he could write an op-ed, he could post on his campaign website, he could make a new website, he could create his own social network, he could make his own cable network (isn't that the plan?) Should I go on? I am sure you will regardless of the facts of the matter. You will note all of your examples are the equivalent of yelling out of a window in the middle of the night, while the platforms claiming to be for public use are broadcast into nearly every home globally onto multiple devices all day every day. They are not at all comparable. You smug disingenuous cunts have no idea what you are doing. You think this serves you, but there is going to come a day when this machinery is turned upon you too, and then it will be too fucking late to do anything about it. It is too bad you all are too stupid to recognize a trap when you see one. Enjoy your cheese before you get your neck snapped. |
|
|
|
Publishers don't enjoy that protection.
They're not publishing anything. If Trump doesn't like how his tweets are presented next to a fact check or whatever the latest tantrum is about (doesn't seem that any if his "speech" was removed or modified) then he can surely use Facebook where he claims he's #1. What was it a while back you guys were arguing was a FEC violation by Trump? Because he paid off some stripper to shut up out of his own money?
You want to claim that is a FEC violation, but not the millions of dollars of in kind donations of promoting liberal candidates and silencing conservatives on social networks? How much do you think that is worth in advertising dollars? I mean, after all Russia spending like $3000 on Facefuck ads was supposed to be a big deal, but not this election interference right? Really, you people brought this on yourselves. We have been telling you for a long time this has been happening and you pretended it wasn't real because you thought the ends justified the means. Well here are the ends. Hope it was worth it.
Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabo utwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhata boutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwha taboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutw hataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabou twhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout. What about the billions of dollars of in-kind media time Trump gets with his rallies and press briefings and other stuff. But more importantly, what about the topic of this thread, namely the attempt of the government to tell businesses to broadcast government propaganda and to do it in a certain way (e.g. no fact checking). Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?
If he's so inclined, but there is also whitehouse.gov, which is accessible to anyone just as Twitter is. I see, so election interference is ok, as long as it benefits who you want it to benefit, is that it? What could go wrong? Yeah, right because how many people read whitehouse.gov? https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov current rank #3,290 https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com #48 Totally comparable! Of course you would love it if you could force your opponents to be relegated to carrier pigeon while you use fiber optic cables. These services are clearly operating not as public forums, but as publishers by selectively removing and silencing political opposition, and providing millions of dollars worth of unreported in kinds donations. This is not acceptable regardless how much you lie to pretend none of this is happening. So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!
Not really, if you think about it. The left control the media. The left control social media. Those articles and blogs and networks and youtube channels and radio stations that often complain about how the media is unfair to trump and fake news....they're also the media. fox, breitbart, zerohedge, daily caller, newsmax, NY Post, tim pools youtube channel <==all media Where exactly is he supposed to be able to get a neutral platform? Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue?
He's the president. OOo you found a whole handful of them, I guess that means they aren't locked out, censored, silenced, and muted by all the most popular services claiming to be public forums while they act as publishers selecting who gets to have a voice. If any of you had a halfway decent argument you wouldn't be afraid to have an opposing viewpoint heard. The only people who rely on silencing opposition are ones who have no argument to stand on. "Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows " https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/" The Deep Roots of Trump’s War on the PressLong before cries of ‘fake news,’ there was Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center." https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/26/the-deep-roots-trumps-war-on-the-press-218105"American views: Trust, media and democracy" https://knightfoundation.org/reports/american-views-trust-media-and-democracy/?utm_source=link_newsv9&utm_campaign=item_235796"92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news" https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html"Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines" https://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/"Liberal News Media Bias Has a Serious Effect" https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect"These Three Charts Confirm Conservatives' Worst Fears About American Culture" https://www.businessinsider.com/proof-of-liberal-bias-in-hollywood-media-and-academia-2014-11?"Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias" https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/"Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash" https://publicintegrity.org/politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/"Special Report: Columbia University" https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/special-report-columbia-university"Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican" https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053"The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples" https://www.westernjournal.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/"Audit suggests Google favors a small number of major outlets" https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php"Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'" https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning"How the liberal leanings of Google, Facebook shape the political landscape" https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/23/internet-giants-show-power-to-shape-politics/If you believe this machine isn't eventually going to be turned against you too, you are a fucking moron. |
|
|
|
So I did some searching to see if this was already in the works and I ran across Guardian Circle https://guardiancircle.com/It's an app that you install, then connect with your friends and family locally. If you have an emergency you click the big 'Alert' button and every one of your "guardians" gets an alert. This then turns into a chat room where everyone can respond and you can give more details about what the emergency is. Once the incident is over you can award responders with their Guard token. It also keeps a record of the event for use later on if needed as evidence. This interview goes into the goals of the app: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWAXFBddY2YBasically they hope to get subscription services set up so that you can pay to add either EMTs or trained security guards as your guardians. I installed the app and it's pretty straight forward. You'll need to have people you want to contact in an emergency also install it. Interesting. This is the kind of system Schaeffer Cox was promoting before they railroaded him. I think this was one of the main reasons they feared him enough to make him a political prisoner. Just imagine such a system being deployed against tyrannical governments any time they violate some one's rights, you can see why they felt like they had to get rid of him immediately. |
|
|
|
So he's complaining about Twitter on Twitter? The irony!
Not really, if you think about it. The left control the media. The left control social media. Where exactly is he supposed to be able to get a neutral platform? Flyers and a bullhorn on Pennsylvania Avenue? |
|
|
|
For example TECSHARE will never admit he's wrong. I don't recall him ever changing his mind either. To him, opinions are a form of weakness - his opinions are actually facts and you can't disagree with facts.
His obsession with trying to convince people he's a trust abuse victim and the mods have been conspiring against him is what makes me think he actually believes what he's saying. This has been going on for years.
I agree with all of this, and it's led him to leaving unwarranted feedback in the past--which is the reason why he was voted off DT years ago. I want to bury the hatchet and un-exclude TECSHARE on my trust list, but I just can't get around his continued behavior and the more I read the less rational and more paranoid I find his thinking to be, and I can't justify not excluding someone like him from my trust list. I had to check, but I guess I don't have mixan ~'ed on my trust list, but he's an example of a member who went completely off the rails. Since he basically rage-quit the forum and abandoned his account, it's not a huge deal if I have him excluded or left him a neg--but it's a different story altogether with TECSHARE. If he would at least try to work on dropping the persecution complex, I'd at least un-exclude him, but he just doesn't see the problem. In his view, everyone else is wrong and he's in the right--always. Rarely in life is that the case, and it isn't the case with him. Yeah what an irrational persecution complex I have in a thread about the trust system being abused against me, with people endorsing the abuse, and turning the topic itself into an off topic focus on me by all the abusers and promoters of said abuse that the moderators refuse to act on. It is clearly all in my head. Thanks for proving you would rather be liar than an honest man and simply own up to your decisions. Welcome back to the mob. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
