Come off it. We have laws to deal with the above we don't need censorship. But to play devil's advocate. censoring things promoting crime or child porn. I would be fine with that. promoting* hate speech etc? I would be fine with that per se. to deal with people blatantly llying about issues that may cost lives..............this is a grey area. scientists themselves tell us something is bad for us one week and then the opposite next week. Should bacon adverts be banned? *you use the word "promote" a lot here. Are you meaning ringleaders drumming up things or some random saying the wrong things? The whole problem with the censorship argument is that on paper it looks a good and honourable things but it expands and expands and end up with them controlling things at will under spurious grounds for their own agendas like the Hunter Laptop thing and the covid lab leak thing and lots of other things. Each country has its own laws to deal with any actual illegal acts. If they were in effect doing cease and desists on actual illegalities then I think we would all be fine with it. If they are taking on Joe Bloggs because he says immigration is a bit high or because someone says "I heard Covid came from a China Lab" then that is bad. I'm sure the US must have laws to actually take Trump to court if he has said anything illegal. No need for the censorship. They like to create laws to take their opponents to court anyway and half the internet users would be censored for lies just on the anti-Trump subject if we're really talking about lying on the internet. Lots of anti-Trumpers/anti Brexiters/Anti Tories/Anti Farage say lots of things that quite simply are not true, just because they are on opposite sides (on the right side of history) yet that seems to be fair game while the reverse of course "should be censored." In essence, child porn, illegal things. fine. hurty words? No. And while I could agree about the "lying about things that may cost lives" that can be a grey area that even scientist disagree with. And I am quite tuned to the Crypto slogan of DYOR! If I hear or read something that is new to me...I quite often research it and not on twitter. How do I then know from the actual "peer reviewd papers" which is the truth and which is the lies? Both are probably not lies but different conclusions. Should I believe Jeremy or Piers Corbyn?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig...t, transparent advertising and disinformation. This is for people who are not already deeply indoctrinated in nonsense and are interested in the truth. Imp is saying a lot that isn’t true, and I won’t argue with him as he isn’t interested in the truth. For everyone else, in 2016 the EU began to look at what Facebook had been doing, regarding data. This was not ignored, as someone who knew nothing might think, but began the whole slow process of change. The key date here is that the EU law came into place in January 2022. Musk bought Twitter in October, 2022. Now, Os has been telling us that pre-Musk, Twitter was a lefty haven that prevented right wing opinions. Yet here is a law that seems to have been put into place to deal with… lefty Twitter. The only way the madness in all these posts works is if you delude yourself. I am done now. I just realised how insane some of you are, and how lazy you are at checking your facts.
In 2016 the EU "began to look into" what Facebook had been doing because the Brexit vote didn't go their way, followed by Trump winning and they used facebook data mining/harvesting. They did not care about that happening in 2012 when Barack Obama's team had used the same processes! They only care when a result doesn't go their way! Reality is that they knew this was going on before they "looked into it" but it didn't concern them then. I daresay if Obama's team were using it in 2012, 4 years earlier then there is no doubt in my mind that the EU knew full well what "facebook were doing" well before 2016 and I would speculate that the EU or at least pro EU national bodies that the EU support were doing the same before 2016. It would be naive to think that 4 years on from the Obama 2nd term that other political organisations were not using this method. They only care when things do not go their way! Your statement of "preventing right wing opinions" on pre Musk twitter is not at all my experience. The reality is Twitter was 90% left/centrist anyway. Even now it is probably 80%+. It never prevented right wing opinions...........it did however begin to cave in to political pressure to "mute" right wingers that gained too much traction. Namely Trump and some others during the original Trump run in. Bolstered by their success on that they then started the whole pressurising of other platforms like Prime and Netflix to remove access to podcasters etc. IT is just silencing of opponents. They're not bothered if those opponents are lying at all. Just that they are not on message and are gaining traction. If they are saying illegal things, we know how they can easily get people on jumped up charges and over the top sentences to boot. There is no possible way they can control the whole internet to remove falsehoods. There are a vast amount of people that believe in gods and other unbelievable stuff in this world that spread their words across the internet. DYOR only works IF only truth is available but then who decides what the truth is? The Lab Leak Theory was suppressed when there are quite a lot of people that went along with that suppression now saying that it is quite likely! Who actually decides what is aloowed to be said? And you trust these people to be genuinely trying to seek the truth? Both of the above examples were driven by political desires to silence their opponents. They did not care at all when it was working for them just when it went the other way. That they try and hide their agenda behind quite honourable things like preventing child porn or genuinely false information that might cause deaths or scam people out of money etc does not stop the fact that they are wanting to stop their political opponents. They don't care about your privacy. They care about control and presenting it as "for your safety" is the easiest way to do it. For the sake of appeasing the "low information ImpSaint" viewpoint espoused above. Maybe if Mitt Romney had beaten Obama we would be in a different place on all of the above now because he also used a kind of internet targetting based on cookies from what I read way back when but then Republicans weren't really the huge target they are now because its Trump hate more than GOP hate as far as I can tell. No-one would likely have cared if it had been a Romney win. I repeat. They only care when it doesn't go their way. They knew all about big data and data harvesting well before 2016 and believing that garb is just naive. They were likely (almost definitely) using these techniques themselves (or turning a blind eye to the use of) that they then needed to "look into" well before then. Its just more BS and fakery. TLDR: Obama/Remain does it? Not a problem. Trump/Leave do it? This is disgusting, inquiry followed by laws to outlaw it.
This is EXACTLY correct and what happened. Loading, you are extremely ignorant to ignore this. All of your arguments and comments on here are stupid because they completely ignore the above which is all 100% the truth
Kamala’s campaign is a perfect analogy for why the Dem’s got obliterated A perfect example of Private v Public finance and how government entities throw money down the drain. Trump spent over 10x less money, but were orders of magnitude more effective. We are so back.
No, I’m well aware how far the odious far-right agenda has progressed among the easily led, the angry and the afraid. I realise that you are not alone; and that people like you feel brave when you believe you have the numbers on your side. I understand the mass psychology of fascism, and it’s power over the weak minded. These are worrying times for the world.
Why do you post lies and disinformation that is so easy to debunk, 10 x less is total bollocks. https://www.dw.com/en/us-campaign-finance-how-much-does-it-cost-be-become-president/a-70436716 How much has Kamala Harris raised? Democratic candidate Kamala Harris has brought in over $906 million (€838.8 million) up to September 30, according to numbers put together by OpenSecrets, a Washington-based nonprofit that tracks money in US elections. This includes contributions to the Joe Biden campaign, though fundraising really took off after he stepped aside in July. Added to this is more than $359 million that outside groups have raised up to September 22 to support Harris, which means over $1.27 billion has gone toward Harris' campaign war chest. Nearly 56% of this has come from large contributions. Individuals have stumped up around 44% of the total through smaller contributions of under $200. How much has Donald Trump raised? Republican candidate Donald Trump hasn't raised nearly as much. His official campaign has brought in $367.1 million, roughly 60% less than Harris. Outside groups have added another $572.8 million to that, bringing his total funding to just under $940 million, according to OpenSecrets. Trump is very dependent on the support of the ultrarich, with larger contributions making up more than 68% of his available funds.
The democrats are the literal facists. The fact you can’t see this is absolutely hilarious. You are on the side of lawdare, censorship, arresting political opponents, evil corporations and odious bureaucracy. Luckily you lost
You didn’t debunk **** All you did was prove that Kamala/Biden spunked a billion dollars and were the party of large corporations
What did I lose? I’m British mate, and a Labour Party member. We won, remember? The fight goes on though.
Starmer has no power on the global stage without America’s backing. You lost, you just don’t see it yet. And this horrendous labour government will be extremely short-lived judging from their horrific start. Enjoy these last couple of years of champagne socialism. The adults will be back in charge soon enough
I debunked your 10 x less bullshit. You need maths and english comprehension classes, your low level intellectual capacity is obvious. Harris. Nearly 56% of this has come from large contributions. Individuals have stumped up around 44% of the total through smaller contributions of under $200. Trump is very dependent on the support of the ultrarich, with larger contributions making up more than 68% of his available funds.
No, proved me exactly right. The democrats wasted 1billion dollars only to be obliterated I can’t wait for the next GE here where we have a credible right wing party again. It’s coming.
Just explain how 940m is 10 x less than 1.27b you are so wrong. The tories remain unelectable and so it will continue. I'm no big fan of Labour but have to say they're doing a far better job and are much more respected by the international community than the previous incumbents.
Today is Remembrance Sunday Os. Your side lost in 1945 too. The political right is always, ultimately, on the wrong side of history. You’d do well to remember that.
Everything has shifted since 1945. The republicans are now the side of tolerance and freedom. The democrats are much closer to what Hitler wanted to do; - Arresting political opponents - Censorship - National Socialism - Propaganda - Military industrial complex
