Taliban attacks Facebook over freedom of speech concerns

[JustSomeBloke]

Here's the thing about that: I took a look at your judicialwatch.org link (which is a partisan political website that doesn't have a great track record when it comes to reporting actual facts), went to the 540 page document that they claim to have received via a FOIA request, and it's a lot of screenshots from Twitter of tweets by some random nobodies claiming this or that, and then some e-mails from the communications directors and such of various CA representatives explaining the problems with posts that they claim are spreading misinformation. In other words, they actually explain why these are election-related information. They don't just claim that it is and then get their way because Twitter or whoever is in cahoots with the Democratic Party.

First you said that it was just a private company restricting access to their services. Now you are using the Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy (fact checking website) and the Genetic Logical Fallacy (attack the source website) to try and discredit information and websites that you disagree with.

And I'm afraid that I just roll my eyes now when I encounter so-called fact-checking websites. The reason is that fact-checking mostly appears to be done by Left wing types, attempting to frame stuff according to their narrative. It appeals to people who like to be told, rather than do some research, and think for themselves. I'm sure if George Orwell was still alive, he would relentlessly attack the fact-checkers.

That is a fantasy maintained by those who really, really desperately want to believe that the 2020 election was beset with massive amounts of fraud, when it wasn't.

Sorry but you are just totally wrong. There is a huge amount of information that points to massive fraud by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. Do you really think that Joe Biden was such an amazing candidate, that he managed to totally overturn long term bellweather election indicators and statistics established over multiple decades, and sometimes going back as far as 1888 and 1892? No! That is simply not believable. If you think there was no election fraud then you have not been looking hard enough.

I don't know that it's that the US government doesn't like it, necessarily, but more so that it is false, and leaving it there to be spread around without any countermeasures being taken just leads to exactly the situation we've been in, where +/- half the country believes in an alternate reality full of paranoid conspiracy theories about stolen elections, Trump being 'reinstated', etc. That's an inherently bad situation to be in.

Besides, if Gov. Newsom of California really had all this power to change Californians' votes, you'd think he would've used such supervillainy to stop the recall election from happening. (It's still happening; I just got my voter information packet in the mail the other day.)

By working with YouTube to suppress free speech, the government were in direct breech of the constitution (First Amendment). However, I can understand if you hate the constitution, and find it massively inconvenient when suppressing information that you disagree with. Certainly if you think that way you would not be alone. And in any case, as I already demonstrated above, the bellweather election data indicates that it is highly likely that massive election fraud has taken place, so what they are trying to do is to suppress evidence of that fraud, with the help of YouTube.

И вместо это Вы предпочу неправду? Если это против "налевой", это хорошо, и лжает невозможно.

(Free translation: Right-wing 'Pravda' is not better.)

Neither Left wing nor Right wing Pravda is better. Freedom of speech is essential. And it must exist for all, not just those that you and the Democratic Party agree with.

Yes, authoritarian governments the world over are remarkably similar. That's a point I tried to make in my first reply in this thread, so as to highlight why it's not good that the Taliban have criticized Facebook just because you or I would do the same.

Yes, but it is very funny watching those who suppress free speech in the East, attacking those who do the same in the West. They are both as bad as each other, and are like two sides of the same coin. The pot-kettle-black nature of the discourse is highly amusing to me.

Similarly, it is also highly amusing when Left wing outfits, who thought they were the good and honest guys, suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube moderation policy. See, that's the thing with freedom of speech, it has to apply equally to all. If not then more and more voices are eliminated (including those on the Left) until you end up with Soviet era Russia or modern day China. So far, it's mostly those on the right who have been cancelled and silenced, but you can be sure that eventually people you agree with will be silenced. That's why people on the right find it so funny when those on the left get silenced and cancelled, because they never saw it coming, and didn't realise that the totalitarians come for everyone eventually, until there is a single party and single acceptable view on absolutely everything.

Maybe you can learn something from what I'm saying. But I suspect you probably won't, because my experience of people who like and accept censorship is that they generally lean towards authoritarianism, and see it as all for the greater good.

Oh, the comedy. My sides are splitting. Please. Stop it.

As you appear to know the Russian language, maybe you can translate this:

Lastly, I don't think I have much more to say on this topic, so unless you come up with something really interesting and original in support of censorship, I'm unlikely to respond.

 

[dzheremi]

First you said that it was just a private company restricting access to their services. Now you are using the Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy (fact checking website) and the Genetic Logical Fallacy (attack the source website) to try and discredit information and websites that you disagree with.

No I'm not. Did you miss the part of my reply where I mentioned that I actually looked at the 500+ page document presented by the website you selected, in order to see what they were basing their claims on? I didn't just go to a fact-checking website, see that it showed that they had made some erroneous statements, and then call it a day.

And I'm afraid that I just roll my eyes now when I encounter so-called fact-checking websites. The reason is that fact-checking mostly appears to be done by Left wing types, attempting to frame stuff according to their narrative. It appeals to people who like to be told, rather than do some research, and think for themselves. I'm sure if George Orwell was still alive, he would relentlessly attack the fact-checkers.

What you claim here is no different than how right-leaning websites like the one you presented also frame things to fit their particular narratives.

Also, George Orwell fought alongside the POUM (Spanish Communists) in the Spanish Civil War, as you can read about in his classic Homage to Catalonia (1938). Are you sure this is really the man you want to invoke in this context, given your stated distrust of "left wing types"? I know you have in mind 1984 instead, but given his background it is hard to imagine that this work was meant to represent a rebuke of only left-leaning authoritarians, even though there are plenty.

Sorry but you are just totally wrong. There is a huge amount of information that points to massive fraud by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. Do you really think that Joe Biden was such an amazing candidate, that he managed to totally overturn long term bellweather election indicators and statistics established over multiple decades, and sometimes going back as far as 1888 and 1892? No! That is simply not believable. If you think there was no election fraud then you have not been looking hard enough.

I don't think Joe Biden was an amazing candidate to begin with, but neither do I think that it is at all appropriate to link to your own post which contains no citations and a completely out-to-lunch argument that apparently confuses winning a plurality of bellweather counties with winning the election itself (as though the alleged predictive power of, e.g., mighty Valencia County, NM is in itself enough to change the reality that it is almost ten times smaller than Bernalillo County, which contains the state capital and largest city and reliably votes Democratic at the national level).

By working with YouTube to suppress free speech, the government were in direct breech of the constitution (First Amendment).

No they're not. There's nothing in the constitution that says that representatives of political figures can't ask the regulatory bodies of websites to deal with examples of misinformation on their websites. Trump's or any other Republican politicians' representatives could do the same, if they found posts that they claim are not factual.

However, I can understand if you hate the constitution, and find it massively inconvenient when suppressing information that you disagree with.

What?

Certainly if you think that way you would not be alone. And in any case, as I already demonstrated above, the bellweather election data indicates that it is highly likely that massive election fraud has taken place, so what they are trying to do is to suppress evidence of that fraud, with the help of YouTube.

You've shown no such thing. You've linked to your own poorly-argued post as though it is an unassailable source, seemingly based on nothing greater than the fact that you agree with yourself. Congratulations.

Neither Left wing nor Right wing Pravda is better. Freedom of speech is essential. And it must exist for all, not just those that you and the Democratic Party agree with.

I agree. Everyone must have freedom of speech. Integral to that idea is also that people are responsible for the things that put out into the public conversation, no matter what party they may align themselves with.

Yes, but it is very funny watching those who suppress free speech in the East, attacking those who do the same in the West.

Not really. East or West, the suppression of speech is lousy.

Maybe you can learn something from what I'm saying. But I suspect you probably won't, because my experience of people who like and accept censorship is that they generally lean towards authoritarianism, and see it as all for the greater good.

...says the guy who apparently thinks that the Taliban are making a good point.

As you appear to know the Russian language, maybe you can translate this:
View attachment 304594

Why? So you can make another hilarious joke? You clearly don't need my help for that.

Lastly, I don't think I have much more to say on this topic, so unless you come up with something really interesting and original in support of censorship, I'm unlikely to respond.

I frankly don't care whether you respond or not. Your arguments are incredibly weak and you've shown yourself in this thread to be very susceptible to thinking that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, which is generally not a great idea to base any political evaluation on, the rise of the Taliban itself bearing witness.

 

[Valletta]

The Dunning-Kruger effect can get in the way of things as some people might over estimate their abilities to effectively do the things on this bullet list.

So many fell for the Russia Russia Russia hoax conspiracy, yet continue to rely on the same fake news sources. The major media has very much suppressed the Hunter Biden videos and so avoided the southern border disaster. Some on the left have broken away on the Afghanistan story, with Leon Panetta and some others speaking out. Biden has to close the border now else are children and grandchildren will suffer terror attacks due to the terror situation he helped create.

 

[comana]

So many fell for the Russia Russia Russia hoax conspiracy, yet continue to rely on the same fake news sources. The major media has very much suppressed the Hunter Biden videos and so avoided the southern border disaster. Some on the left have broken away on the Afghanistan story, with Leon Panetta and some others speaking out. Biden has to close the border now else are children and grandchildren will suffer terror attacks due to the terror situation he helped create.

What is this obsession with Hunter Biden? I don’t understand why anyone cares about his anything.

 

[rambot]

It's pretty simple. Until they break the user terms agreement why shouldn't they be permitted. I'm. It even a big free speech guy but I'd they don't break the agreement why shouldn't they have an account?


The Last Guy didn't and so, bootsky.

 

[cow451]

Sorry but you are just totally wrong. There is a huge amount of information that points to massive fraud by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. Do you really think that Joe Biden was such an amazing candidate, that he managed to totally overturn long term bellweather election indicators and statistics established over multiple decades, and sometimes going back as far as 1888 and 1892? No! That is simply not believable. If you think there was no election fraud then you have not been looking hard enough.

There are multiple threads on The Big Lie, like the one about the dud of the AZ "audit". Why try to derail this thread?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You mean western liberals and leftists?

Eh...neither side gets to claim to be the arbiters of free expression anymore.

Both sides in the US have forfeited that right (if we're judging it objectively).

One side doesn't want anything to be said/promoted that offends their religious sensibilities
The other side doesn't want anything to be said/promoted that could hurt their feelings

Basically it's a distinction without a difference.

Now, I will say, that the western left may be slightly more guilty in regards to harboring a double standard on expression of ideas (based on who's espousing them)...but that's another topic.

 

[Aldebaran]

Amazing how similiar the taliban sound compared with western conservatives, isn't it?

Especially when the comparison has the Taliban being allowed to stay on Twitter even though a former U.S. president is not, with the excuse that he supposedly "incited violence".
As if the Taliban has never incited violence....

 

[JustSomeBloke]

OK, let's start with these two statements that you have previously posted:

I agree. Everyone must have freedom of speech. Integral to that idea is also that people are responsible for the things that put out into the public conversation, no matter what party they may align themselves with.

Not really. East or West, the suppression of speech is lousy.

If you believe in free speech, as suggested in the two quotes above, why did you previously write this:

I don't know that it's that the US government doesn't like it, necessarily, but more so that it is false, and leaving it there to be spread around without any countermeasures being taken just leads to exactly the situation we've been in, where +/- half the country believes in an alternate reality full of paranoid conspiracy theories about stolen elections, Trump being 'reinstated', etc. That's an inherently bad situation to be in.

What exactly do you mean by 'countermeasures? Do you mean censorship?

And if you support freedom of speech, why do you write stuff like this:

No they're not. There's nothing in the constitution that says that representatives of political figures can't ask the regulatory bodies of websites to deal with examples of misinformation on their websites. Trump's or any other Republican politicians' representatives could do the same, if they found posts that they claim are not factual.

Dealing with 'misinformation' is exactly what communist China does, and what Soviet era Russia used to do (often by shipping people off to gulags). And we all know, or at least we should do, that under totalitarian regimes it isn't everyday citizens, dissidents, or opposition politicians that decide or vote on what is misinformation and what is truth.

In conclusion, your posts appear to be littered with self-contradictory statements. And your idea of freedom of speech seems to be hollow, in that people can say what they like, as long as you agree with it. Of course that isn't a particularly novel position. I've met plenty of people who think the same way, and in my opinion their highly conditional support for freedom of speech isn't actually freedom of speech at all, and their desire for control and censorship is not compatible with free, open, democratic, modern, Western society.

There are multiple threads on The Big Lie, like the one about the dud of the AZ "audit". Why try to derail this thread?

I only raised election fraud in response to the quoted text below:

Our first amendment is a limit of what government can do about your speech but private companies aren’t governments and the terms you agree to follow to have an account with Facebook have clear limitations on what you can and cannot say and do on their platform.

I raised it because some forum members seem to be unaware that big-tech is colluding with the US government to remove material that the US government doesn't like, as described at this URL. And in doing so, the US government is violating the first amendment.

 

[Aldebaran]

If conservative stopped lying to it's viewers, then we would have no problems.

CNN is hardly conservative.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Question about freedom of speech ‘should be asked of those ... who do not allow publication of foreign information and news,’ Taliban spokesman says

Ouch! It must sting to get a lesson on free speech from the Taliban! And unlike Joe Biden, he is taking and answering questions from the media.

It's also interesting to note that the Taliban's official spokesman appears to have an active Twitter account, whereas the former president of the United States has been banned from Twitter.

That's funny, they're accusing others of what they're doing.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

CNN is hardly conservative.

I wasn't talking about CNN. And I'm sure know it. I talking about The fox new programs and all the right wing Conservative blogs / network that lie.

 

[Aldebaran]

I wasn't talking about CNN. And I'm sure know it. I talking about The fox new programs and all the right wing Conservative blogs / network that lie.

None of them lie.

 

[dzheremi]

What exactly do you mean by 'countermeasures? Do you mean censorship?

Countermeasures like you've probably seen on FB and similar websites, wherein disputed claims are labeled as such and links are given to the CDC, WHO, etc. which explain what actually goes into vaccine research, the actual makeup of the vaccines, etc.

And if you support freedom of speech, why do you write stuff like this

Because it's the truth. What part of recognizing that there's nothing in the constitution about how privately-owned websites must be run, or that politicians' support teams could all write to FB (or Twitter, or whatever) if they saw something untrue posted about their candidate/policies is anti-free speech? It's not anti-freedom of speech to recognize that websites can decide to censor or ban you if they feel that your presence on their site is harmful. That's true of CF, too. Is CF anti-free speech, or akin to Communist China whatever? No. Obviously not.

Dealing with 'misinformation' is exactly what communist China does, and what Soviet era Russia used to do

Every country does that. What's your point?

And we all know, or at least we should do, that under totalitarian regimes it isn't everyday citizens, dissidents, or opposition politicians that decide or vote on what is misinformation and what is truth.

Okay. Again, what's your point? I thought we were talking about FB. Are you suggesting that the members of FB decide or vote on what the truth is? I don't think truth is a matter of what's popular or unpopular on FB.

In conclusion

Libya is a land of contrasts. I know, I know.

your posts appear to be littered with self-contradictory statements. And your idea of freedom of speech seems to be hollow

We don't even live in the same country. Why should I care what you think about how freedom of speech works? I wouldn't even assume that we have the same standard at play in our laws or our wider culture. After all, it's your crazy country that arrests people for making others sad over the internet, so maybe there are bigger fish to fry in the anti-free speech world than a guy who doesn't agree with you thousands of miles away, in a country that apparently has much more robust freedom of speech protections than your own.

in that people can say what they like, as long as you agree with it. Of course that isn't a particularly novel position.

It's also not anything I advocated here or anywhere.

I've met plenty of people who think the same way, and in my opinion their highly conditional support for freedom of speech isn't actually freedom of speech at all, and their desire for control and censorship is not compatible with free, open, democratic, modern, Western society.

Okay.

Well that was fun. Toodles.