Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Purges on social media sites

Make your own medium, with your rules and your agenda

Well, that's me told. I will remember to only express pre-approved opinions in line with those of the moderators, and those of the baying mob!
 
Well, that's me told. I will remember to only express pre-approved opinions in line with those of the moderators, and those of the baying mob!
Do you have an actual opinion that you would like to express?
Bearing in mind that you claim the opinion you presented wasn't an actual opinion, just an example
 
And therein lies the problem. There is no debate to be had. If you have the temerity to speak out against the established view point of the right on lefties, you will be vilified,shouted down and made an “enemy” and possibly get your collar felt by the cops as someone might think you may have upset someone somewhere.
The genie is out of the bottle, and I don’t see it being pushed back on any time soon.
Like I said earlier if people think it is just the 'lefties' doing this they couldn't be more wrong both sides are exactly the same but depending on which side of the fence people sit on usually determines whether it is offensive or not.
The right want to silence stupid rhetoric from the left and the left wants to silence the same from the right.

What should be more of a concern to everyone is how divisive the new web media has become with out and out lies, exaggeration, mistruths, bullshite, falsehoods, fake news, and general kaka all pandering to the right or left agenda they are trying to push.

The mainstream media agendas that certain people on here hate are usually well known to the people beforehand and one can either take it or leave it .

I'm not a lefty either btw, sometimes the left have good points and sometimes the right have good points but to request that they be forced to write the above mentioned stupidity because of free speech is lunacy and seemingly one sided.
 
Do you have an actual opinion that you would like to express?
Bearing in mind that you claim the opinion you presented wasn't an actual opinion, just an example

Jeesus H Christ.
This house feels that people should be allowed to express opinions, even if they are contrary to the beliefs of the media in question. It is a mark of a healthy society where discussion and debate are accepted, even encouraged, and represents an every-day example of what our Grandfathers fought for. For example, a person should be able to post pro-Brexit comments on a Grauniad article, or anti-Brexit comments on a DM article, without being moderated out or banned.
In accepting this we must understand that, from time to time, we will hear ideas and opinions that we disagree with, however we will have the chance to voice our own opinions and counter-arguements. One party may change a perspective, or we may agree to disagree, or we have the option to meet on a street corner to duke it out- but we have those choices, that is the crucial element here.
A society that discourages discussion and stiffles debate will simply split into polarized factions where matters are only discussed in 'echo chamber' forums. Additionally, such a non-permissive society is at risk of mob rule, as I said, 'who guards the guards' (don't say the MPGS), who decides what an acceptable opinion is?
Recommended reading- Ninteen Eighty Four, George Orwell.
 
Not just political stuff, YouTube has demonetised or removed a lot of firearm related videos and channels.

Even historical stuff about 18th and 19th century weapons.
Even YouTube contributors who post videos of scale models have been threathened with having their videos pulled for example; because of putting a swastika decal on the tail of a model aircraft.
Yes. 'Their house their rules' and all that, but the anti-right crusade of certain social media companies is rediculous and in my opinion politically motivated.
 
Jeesus H Christ.
This house feels that people should be allowed to express opinions, even if they are contrary to the beliefs of the media in question. It is a mark of a healthy society where discussion and debate are accepted, even encouraged, and represents an every-day example of what our Grandfathers fought for. For example, a person should be able to post pro-Brexit comments on a Grauniad article, or anti-Brexit comments on a DM article, without being moderated out or banned.
In accepting this we must understand that, from time to time, we will hear ideas and opinions that we disagree with, however we will have the chance to voice our own opinions and counter-arguements. One party may change a perspective, or we may agree to disagree, or we have the option to meet on a street corner to duke it out- but we have those choices, that is the crucial element here.
A society that discourages discussion and stiffles debate will simply split into polarized factions where matters are only discussed in 'echo chamber' forums. Additionally, such a non-permissive society is at risk of mob rule, as I said, 'who guards the guards' (don't say the MPGS), who decides what an acceptable opinion is?
Recommended reading- Ninteen Eighty Four, George Orwell.
You are still claiming to be opressed, have only posted one example of opinion that ‘isn’t allowed’, and when I mention that it could be the way of making a statement as opposed to being open to debate, you then claimed it’s just an example, not actual opinion


This house feels that people should be allowed to express opinions, even if they are contrary to the beliefs of the media in question.
‘Should’ - a flick through the Daily Mail and the Guardian shows comments, the majority are of the persuasion slanting to agreeing or or being triggered by the outrage on the general political persuasion of the particular media and their intended audience.
There are some dissenters - not many partly because many who wouldn’t agree don’t bother to read it.
Put on a deliberately provocative comment and you aren’t debating
(For example the ‘I hate gays’, or ‘all trans are mentally ill’ - no position for debate)
‘Should’ is a valid word, opinion should be open to debate - but the provider of the media is not absolutely required to permit anyone to say anything, they can have rules

On Facebook among groups I see anti gay / pro gay, anti racist / pro racist, etc. It’s possible to offend and be offended without being oppressed and banned

I asked you to express an opinion open to debate, but you can only present that you are oppressed and
 

aardvark64

War Hero
Oblate spheroids to Newton!
I say "Cubes" to picasso

 
The obvious bonus point is that most social media sites are pretty small bubbles of like minded people.

For example. Twitter has something like 15mn users in the UK, of whom about a third are in the age group least likely to vote or too young to vote. That's about 22% ish of the UK population as a whole and 33% ish of the electorate as a whole.

That bubble successfully deluded itself into thinking everyone thought the same way so Corbyn is going to win the election.

Look how well that went.....
 
I think Instagram is great too. There are many social media that are trended even more than Facebook in small zones or cities. Asian for example use local social media apps just for them.
Likely spammer - reported
 
I think Instagram is great too. There are many social media that are trended even more than Facebook in small zones or cities. Asian for example use local social media apps just for them.

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门
 
Twitter has started banning satire now. Left leaning stuff is okay though, as long as it ticks the right (or is that left?) boxes. Emperor Xi and assorted dictators would approve.
1597760413135.png

1597760726334.png

Twitter's Stony Faced Satire Crackdown - Guido Fawkes

From Spiked Online:
Twitter’s purge of the anti-woke satirists
Titania McGrath and other accounts which make fun of wokeness have been censored.

1597762164241.png

Twitter’s purge of the anti-woke satirists

From the Times of Israel, 5th August by Angela Van Der Pluym
Twitter Censorship
With the rise of independent voices and media online and the 2016 election of Donald Trump, social media companies have taken it upon themselves, most likely from outside pressure, to start policing and censoring the ideas published on their platforms. It started with the extreme personalities like Alex Jones, but that censorship quickly encroached on mainstream political thought and activists. Laura Loomer was banned from Twitter for criticism of Ilhan Omar. Comedian Megan Murphy was permanently suspended from twitter for referring to someone as “him”. The victim of this online transgression claimed he/she was “misgendered”.

Link: Twitter Censorship

The article mentions a Trump video being banned while "Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamanei regularly tweets about his desire and intention to destroy Israel, the only Jewish state." We see and hear the same double standards in the UK from the hard left and so called liberals.
 
Last edited:
Top