They are burning books in Tennessee

[Droid12345]

A lot of non-sequiturs here, ie. things that were not mentioned in previous posts between us, so I'll just address a couple spots:

There was no specific thing I wrote that would disproportionately affect conservative accounts being removed. I mentioned opposition thoughts which by default suggest the other side is liberal thoughts. I mentioned opposing thought being removed which could be a valid thought as well as thought lacking any substance. I’m unaware of any data comparing things removed that are valid, versus those that are not, from either conservatives or liberals and wouldn’t begin to suggest that absurdities lie in the conservative population primarily, due to the likewise stupidity found in the liberal camps. Nor should I believe that those sites with current legality have the expertise to know what is factual and what is not.

I suppose you're right that you didn't mention conservatives, specifically, but surely you'll agree that the overwhelming sentiment among conservatives is that big tech is censoring them while not censoring liberals, yes?And many of the things that you don't think the tech companies have the expertise to know fact from fiction are very easy to determine fact from fiction. Again, they're not censoring opinions, they're trying to reduce misinformation, especially when that misinformation has the potential to be dangerous. Have they gotten it wrong sometimes? Sure. Will they get it wrong sometimes again in the future? Sure. That's what "good faith" means. They're trying. I have zero problem with tech companies trying to reduce the amount of misinformation on their platforms. I WOULD have a problem if they were silencing political opinions that differed from that of their owners or whomever. They're not doing this, though.

Continuing with the reference to Marjorie Taylor Greene whom I have no idea on her stance on anything, or her political vision in general to understand that her blockage or removal is based on a single post or her own stance on many thoughts.

Ok, well this was pretty widely documented, so it wouldn't hard to look it up. I offered her up only as an example.

I’ve had Pfizer shots because it was right for me, but I have no desire for control and power like the liberals seek in everyday events. There are many reasons why people may not want the shot…all valid thoughts and do not impose upon their freedom. I personally know an anesthesiologist that suffered paralysis after a shot and has not been able to work for months. Science even suggests many valid reasons to not get the shot. Some of those people may be aware that the polio shots were stopped for a while due to many health issues for a year or two???? until they resumed. Should doctors that treated the virus successfully not be heard? None of this is about the virus…it is all about control and power which can be shown in a multitude of ways. Watching Fauci run away from gain of function, masks and his other flip flops is no different than looking in the eyes of fan sitting at the end of the tennis net flipping from side to side.

Who said anything about Fauci? You've mentioned that there are some good reasons why someone might not take the vaccine. That is correct. But magnetism isn't one of them, right? People should make decisions based on good information. It is fact that the vaccine doesn't magnetize you. It is also fact that it is overwhelmingly safe. That's the information that matters. I don't think people should make decisions for bad reasons or based on bad information. It leads to more people making poor decisions. And, like with MTG, I mentioned the vaccine as just an example of the type of misinformation that the tech companies might try to moderate (either through removal or labeling, or whatever). I'm completely fine with this practice.

I have no idea the real reasons for McMinn County.

No one really does except those that made the decision. Publicly, though, they did it because of profanity and nudity.

I know Tennessee uses TVAAS, but unsure if that is statewide or not and have no idea how changes in curriculum may or may not affect the statistical model that Bill Sanders uses.

TVAAS is an assessment system, not curriculum. It is not relevant here.

It may not have any bearing on what happened, I just don’t know? Relative to that I thought it was interesting that you mentioned that the book showed “something bad that white people did” laughing as I type wondering if this was in reference to previous BLM garbage. What happened to understanding many white Americans freed the Jews from concentration camps the “Germans” put them in? It wasn’t a white thing…although that would go in line with the current agenda. Many whites were against what Hitler was doing anyway.

I agree, I don't blame white people for the holocaust, nor do I think white people deserve credit (at least not more so than anyone else who fought in the war) for ending it. I'm suggesting that the McMinn decision was made in accordance with the narrative that teaching kids the actual truth about the history of racism in America -- incorrectly identified as CRT -- makes white kids feel bad about being white. It's ridiculous. I'm glad we're on the same page here.

Ultimately, I'm suggesting that I don't think there's a compelling reason to ban "Maus" from the 8th grade curriculum because it has 8 curse words and pictures of naked cartoon mice. If this content is inappropriate for 13-14 year olds, what else must be eliminated for the same reason? I've already suggested that perhaps the Bible contains similarly "inappropriate" material, but I'm betting McMinn county would have no problem with kids reading that book. Can 13-year-olds see Michelangelo's David? It's got a visible penis, after all. The Venus di Milo? Her breasts are exposed, just like the mouse. Can the choir at the school sing a Renaissance madrigal that's full of hidden references to sex? What about Shakespeare, who's work is full of sex jokes, curses, and insults? I could be wrong about it, but, if nothing else, they're being very inconsistent in their interpretation of what is inappropriate.

And, coming from the folks who think removing statues is erasing history (it isn't, but that's not the point), banning a book that teaches kids what the holocaust was like is pretty rich. It's kinda hard to get an accurate picture of what happened during the holocaust without nudity and profanity being a part of it, right? Should we ban "To Kill a Mockingbird" because it contains the n-word?

 

[tjreese]

A lot of non-sequiturs here, ie. things that were not mentioned in previous posts between us, so I'll just address a couple spots:

I suppose you're right that you didn't mention conservatives, specifically, but surely you'll agree that the overwhelming sentiment among conservatives is that big tech is censoring them while not censoring liberals, yes?And many of the things that you don't think the tech companies have the expertise to know fact from fiction are very easy to determine fact from fiction. Again, they're not censoring opinions, they're trying to reduce misinformation, especially when that misinformation has the potential to be dangerous. Have they gotten it wrong sometimes? Sure. Will they get it wrong sometimes again in the future? Sure. That's what "good faith" means. They're trying. I have zero problem with tech companies trying to reduce the amount of misinformation on their platforms. I WOULD have a problem if they were silencing political opinions that differed from that of their owners or whomever. They're not doing this, though.

Ok, well this was pretty widely documented, so it wouldn't hard to look it up. I offered her up only as an example.

Who said anything about Fauci? You've mentioned that there are some good reasons why someone might not take the vaccine. That is correct. But magnetism isn't one of them, right? People should make decisions based on good information. It is fact that the vaccine doesn't magnetize you. It is also fact that it is overwhelmingly safe. That's the information that matters. I don't think people should make decisions for bad reasons or based on bad information. It leads to more people making poor decisions. And, like with MTG, I mentioned the vaccine as just an example of the type of misinformation that the tech companies might try to moderate (either through removal or labeling, or whatever). I'm completely fine with this practice.

No one really does except those that made the decision. Publicly, though, they did it because of profanity and nudity.

TVAAS is an assessment system, not curriculum. It is not relevant here.

I agree, I don't blame white people for the holocaust, nor do I think white people deserve credit (at least not more so than anyone else who fought in the war) for ending it. I'm suggesting that the McMinn decision was made in accordance with the narrative that teaching kids the actual truth about the history of racism in America -- incorrectly identified as CRT -- makes white kids feel bad about being white. It's ridiculous. I'm glad we're on the same page here.

Ultimately, I'm suggesting that I don't think there's a compelling reason to ban "Maus" from the 8th grade curriculum because it has 8 curse words and pictures of naked cartoon mice. If this content is inappropriate for 13-14 year olds, what else must be eliminated for the same reason? I've already suggested that perhaps the Bible contains similarly "inappropriate" material, but I'm betting McMinn county would have no problem with kids reading that book. Can 13-year-olds see Michelangelo's David? It's got a visible penis, after all. The Venus di Milo? Her breasts are exposed, just like the mouse. Can the choir at the school sing a Renaissance madrigal that's full of hidden references to sex? What about Shakespeare, who's work is full of sex jokes, curses, and insults? I could be wrong about it, but, if nothing else, they're being very inconsistent in their interpretation of what is inappropriate.

And, coming from the folks who think removing statues is erasing history (it isn't, but that's not the point), banning a book that teaches kids what the holocaust was like is pretty rich. It's kinda hard to get an accurate picture of what happened during the holocaust without nudity and profanity being a part of it, right? Should we ban "To Kill a Mockingbird" because it contains the n-word?

I'm going to the game and not a lot of time or desire to point out again what I wrote and the strawmen you listed...and for the record TVAAS of which I have the original 1982 study is student gain ON curriculum used and unless Bill has changed things the curriculum is used from year to year to study that game. Furtheremore, as I also pointed out I didn't know nor claimed to know if that was an issue. In addition to all the other things you missed I also listed The Language Police by Diane that points out bias from both side...something I again said. I was aware of this over two decades ago and so just now getting some news is not news to me. Perhaps, I'll read to see what else you missed since I have a game to attend...not even sure if you mentioned DIF or tried to throw out more handpicked diversions for viewing

 

[Droid12345]

I'm going to the game and not a lot of time or desire to point out again what I wrote and the strawmen you listed...and for the record TVAAS of which I have the original 1982 study is student gain ON curriculum used and unless Bill has changed things the curriculum is used from year to year to study that game. Furtheremore, as I also pointed out I didn't know nor claimed to know if that was an issue. In addition to all the other things you missed I also listed The Language Police by Diane that points out bias from both side...something I again said. I was aware of this over two decades ago and so just now getting some news is not news to me. Perhaps, I'll read to see what else you missed since I have a game to attend...not even sure if you mentioned DIF or tried to throw out more handpicked diversions for viewing

To save you time, you don't need to check. I didn't address Diane Ravitch nor DIF specifically because it wasn't what we were talking about. We've gone pretty far away from where we started, to be honest.

The only point I've been trying to make is that I think it's disingenuous to equate the effort by technology companies to moderate their platforms -- something we've both agreed they have the legal right to do despite free speech protections -- and the removal of a Pulitzer prize winning graphic novel that illustrates a first-hand account of the horrors of the holocaust from a curriculum based on a purported justification that it has a few bad words in it. School boards legally have the right to do what they did, as well, actually, but I am simply of the opinion that, in this particular case, they are misguided. I think I've illustrated why I think the two are different, but, at the end of the day, it's just my opinion. Anyone is free to agree with it or not.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I’m unsure if anyone questioned the legality as written today, just due to the fact it has continued under existing law today. I don’t follow a lot of things here to know exactly what has been posted. Still, it does appear as you provided that google, twitter and FB are NOT liable today for what is posted and obviously brings into question why remove any posts of different opinions since they are not liable…and yes there are a lot of valid opinions removed. The mere fact of these outlets serving as a government media arm while eliminating …which we all know they do to opposing thought is not a whole lot different than Bagdad Bob or Goebbels in Germany.

Despite current law today, it is obvious to the most casual observer that censorship by the big three is not healthy for all whether today or in the future. Shutting down thought from opposition absent of malice paves many roads to hell. Failure to admit reality even with the current legality is disingenuous and lack of concern for that finds root in stupidity.

Social media platforms remove content for all sorts of reasons. Educate yourself on the rules of two of them.

Facebook Community Standards | Transparency Center

The Facebook Community Standards outline what is and isn't allowed on Facebook.

transparency.fb.com

The X rules: safety, privacy, authenticity, and more

Understand the limitations on the type of content and behavior that we allow, to ensure free and safe conversation.

help.twitter.com

First, what's deleted is much more than opinion.......but sticking to your uninformed stance, are you advocating for the unfettered posting by anarchists whose opinion is that our republic should be overthrown or the opinion of anti-Semites who believe Israel should be incinerated or the white supremacists whose opinion is that blacks should be strung up? And this is not a conversation between two people on the street. These opinions would be available to millions of people.........some who are insane enough or gullible enough to believe anything because they saw it on the internet. That's what you want?

Second, do you really believe that these outlets are only deleting posts of those who don't agree with the party occupying the WH? Or more directly to your casual observations, social media deletes the posts of, suspends and bans people of both parties......... or people of no party..........because your political beliefs have no bearing. If it appears that way, then you should 1) Pay more attention and 2) carefully consider the possibility that those that you agree with politically break the rules more often than anybody else.

Lastly, it's the height of hypocrisy that you say," Shutting down thought from opposition absent of malice paves many roads to hell" in a thread about people in your party burning freaking books.

 

[jrcrist]

These social companies have no responsibility to protect your rights to freedom of speech..........anymore than any other media company does. As a reminder, the first amendment says you can express yourself without government censorship or control.

I assume you're referring to section 230.........and it wasn't designed to deal with free speech. It was created to do protect the platform from legal liability for what is posted. It has nothing to do with whether they are free speech platforms.

They are private companies that can control their content. Would you argue they should post any hate speech? Posts from anarchists or white supremacist groups? Anti Semitic groups?

What disinformation? Election fraud? Lies about Covid? 1/6 was a false flag or the protestors were Antifa?

The term “good faith” is very important in this context and that’s the issue. These companies are not just objectively removing information that everyone would agree should be removed, like child pornography or people conspiring to commit crimes, etc. These platforms are often times removing information based on political bias, political affiliation, or even more recently, at the direction (indirectly) of the White House (which is absolutely pertinent to the 1st amendment). That’s why this has become such a hot button issue over the last 24 months.

As for the “conspiracy theories” what about the lab leak “conspiracy theory” that was censored? What about Hunters laptop “conspiracy theory” that was censored? Or the idea that natural immunity is superior to the vaccine “conspiracy theories”? And there’s a whole slew of things that have been censored that have later been proven true.

Claiming that it’s not one sided or politically motivated is either one of the most ignorant takes I’ve seen on these boards or one of the most dishonest, and I don’t think you’re an ignorant person.

 

[TeddyValentineDidNothingWrong]

I was hopeful for an unusual response, like you understood. Perhaps, you would like to counter the comments so I understand what you are wanting to say, but can't state due to that missing knowledge? We can save DIF for last if you desire. Maybe start with the magnitude of censorship, then go into textbook adoption and then maybe algorithms of search engines. Go into DIF if you desire, but I think you will be able to stop before stepping into that potential area.

You should write a book.

 

[BoilerBiker]

230 is just protection for all websites and users of the sites when theres content posted by someone else.
the one thing that matters in 230 court cases: the content in question (if its created by someone else, the hosting site cannot be sued/ frivolous suits).

gbi as an example shares those protections.
but, gbi is also still free to create their own content policy and moderate as they choose.
peegs for example, was notorious for having a quicker ban hammer.

 

[bonefish1]

At least Bob is standing up for the pedos.
Pedo lives matter.

 

[SKYDOG]

At least Bob is standing up for the pedos.
Pedo lives matter.

He seems to take the wrong side on many things.