Twitter's rival Threads goes full on censorship

a reply to: St Udio

Amusingly enough, if they do go full AI mode on either platform, the tendency of most AI platforms, unless very carefully curated, is toward racism and bigotry. It's like people forget how toxic large swaths of the internet still are and will continue to be for many years to come. Without moderation of some form, all methods of communication eventually devolve down to 4chan levels at a relatively rapid pace.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienBorg

When will the US Government make "Threads" mandatory for news consumption and voicing opinions?

It's coming soon...

a reply to: AlienBorg

Perfect! Maybe all the whacked out leftist child molesting predators will leave Twitter for that Aliens new platform.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Only people gonna be using this are those who wanted twitter to stay as it was. They like being censored.

originally posted by: Missterious
a reply to: AlienBorg

Only people gonna be using this are those who wanted twitter to stay as it was. They like being censored.

The woke crowd in a few words

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: AlienBorg

The only people I know talking about this new threads platform are those engaging in marketing on the platform and people here.
So I have to ask why do you care what other people do or partake in when it comes to social media? Honest question, does it have any affect on your life besides upsetting you?

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Do you know the meaning of avoiding a question? That is what you just did. And how is someone asking you why you care so much about what other people do on social media a case of whataboutism.

Also, as for the lies of Don jr., here's a place to start:

PolitiFact

And here's an article about his lies concerning a meeting he had with a Russian operative in 2016:

Chip off the old block: Donald Trump Jr. tells lies nearly as well as his dad

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: nugget1
Zuckerberg was exposed for his heavy censorship of conservative views along with all covid posts that didn't fit the agenda, so I don't understand why anyone would trust any platform he creates. I guess people are ok with censorship - as long as it aligns with their mindset.

Silence the opposition seems to be the name of the game currently being played.

The other way around doesn't happen or let's say doesn't happen easily. It's very unlikely you find conservatives who want to silence or censor the woke crowds online.

You ever hear of the site Truth Social? Try complaining about the Orange Anointed One there.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: AlienBorg

The only people I know talking about this new threads platform are those engaging in marketing on the platform and people here.
So I have to ask why do you care what other people do or partake in when it comes to social media? Honest question, does it have any affect on your life besides upsetting you?

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Do you know the meaning of avoiding a question? That is what you just did. And how is someone asking you why you care so much about what other people do on social media a case of whataboutism.

Also, as for the lies of Don jr., here's a place to start:

PolitiFact

And here's an article about his lies concerning a meeting he had with a Russian operative in 2016:

Chip off the old block: Donald Trump Jr. tells lies nearly as well as his dad

This thread deals on with the platform Threads and the way they go about censoring views they consider 'offensive' and 'unacceptable' or people who consider 'offensive' who spread 'misinformation' online.

You think 'misgendering' is a valid reason for censoring or suspending accounts. It used to happen on twitter under the woke admin before Elon took over.

You think labeling-libeling Trump Jr or whoever else is acceptable on social media? Not to forget the double standards when they apply their standards.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: AlienBorg

The only people I know talking about this new threads platform are those engaging in marketing on the platform and people here.
So I have to ask why do you care what other people do or partake in when it comes to social media? Honest question, does it have any affect on your life besides upsetting you?

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Do you know the meaning of avoiding a question? That is what you just did. And how is someone asking you why you care so much about what other people do on social media a case of whataboutism.

Also, as for the lies of Don jr., here's a place to start:

PolitiFact

And here's an article about his lies concerning a meeting he had with a Russian operative in 2016:

Chip off the old block: Donald Trump Jr. tells lies nearly as well as his dad

This thread deals on with the platform Threads and the way they go about censoring views they consider 'offensive' and 'unacceptable' or people who consider 'offensive' who spread 'misinformation' online.

You think 'misgendering' is a valid reason for censoring or suspending accounts. It used to happen on twitter under the woke admin before Elon took over.

You think labeling-libeling Trump Jr or whoever else is acceptable on social media? Not to forget the double standards when they apply their standards.

Both current Twitter and Threads have polices regarding censoring speech that doesn't meet their community standards. They each have right to do so, but people have the right to complain about it as well, if not on said platforms.

Although I have issues with the whole gender relabeling agenda of the LGBTQ community and its allies, I do think intentionally misgendering people from the way they want to be called is a bit disrespectful, just as I find people claiming that Michelle Obama is a man, and labeling her as such is very disrespectful, and there is no point to it but to be disrespectful and show contempt for the person. However, I do hate the term "deadnaming", as it mischaracterizes what the act actually is.

And I think a social media platform has the right to make sure that any person or organization that a user wants to regularly get communications from should be aware of the fact that said person or organization is know to promote false or misinformation and/or to spread hate speech. Again, it's the company's platform, and they can do with it as they want.

Now if one's ISP or browser gave a person a similar such warning when going to some website or another, I would say that is inhibiting free speech.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: AlienBorg

The only people I know talking about this new threads platform are those engaging in marketing on the platform and people here.
So I have to ask why do you care what other people do or partake in when it comes to social media? Honest question, does it have any affect on your life besides upsetting you?

Do you know the meaning of the word whataboutism?

Do you know the meaning of avoiding a question? That is what you just did. And how is someone asking you why you care so much about what other people do on social media a case of whataboutism.

Also, as for the lies of Don jr., here's a place to start:

PolitiFact

And here's an article about his lies concerning a meeting he had with a Russian operative in 2016:

Chip off the old block: Donald Trump Jr. tells lies nearly as well as his dad

This thread deals on with the platform Threads and the way they go about censoring views they consider 'offensive' and 'unacceptable' or people who consider 'offensive' who spread 'misinformation' online.

You think 'misgendering' is a valid reason for censoring or suspending accounts. It used to happen on twitter under the woke admin before Elon took over.

You think labeling-libeling Trump Jr or whoever else is acceptable on social media? Not to forget the double standards when they apply their standards.

Both current Twitter and Threads have polices regarding censoring speech that doesn't meet their community standards. They each have right to do so, but people have the right to complain about it as well, if not on said platforms.

Although I have issues with the whole gender relabeling agenda of the LGBTQ community and its allies, I do think intentionally misgendering people from the way they want to be called is a bit disrespectful, just as I find people claiming that Michelle Obama is a man, and labeling her as such is very disrespectful, and there is no point to it but to be disrespectful and show contempt for the person. However, I do hate the term "deadnaming", as it mischaracterizes what the act actually is.

And I think a social media platform has the right to make sure that any person or organization that a user wants to regularly get communications from should be aware of the fact that said person or organization is know to promote false or misinformation and/or to spread hate speech. Again, it's the company's platform, and they can do with it as they want.

Now if one's ISP or browser gave a person a similar such warning when going to some website or another, I would say that is inhibiting free speech.

When Elon took over the censorship seen so far was over and many of the banned accounts were reinstated. All these ridiculous policies were abandoned.

I don't think twitter is comparable to any other platforms still trying to censor free speech. In this matter twitter made the right choice and this is why the woke is so much concerned with Elon Musk and his platform.

a reply to: AlienBorg

radical idea: just don't use it. If it's for people who need a bubble because they want to be "good sheep" let them. Let's hope they out-Karen eachother over there, contained.
LOL

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: AlienBorg

This thread deals on with the platform Threads and the way they go about censoring views they consider 'offensive' and 'unacceptable' or people who consider 'offensive' who spread 'misinformation' online.

You think 'misgendering' is a valid reason for censoring or suspending accounts. It used to happen on twitter under the woke admin before Elon took over.

You think labeling-libeling Trump Jr or whoever else is acceptable on social media? Not to forget the double standards when they apply their standards.

Both current Twitter and Threads have polices regarding censoring speech that doesn't meet their community standards. They each have right to do so, but people have the right to complain about it as well, if not on said platforms.

Although I have issues with the whole gender relabeling agenda of the LGBTQ community and its allies, I do think intentionally misgendering people from the way they want to be called is a bit disrespectful, just as I find people claiming that Michelle Obama is a man, and labeling her as such is very disrespectful, and there is no point to it but to be disrespectful and show contempt for the person. However, I do hate the term "deadnaming", as it mischaracterizes what the act actually is.

And I think a social media platform has the right to make sure that any person or organization that a user wants to regularly get communications from should be aware of the fact that said person or organization is know to promote false or misinformation and/or to spread hate speech. Again, it's the company's platform, and they can do with it as they want.

Now if one's ISP or browser gave a person a similar such warning when going to some website or another, I would say that is inhibiting free speech.

When Elon took over the censorship seen so far was over and many of the banned accounts were reinstated. All these ridiculous policies were abandoned.

I don't think twitter is comparable to any other platforms still trying to censor free speech. In this matter twitter made the right choice and this is why the woke is so much concerned with Elon Musk and his platform.

Don't tell me that Musk's Twitter doesn't censor or inhibit free speech. To wit:

Under Elon Musk, Twitter has approved 83% of censorship requests by authoritarian governments

The social network has restricted and withdrawn content critical of the ruling parties in Turkey and India, among other countries, including during electoral campaigns

Twitter’s acquiescence to autocratic or non-liberal regimes is not an exaggeration by critics of the social network. The data, which the public audit receives automatically, speaks for itself. Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154. In the year prior to Musk taking control, Twitter agreed to 50% of such requests, in line with the compliance rate indicated in the company’s last transparency report (none have been published since October 2022). Following the change of ownership, that figure has risen to 83%, according to the analysis of the data by the technology information portal Rest of World.

Is Twitter Censoring LGBTQ+ Content? What We Know, What We Don't

Twitter has been accused of censoring language associated with the LGBTQ+ community.

Several transgender groups first noticed that certain words, such as "trans", "LGBT" or "BLM" (Black Lives Matter), would not appear in the preview pane if sent as a private message, known as a DM, on the platform.

Instead, a link to the original tweet would appear with no other further information, but other tweets that did not feature the key words would show as normal in the DMs.

The chair of Trans Media Watch, jane fae, first noticed the issue on Saturday, April 1, and contacted her network to discover that many other people were experiencing the same issue.

"Clearly something is up, it makes life difficult if you're trans and you want to talk about trans and then mention to your friends that you've done it," fae, who does not capitalize her name, told Newsweek.

"I can see no good reason for it and it feels petty to me and seems to be deliberately done to make life difficult for people at the queer end of the spectrum. That's what it feels like."

fae encouraged Twitter to explain what the "good reason" would be for the alleged censorship, but added that "any argument that it's for 'sensitivity' falls" because you're likely speaking to friends in you DMs, and therefore know the boundaries of what is safe to discuss.

"But also they're not doing this for words that offend trans people," fae said, adding that she was "against banning words."

Trans Safety Network, a U.K.-based organization made up of journalists and data analysts who provide research to decision-makers influencing actions that affect trans people's safety, also looked into the issue.

It found many more words seemed to have been banned from Twitter DMs, including "queer," "sex," "lesbian," "homosexual," "bisexual," and "intersex."

The group also found that while "gay" would not appear in DMs, the homophobic slur "f*****" passed the filter.

The term "gender identity" also seemed to be blocked but the more controversial term "gender ideology" was allowed. The term "gender ideology" has been co-opted by some conservatives to refer to the rights movements of women, transgender and LGBTQ+ people.

fae confirmed that many Twitter users around the world were experiencing the same issue, and had a number of people complaining that it seemed their tweets were being "deboosted" and not reaching the same number of views as those not talking about trans topics.

"It would appear Twitter is making life harder for LGBTQ people and do anything to make less likely that anyone who is not themselves trans would find out about what trans people are saying," fae said. She criticized Musk, who when he bought the company in October vowed the "return" of free speech to the platform.

"For someone who came to power in Twitter claiming to be a great 'free speech warrior', it's not a good look," fae said.

So Twitter is censoring as well, your claims otherwise notwithstanding. Why can't you be honest about this?

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: AlienBorg

This thread deals on with the platform Threads and the way they go about censoring views they consider 'offensive' and 'unacceptable' or people who consider 'offensive' who spread 'misinformation' online.

You think 'misgendering' is a valid reason for censoring or suspending accounts. It used to happen on twitter under the woke admin before Elon took over.

You think labeling-libeling Trump Jr or whoever else is acceptable on social media? Not to forget the double standards when they apply their standards.

Both current Twitter and Threads have polices regarding censoring speech that doesn't meet their community standards. They each have right to do so, but people have the right to complain about it as well, if not on said platforms.

Although I have issues with the whole gender relabeling agenda of the LGBTQ community and its allies, I do think intentionally misgendering people from the way they want to be called is a bit disrespectful, just as I find people claiming that Michelle Obama is a man, and labeling her as such is very disrespectful, and there is no point to it but to be disrespectful and show contempt for the person. However, I do hate the term "deadnaming", as it mischaracterizes what the act actually is.

And I think a social media platform has the right to make sure that any person or organization that a user wants to regularly get communications from should be aware of the fact that said person or organization is know to promote false or misinformation and/or to spread hate speech. Again, it's the company's platform, and they can do with it as they want.

Now if one's ISP or browser gave a person a similar such warning when going to some website or another, I would say that is inhibiting free speech.

When Elon took over the censorship seen so far was over and many of the banned accounts were reinstated. All these ridiculous policies were abandoned.

I don't think twitter is comparable to any other platforms still trying to censor free speech. In this matter twitter made the right choice and this is why the woke is so much concerned with Elon Musk and his platform.

Don't tell me that Musk's Twitter doesn't censor or inhibit free speech. To wit:

Under Elon Musk, Twitter has approved 83% of censorship requests by authoritarian governments

The social network has restricted and withdrawn content critical of the ruling parties in Turkey and India, among other countries, including during electoral campaigns

Twitter’s acquiescence to autocratic or non-liberal regimes is not an exaggeration by critics of the social network. The data, which the public audit receives automatically, speaks for itself. Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154. In the year prior to Musk taking control, Twitter agreed to 50% of such requests, in line with the compliance rate indicated in the company’s last transparency report (none have been published since October 2022). Following the change of ownership, that figure has risen to 83%, according to the analysis of the data by the technology information portal Rest of World.

Is Twitter Censoring LGBTQ+ Content? What We Know, What We Don't

Twitter has been accused of censoring language associated with the LGBTQ+ community.

Several transgender groups first noticed that certain words, such as "trans", "LGBT" or "BLM" (Black Lives Matter), would not appear in the preview pane if sent as a private message, known as a DM, on the platform.

Instead, a link to the original tweet would appear with no other further information, but other tweets that did not feature the key words would show as normal in the DMs.

The chair of Trans Media Watch, jane fae, first noticed the issue on Saturday, April 1, and contacted her network to discover that many other people were experiencing the same issue.

"Clearly something is up, it makes life difficult if you're trans and you want to talk about trans and then mention to your friends that you've done it," fae, who does not capitalize her name, told Newsweek.

"I can see no good reason for it and it feels petty to me and seems to be deliberately done to make life difficult for people at the queer end of the spectrum. That's what it feels like."

fae encouraged Twitter to explain what the "good reason" would be for the alleged censorship, but added that "any argument that it's for 'sensitivity' falls" because you're likely speaking to friends in you DMs, and therefore know the boundaries of what is safe to discuss.

"But also they're not doing this for words that offend trans people," fae said, adding that she was "against banning words."

Trans Safety Network, a U.K.-based organization made up of journalists and data analysts who provide research to decision-makers influencing actions that affect trans people's safety, also looked into the issue.

It found many more words seemed to have been banned from Twitter DMs, including "queer," "sex," "lesbian," "homosexual," "bisexual," and "intersex."

The group also found that while "gay" would not appear in DMs, the homophobic slur "f*****" passed the filter.

The term "gender identity" also seemed to be blocked but the more controversial term "gender ideology" was allowed. The term "gender ideology" has been co-opted by some conservatives to refer to the rights movements of women, transgender and LGBTQ+ people.

fae confirmed that many Twitter users around the world were experiencing the same issue, and had a number of people complaining that it seemed their tweets were being "deboosted" and not reaching the same number of views as those not talking about trans topics.

"It would appear Twitter is making life harder for LGBTQ people and do anything to make less likely that anyone who is not themselves trans would find out about what trans people are saying," fae said. She criticized Musk, who when he bought the company in October vowed the "return" of free speech to the platform.

"For someone who came to power in Twitter claiming to be a great 'free speech warrior', it's not a good look," fae said.

So Twitter is censoring as well, your claims otherwise notwithstanding. Why can't you be honest about this?

Every platform has its own rules but Twitter isn't the platform it was before Elon Musk took over. You can't have your account suspended for stating facts or for 'misgendering' someone or simply state there are only two genders. On the plus side many accounts of prominent scientists and physicians were reinstated after they were suspended.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I am not aware the terms you described are not allowed on Twitter. Anyone can use the terms gender identity or trans or anything else. They haven't been banned. Just because you found an article on Newsweek doesn't make it true.

Referring you back you to my last post. Under the old admin, 'misgendering' or stating there are only two genders could have resulted in the suspension of your account. This has been fixed and we all know how woke the platform was.

Many accounts were reinstated after being suspended for criticizing lockdowns, vaccines, government's response to the pandemic.

Twitter did a pretty good job and it's by far the platform (from the main online platforms) where you can say pretty much what you want. There are still rules for engagement but you won't get banned for stating transwomen are men or for saying lockdowns did more harm than good.

Your post

So Twitter is censoring as well, your claims otherwise notwithstanding. Why can't you be honest about this?

I am honest but there is no much evidence in what you're claiming. If you want a woke platform then twitter isn't for you. My claims are valid. If the trans-lobby finds it difficult to navigate through the platform it's because there is no more safe space for them and propaganda they can push without getting challenged.


You forgot it's Threads censoring views and free speech in the old fashioned way. Not twitter.

From my OP

Outrage has spread on rival platform Twitter since the platform's inception earlier this week after claims it deleted content questioning gender ideologies and users were being actively discouraged from following Donald Trump Jr.

Threads will be a safe space for you if you're fond of the gender ideology. But I don't know what your views are. If they're like to go this path and censor whoever questions the validity of their beliefs then the platform will be an echo chamber.

a reply to: MrInquisitive


Btw you article says about gender identity and gender ideology and describes the latter as controversial...

Really?!

Gender ideology is a precise term.

Gender identity is meaningless. You can't choose your gender. You can't change your gender. You can't transition between genders. People who claim these things can happen are ideologically driven and so the term gender ideology.

a reply to: AlienBorg

its sex vs gender, or high church virtues vs low church reality.. another version of transubstantiation..

also in modern terms its equity vs equality.

or through another lens its the "more is less" crowd vs "do more with less" crowd.

its not going to end well as both sides have utterly opposed views of the world..

a reply to: AlienBorg

@AB, the censorship by Twitter isn't just about that old chestnut of yours, wokeness, but political content censordhip in other countries as well. And such censorship is up since Musk took over, as I pointed out above.

Honestly, the issue of transgender semantics is a much grayer issue to me than other forms of hate speech, i.e. racism, ethnic/religious bigotry, and misogyny and misandry. However the level of hate being spewed out against trans people is resulting in violence to them, their defenders, and even cis-gendered people whom transphobes misidentify as transexuals; for this reason alone I support the moderation of this form of hateful speech. The lives of people are more important than a person or group's right to express an opinion about people they don't like or whose lifestyle they disagree with.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: MrInquisitive


Btw you article says about gender identity and gender ideology and describes the latter as controversial...

Really?!

Gender ideology is a precise term.

Gender identity is meaningless. You can't choose your gender. You can't change your gender. You can't transition between genders. People who claim these things can happen are ideologically driven and so the term gender ideology.

Actually, absolutely not. Gender identity does have a specific meaning, as in the gender a person identifies with. Whereas a simple google search will show you that each side of the culture divide on this issue considers the term be negative, representing the notion of gender by the opposing side. Just think about the two phrases. Which one is more specific? Clearly gender identity, its' clearly self explanatory. Gender ideology not so much. Which gender ideology? The one which thinks there are only biological males and females, or the one that thinks people might identify more with the gender they were not biologically born with, and that they may live a healthier life if they medically switch/transmute their genders.

Do you notice that I am not defending one form of gender ideology in the above paragraph, but only pointing out that the term is semantically ambiguous, whereas gender identity is a clear-cut concept, your preconceived biases notwithstanding.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: MrInquisitive


Btw you article says about gender identity and gender ideology and describes the latter as controversial...

Really?!

Gender ideology is a precise term.

Gender identity is meaningless. You can't choose your gender. You can't change your gender. You can't transition between genders. People who claim these things can happen are ideologically driven and so the term gender ideology.

Actually, absolutely not. Gender identity does have a specific meaning, as in the gender a person identifies with. Whereas a simple google search will show you that each side of the culture divide on this issue considers the term be negative, representing the notion of gender by the opposing side. Just think about the two phrases. Which one is more specific? Clearly gender identity, its' clearly self explanatory. Gender ideology not so much. Which gender ideology? The one which thinks there are only biological males and females, or the one that thinks people might identify more with the gender they were not biologically born with, and that they may live a healthier life if they medically switch/transmute their genders.

Do you notice that I am not defending one form of gender ideology in the above paragraph, but only pointing out that the term is semantically ambiguous, whereas gender identity is a clear-cut concept, your preconceived biases notwithstanding.

Not at all.

Gender identity is a made up term. You cannot choose your gender, change your gender or transition between genders. It's just impossible. On the other hand gender ideology is a precise term describing the set of ideas/beliefs around this term gender identity.

Stating there are only two biological sexes is a fact and not part of any ideology.

Claiming people can change their gender or they're born in the wrong body has no scientific basis. It's just pseudo-science. That's part of the gender ideology alongside with many other claims and beliefs.

Fortunately you can call out all these false claims on twitter and criticise gender ideology without the risk of being banned for stating facts or pointing to the obvious.

I am afraid it is your preconceived biased that are not withstanding together with the gender ideology you seem to support.