Tech insider blows whistle on social media company, Pinterest
Informative Project Veritas video on how one social media company defines and handles objectionable words, sensitive material, porn websites, conspiracy websites and search results.
It is also interesting what their “Trust And Safety” activists have covertly hidden under some of these categories.
https://youtu.be/ko43yVdowMU
^ ^ ^
NOTE: YouTube removed the original video above!
This is the same video on bitchute,
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ko43yV...
Exposé and documents,
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/0...
It is also interesting what their “Trust And Safety” activists have covertly hidden under some of these categories.
https://youtu.be/ko43yVdowMU
^ ^ ^
NOTE: YouTube removed the original video above!
This is the same video on bitchute,
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ko43yV...
Exposé and documents,
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/0...
👍 Solver
-A far left “philosopher.”
One translation would be,
“It is whatever we can get away with.”
will result in governmental, organizational, and individual decisions which will end up offending the already offended. Time for everyone to grow into adults and quit being offended.
Here is the whistleblower going public on Fox News,
https://www.bitchute.com/video/h9AM6N...
What is exactly is the "whistle blowing" aspects here?
The actions such as this one by Pinterest are not "censorship" and not a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment, which pertain to actions by government, not private companies. Anyone can protest this action by Pinterest and similar actions by it and other companies. Conservatives have no right to use government power to demand that the companies comply with their wishes.
These principles are not held by just a "few Gulchers". It has long been recognized even by conservatives that the First Amendment is not an entitlement to have private companies provide the means of expressing oneself.
Ayn Rand's many articles on the relation between property rights and freedom of speech versus censorship were described and linked to at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Only the government can engage in censorship.
The growing sloppy use of "censorship" to apply to business action is demagoguery packaging government force with private action It is done as an excuse to impose controls private companies. It is an invalid concept packaging actions with essential differences as if they were the same in order to equivocate on the buried differences
Improper, contradictory word usage to signify invalid concepts is not a basis for discussion of political policy and philosophic principles. Concepts and definitions are not arbitrary. Collective misuse of concepts is not the standard. Collective subjectivism is not objectivity.
The First Amendment does not control private speech and there are no "other laws" making alleged "censorship" illegal for private companies. Control of private businesses and individuals is what the statist populist demagogues want and is why they use invalid concepts to try to put it over.
I disagree. When only applied to the American government, I agree.
“Censorship is the opposite of freedom of speech”,
I agree, when only applying that to the American government. The U.S. government is limited by the first amendment, so they must allow and even protect freedom of speech and can not legally censor. But, I do not agree when applying that to American businesses for example. Private businesses are not limited by the First Amendment. Many can and do legally censor. They can do this because of property rights.
If all governments were limited in the same way I would like that very much. But that’s not reality.
This has been explained several times and you continue to ignore it. Repeating the misuse of the concept 'censorship' over and over as your "point" is non-responsive and is not an argument. Free speech includes the right to not associate with or support something one disagrees with. That includes private businesses. It is not "censorship".
This forum has guidelines, too. It is a privately run forum for a specific purpose. That is not censorship, despite the claim by a militant religionist who insisted that not allowing his evangelizing was illegal religious discrimination. (He didn't last long.)
The hit and run clowns who rotely 'downvote' every rejection of their anti-free speech, anti-private property, anti-Ayn Rand populist demagoguery is not an argument either. They cannot engage in logical discussion, refuse to respond, and yet militantly pollute this Ayn Rand forum with their emotionalism.
From an American dictionary in 1899:
“Censor” noun
“An officer who examines books or newspapers before they are printed, and whose permission is necessary for their publication.”
There is no verb definition.
There is a psychological use of 'censor' as motive, as opposed to action. Someone can desire to censor even though he lacks the power, and whatever limited actions he can take he may be operating on a psychology of suppressing whatever he can with no thought of choosing how to use his private property.
Facebook, Google, and some of the others are now actively lobbying for government censorship -- not (yet) full totalitarianism, but they want government power like current European-Canadian censorship banning certain thoughts or motives, applied as "guidelines" to the internet in the name of being anti "extremist".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rig...
Anti-freedom of speech is a very ugly trend among both the left and many conservatives. If dictionaries report this as 'freedom of speech', it's Orwell, not valid concepts.
https://youtu.be/5Q0mlnR1kuI
There's no censorship in your link.
“YouTube has just censored my video about censorship. Yes seriously.”
https://youtu.be/N4E5laxlehY
“This is legitimately newsworthy information without which there may not be the story that it is. We aren't daxing anybody we are reporting facts the public has a right to know. I mean, we're getting beyond the George Orwell analogy and this is becoming Kafka esque. They want us to censor or blur the very thing that proves that the people inside the company took the action that makes it newsworthy.”
And there is that word “censor” again.
...
You seem to think that only the government can censor so we should just agree to disagree, unless you believe that social media companies have become governments.
Definitions are not arbitrary and cannot package contradictory actions without regard to essentials. A "basic American dictionary" usage expanded to include contradictions is not a valid concept. You continue to ignore that.
There is no excuse for populist conservatives to demand government controls over private publishers in the name of "freedom of speech" by calling them "censors". That is a contradiction exploited for collectivist statism. It helps the left. It is the opposite of Ayn Rand and what this forum is for.
“This is legitimately newsworthy information without which there may not be the story that it is. We aren't daxing anybody we are reporting facts the public has a right to know. I mean, we're getting beyond the George Orwell analogy and this is becoming Kafka esque. They want us to censor or blur the very thing that proves that the people inside the company took the action that makes it newsworthy.”
And there is that word “censor” again.
You can criticize Twitter for what it will not allow on its site all you want to. Twitter's actions surrounding the militant anti-abortion group's propaganda is not a violation of freedom of speech and not "censorship" no matter how many times you keep repeating it. A private company has a free speech right to support or not support any speech it wants to for any reason it chooses or none at all -- just like the bakers being persecuted for what they will not do..
https://youtu.be/u1zVdZ6azpU
That is a mealy-mouthed attempt to promote a populist agenda promoting that companies not have their own standards in the false name of "freedom of speech", but he knows that the First Amendment does not apply to enforce what he wants on private companies. He evades that in his pitch, saying only that he wants "more like" a "speech structure" in which he evades the difference between private and government action.
He also said nothing about your misrepresentation of the previous post. This is not about a CIA plot, which is not an excuse for the conservative demands for government control of private companies.
https://youtu.be/MPPRGxFZToU
Little has been reported on the actual algorithms, which are more sophisticated than single key words, but Pinterest has said that it does not allow "medical misinformation and conspiracies that turn individuals and facilities into targets for harassment or violence". "Live Action" is a dogmatic anti-women's rights religious organization opposing all abortion, beginning at conception, with no exceptions, and is spreading all kinds of nonsense to stampede activists. There is all kinds of discussion on the internet about abortion, which is not "censored", but no one has a duty to support these irrationalists be giving them a platform to incite gullible, breathless followers. This "Project Veritas" drama and hyperbole in the name of "news" is enough to make your ears wilt.