Posted on 09/12/2018 2:14:40 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
“Actually no, because this only means we’ll probably be swamped with even more Q posts over here to wade through on the way to real news.”
Yea, like the “real news” about the length of Serena Williams’ armpit hair and other nonsense that amuses the minds of anti-Q dullards.
pamphlet’s going to have to go back to mowing lawns, and move back into mom’s basement.
Perhaps Q should send letters to the NY Times.
Serena’s boyfriend at work?
I see the tolerant, understanding, open-minded, free speech advocates have been triggered.
Sieg Heil, snowflakes!
well how do we know that there are not government people behind the censorship? I mean these are their lefty buddies.
Censorship by proxy. Very dangerous.
First they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a conspiracy loon.
Then they came for the white supremacists, and I did not speak out—
Because I detested the white supremacists.
Then they came for Q Anon, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not believe their tales.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.
the reason is even if Q is bull shit...the person doing it has most of those fallowing his posts researching the different connections that people have in politics. they are looking at how politicians like Maxine waters can spend years in the house with no real source of incone out side the money she gets for that connection and end up worth millions. the group outed Alex jones for disinformation, the group is dangerouse for any group that does not want to be looked at that is up to illegal activity under the guise of being a polititcion or working in the bureaucracy. all that is being reported in the media is the weird shit that some of the more out there fallowers believe....the core group are those that mistrust everything they hear and see The Q poster had not tried to monetize and has gotten a lot of individuals to research the issues. don’t trust him. but find out for your self through sevral sources.
that has never been posted by Q but by independent people ho fallow his posts....claiming that its from Q is like some one claiming that because I fallow free republic postings that I agree with every thing posted in here there are idiots everywhere that think a claim is proof.
Expect more of this. There’s really no downside. Even if there were “forced” to undo the action (I’m not suggesting they will reverse but even in that case)
1) A lot of people accepted that it’s normal/acceptable to shut down speech they don’t like. If nothing else it’s “part of life” rather than something to be concerned about. Growing up with that will shape kids’ opinions even if the company ALWAYs reverses their actions. And that attitude will transfer to accepting government censorship. Maybe not for a generation but it will happen if censorship is ok.
2) They’ll learn more about what to do/say to avoid the pressure next time. They’ll “do better” next time they want to shut down a certain group or opinion. You can bet that every time someone challenges their censorship they have lawyers, psychologists, public relations, and algorithm experts working on how it can be done next time with better arguments for why “it’s ok”. When they learn enough they’ll be able to shut down almost anyone with the right PR and legal reactions to not suffer many consequences.
3) People with certain opinions will be less likely to tweet. They could reverse their decision and still have a big impact on the future of the group they shut down.
4) They’ll no doubt be willing to share their learnings with “the right government officials”.
Those are the things I’m sure they’ve talked about and considered. But there are other things I’d bet they haven’t spend 2 seconds on which will lead to unexpected consequences.
1) People will stop using twitter (or generally “social media”) for certain opinions
2) “Experts” will use twitter even more in the future to predict elections. This makes a lot of sense if “social media” is allowed to track “social opinion”.
3) Elections results will be even further from “expectations” since people with “certain opinions” don’t participate (banned or gave up) in the conversations “experts” watch for “social preferences”.
4) Lot’s of yelling about fraud and voter suppression since election results don’t “match social media”.
Um, no. You shouldn't accept anything on the internet as "probably true" unless and until it's censored.
Bkmrk.
Welcome to “democracy”.
The problem I have is like in academia, the broadcast news and print media, we—and our views—are being choked out of the public discourse.
They can say we’re racists, homophobes, sexists, and evil, and eventually, there’s no one left to dispute a single word.
Then what?
They come for us physically?
Read post no. 18.
I understand and I feel the same way. We are using their media. It’s their playground and their rules. They essentially own it all. And because they own it all, we are being silenced.
We have got to find platforms where we can express our opinions. That is not an easy task. But we can’t thrive in their echo chambers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.