I was just telling another person on here that I posted charts displaying the economic differences under trump in comparison to Obama. Trumps economy thrived and the charts and facts showcased that. It was taken down. There have been other times in which my content has been censored for ridiculous reasons. I believe in freedom, and we have the right to choose what we believe and don’t believe. When we have one or two entities regulating on a mass scale, bias and corruption is something that’s unavoidable. I trust artificial intelligence, and algorithms more than I trust human beings. I believe that we need an unregulated social media platform in which we as individuals choose the information we take in and don’t take in. We have the technologic capabilities to have an algorithm to sensor nudity and death threats. But yes, I don’t need a single entity “protecting me.” I can protect my own thoughts and perceive reality from fiction. That should be the call of the individual, and not one or two biased entities.
Yeah. We basically already tried that and it's clearly not working. Have you seen what sheeple people are? You can influence minds at the drop of a hat these days. People don't have the time, or energy, or inclination (many of them) to try to and wade through all the detritus out there. Yet it's influencing society, often to the detriment of it."I trust artificial intelligence..." Well that makes one of us.If you want feedback on what you feel is the injustice with the chart, etc. you posted which got removed, then we need to see the entire post, not just the chart, but the text around it. Without that, we can't weigh in. (Not that I want to.)
The charts were one of many examples. There’s clearly a bias towards conservative ideology. I again, believe in freedom, and don’t want a single entity to control what I see don’t and don’t see. I don’t want a mother so to speak to control how I think. Also, who are they to determine what’s factual or false when they don’t work in government? Was the admin who took down my post an economist who could actually understand that it meant enough to determine it was a lie? Besides economics is a dismal science. I think allowing a single entity to control what we see and don’t see due to political pressure and personal idealogy is a recipe for disaster.I’m also a firm believer in allowing the people to regulate themselves to an extent. If someone is posting lies and lies, then they will eventually be abandoned by the public. It’s happening to CNN right now. It self regulates. The people need the power, not a government of private entity. Decentralization offers to give the people power again. We as free Americans should have the freedom to see the information we choose and make decisions on how we perceive that information. If we keep doing down this path, it will become very dangerous for our democracy.
Giving a single entity the power to control how an entire generation receives information and thinks seems wildly susceptible to corruption and serves as a disruption towards the free world of our democracy. I again, think this is very dangerous. Just as you think it’s doing good, what happens when you see they’re doing bad things? You can’t stop them because we as society have already given them the power. It can’t easily sway in a positive or negative direction. Within our government, we have checks and balances. With social media, Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey have formed a legal monopoly. There are no checks and balances, and the worst part is that they have crony ties. Hence why they have a clear and evident bias due to political pressure. Do you see the danger in this?
We’ve already seen evidence of this with Black Lives Matter. Social media was taking down anything that depicted the movement in any negative way. Over a billion dollars of infrastructure damage, and many deaths later, they couldn’t regulate it anymore. This notion that America is filled with a bunch of whites supremacist is just false on every level. Most rational individuals would be able to come to this assumption if people could post these stories freely. Jacob Blake was initially falsely reported, and it caused mass riots and looting. Social media promoted the falsely perpetrated story that he was just a man breaking up a fight causing no harm. They took down all the evidence showcasing that actually had violent history with police, and had an officer in a headlock prior to going to the back seat of his car to grab a knife. Now the public thinks that police just shot him because he was black. Now we have mayhem. If people had all of the information from both sides, then they would be able to interpret an accurate assessment of the situation. This is the result of a single entity regulating free thought.
You truly believe that’s all they sensor? My Twitter account has been flagged and censored for posting literal confirmed facts that don’t favor the Democratic Party.
I posted charts that display how well our economy has done under Trump in comparison to Obama, and that was even taken down.
Charts like that aren't easy for anybody to understand, including (presumably) the people moderating the accounts. If it's a matter of a Twitter employee just absentmindedly removing anything pro-Trump, that's a problem and I don't support that. I'd have to look at the chart in question though. I've seen all sorts of different charts that purport to show achievements of Trump, some of which are legitimate and some of which are deeply misleading at best.
It was a chart of CPI, GDP, Job Growth, and middle class income. All factual lol. Either way, shouldn’t the individual have the right to choose what they believe and don’t believe?
Strictly speaking, I don't think ANYBODY choses their beliefs. I can't just decide that I think Santa Claus is real right? Either you believe what you read, or you don't. I think people have a right to post things that are in accordance with the private policies of individual companies that are accountable to public pressure. You cannot be arrested for what you say, but you're not entitled to a platform to say anything anywhere.As a side note, the algorithms to "catch" inaccurate info ate notoriously bad. Some liberal tweeters have been censored just for posting images of signs or other tweets.
Who’s to decide what’s legitimate when economics is a dismal science that’s highly debatable no matter what stance is taking about economic climate?
That's an entirely different topic. Economics may be a contentious "science" (in fact it's considered a soft social science anyways), but things like climate science aren't. Twitter isn't going to censor you for tweeting about Ayn Rand or Hayek. Nor should they. They WILL censor denialism of basic scientific facts.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!