Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 2099
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by jimbob » Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:51 pm

Not sure if this is genuine:

Image
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

EACLucifer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by EACLucifer » Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pm

jimbob wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:51 pm
Not sure if this is genuine:

Image
It almost certainly isn't, it took me about twenty seconds to check that Pornhub's twitter account is just their name.

Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:43 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pm
jimbob wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:51 pm
Not sure if this is genuine:

Image
It almost certainly isn't, it took me about twenty seconds to check that Pornhub's twitter account is just their name.

Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
There are screenshots* showing that Fox News has been reporting it as fact. Not that that should change your assessment.

Herainestold
Snowbonk
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Herainestold » Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pm

Do you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Sciolus » Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pm
Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
hxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pm
Do you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.

What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 4865
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pm
Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
hxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.
The journalist Nicholas Kristof did an exposé where he found huge amounts of user-uploaded content was non-consensual and/or involving minors - pretty grim stuff. So rather than attempt to moderate each video, Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 (link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).
THINK BIG AND UPEND THE SYSTEM

#ShowYourStripes

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Fishnut » Sun Jan 10, 2021 6:04 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pm
Do you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.

What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
This. I think the banning of Trump has conflated two different issues for a lot of people and it's really hard to get them to untangle them. The first issue is, does everyone get to have access to a public platform to speak their mind, unfiltered from formal oversight regardless of what they say? If you decide that there are limits on speech then the next issue is who gets to decide and enforce those limits. We have a situation currently where we have decided that there are limits on free speech (I don't know anyone who complained when ISIS and its supporters were blocked on twitter) but we haven't decided where those limits are and the private companies running the platforms lack external oversight and consistency in their application of their own rules.

I don't know what the solution is.

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Fishnut » Sun Jan 10, 2021 6:26 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pm
Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
hxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.
The journalist Nicholas Kristof did an exposé where he found huge amounts of user-uploaded content was non-consensual and/or involving minors - pretty grim stuff. So rather than attempt to moderate each video, Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 (link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).
The Serious Inquiries podcast did an episode on that article, looking at the sources of his data. It really looks like Kristoff was duped by a right-wing anti-p.rn organisation called Exodus Cry which is the ultimate source of a lot of his arguments, through its TraffickingHub Campaign. I didn't realise but Pornhub already has human screeners who watch every video before they're uploaded. They also have trusted flaggers who can take down videos immediately without them having to go through any adjudication process. They've had processes to report revenge p.rn since 2015. That's not to say there aren't problems with Pornhub, but compared to other social media platforms they're doing pretty well.

Pornhub was also one of the best places for sex workers to work online, with many having their own channels. On the podcast the comparison was made to Patreon for podcasters - it's the main source of revenue for a lot of people. As Visa and Mastercard have blocked payments as a result of this article, the result is making their lives a lot more difficult and, ironically, put them more at risk of sexual exploitation.

It's also worth noting that while Kristoff said that searching brought up titles with non-consensual or underage sex, it's unclear how much of that was the case and how much of that was marketing. It's disgusting that people want to watch non-consensual sex but it's also worth remembering that p.rn actors are, ultimately, actors. Just like they faking their orgasms, they can also fake non-consensual sex.

ETA: please don't think I'm tolerating non-consensual or underage sex. Any case of child sex abuse is one too many, any case of revenge p.rn is one too many. But the sort of sweeping cull that Pornhub did isn't the solution.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 4865
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:13 pm

Thanks Fishnut - I hadn't heard that side of the story. I have seen various complaints from people over the years about how hard it is to get non-consensual content of themselves removed from PornHub, so assumed they took a fairly laissez-faire approach. I guess content moderation is just extremely difficult to do well - as you say, it's not really possible to tell just from watching a video whether the people involved wanted to be doing that, having it filmed and then uploaded to the internet.

AIUI what they tried to do was allow verified content creators to continue uploading their own content, but banned third-party uploads, but I have no clue how their verification works in practice. Obviously the lack of card payments processing must make things enormously difficult for people depending on PornHub for their income - especially as more traditional avenues of sex work aren't pandemic-compatible.

Long term, I think allowing verified workers and studios to control their own videos while preventing random uploads from the great unwashed might be the best way to keep everyone safe, even if the sudden kneejerk mass-deletions and the withdrawal of payments processing have had a bad short-term impact. But I'm not sure.
THINK BIG AND UPEND THE SYSTEM

#ShowYourStripes

Herainestold
Snowbonk
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Herainestold » Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:22 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pm
Do you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.

What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
I am totally in favour of censoring the internet. I just don't want unaccountable capitalists doing it.
It is fine when Big Tech bans Donald Trump and his henchmen. What are you going to say when they ban AOC and Jeremy Corbyn?

User avatar
Grumble
Dorkwood
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Grumble » Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:32 pm

Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:22 pm
dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pm
Do you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.

What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
I am totally in favour of censoring the internet. I just don't want unaccountable capitalists doing it.
It is fine when Big Tech bans Donald Trump and his henchmen. What are you going to say when they ban AOC and Jeremy Corbyn?
Who has censored the internet? Stop them at once!

Do you know what the internet is?
I know this is vitriol, no solution, spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don’t you?

Herainestold
Snowbonk
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Herainestold » Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:41 pm

Grumble wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:32 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:22 pm
dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm

Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.

What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
I am totally in favour of censoring the internet. I just don't want unaccountable capitalists doing it.
It is fine when Big Tech bans Donald Trump and his henchmen. What are you going to say when they ban AOC and Jeremy Corbyn?
Who has censored the internet? Stop them at once!

Do you know what the internet is?
It is a series of tubes.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 4865
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:19 pm

Mod note: some content-free abuse moved to The Pit where it belongs.
THINK BIG AND UPEND THE SYSTEM

#ShowYourStripes

User avatar
Sciolus
Snowbonk
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Sciolus » Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:06 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:54 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:41 pm
Interestingly, some content producers do use Pornhub for non-p.rn content either because what they are covering is otherwise controversial (InRange is a firearms/history channel that decided to switch to self-demonetisation and distributed distribution as an antcensorship position) or because Youtube are rather capricious with moderation (though it didn't spur them to switch to PornHub, RoosterTeeth were getting demonetised on stuff like RWBY episodes which really don't warrant demonitisation)
hxxps://www. pornhub. com/model/changhsumath666/videosl --- a series of maths lectures. (hxxp protocol: videos are SFW but the rest of the site and accompanying adverts aren't. In case you didn't know.) Apparently Pornhub have had a bit of a crack-down on who they allow to post, for reasons according to which particular conspiracy theory you favour, but this guy is one of the few individuals who were specifically allowed to remain.
The journalist Nicholas Kristof did an exposé where he found huge amounts of user-uploaded content was non-consensual and/or involving minors - pretty grim stuff. So rather than attempt to moderate each video, Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 (link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).
Apologies if my comment came across as facetious --- the forum where I learned about this mostly favoured rather more barking conspiracy theories.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:26 pm

Something Trump actually cares about might be happening: the PGA tour apparently says it will never go to his golf courses again, including stripping his courses of hosting the 2022 championship.

https://twitter.com/angry__saint/status ... 97376?s=19

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:51 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 9:26 pm
Something Trump actually cares about might be happening: the PGA tour apparently says it will never go to his golf courses again, including stripping his courses of hosting the 2022 championship.

https://twitter.com/angry__saint/status ... 97376?s=19
This doesn't seem to be true yet, but is supposedly under consideration.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stephanie » Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:16 pm

Trump supporters on Parler are moving to Telegram potentially. Some are probably also going to Gab.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:35 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:16 pm
Trump supporters on Parler are moving to Telegram potentially. Some are probably also going to Gab.
Just so long as they are separated from most of people that could fall into their rabbit hole, that's a net benefit.

Telegram is just direct messaging, isn't it? So that also just keeps them isolated.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Stephanie » Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:43 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:35 pm
Stephanie wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 10:16 pm
Trump supporters on Parler are moving to Telegram potentially. Some are probably also going to Gab.
Just so long as they are separated from most of people that could fall into their rabbit hole, that's a net benefit.

Telegram is just direct messaging, isn't it? So that also just keeps them isolated.
Yeah, though I think you can have groups.

Pretty sure most of Mastodon defederated from Gab, so that's fairly isolated too.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Millennie Al
Snowbonk
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:33 am

dyqik wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:37 pm
Herainestold wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 4:49 pm
Do you really want tech bros, oligarchs and billionaires censoring the internet for you? Social media and the internet need to be regulated by some sort of public process, not private entities.
Censorship of the internet has nothing to do with this discussion. None of the companies here are censoring the internet.

What you are advocating for here is forcing private companies to publish speech they they don't want to publish, and for which they may have legal liability.
It has everything to do with the discussion. Censorship is relevant when the intent and effect is to limit one person's ability to communicate with others based on the content of what they want to say. You can have state sponsored censorship and private censorship. When large providers provide a virtual monopoly on communication, then their actions are as significant as states'.

The rule for private companies should be that they get to choose if they are going to moderate content or not. If they moderate it, they are fully liable for anything said on their platform, while if they carry everything regardless then they get immunity from liability, That was the motivation for section 230.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
bolo
Snowbonk
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by bolo » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:14 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:33 am
The rule for private companies should be that they get to choose if they are going to moderate content or not. If they moderate it, they are fully liable for anything said on their platform, while if they carry everything regardless then they get immunity from liability, That was the motivation for section 230.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you have it backwards. The motivation for Section 230 was make the law not be the way you say it should be. Paragraph (c)(2) of Section 230 explicitly allows companies to moderate objectionable content, even if it is constitutionally protected as free speech, without the fact of that moderation making the company liable for other content that it allows through.

There is a useful explainer, with some discussion of proposed reforms, here:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10306

User avatar
Boustrophedon
After Pie
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by Boustrophedon » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:03 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 5:50 pm
Pornhub have banned all uploads from unverified users https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55231181 ( link is safe for work - the initialism in the url refers to the British Broadcasting Company).
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Remember it's only a coup if it's from the coup d'état region of France, otherwise it just sparkling white terrorism.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by dyqik » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:31 pm

This is interesting: Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino and hundreds of other talk show hosts have been threatened with immediate termination if they dispute the election results on air:
Talk-radio owner orders conservative hosts to temper election fraud rhetoric
By Paul Farhi

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

EACLucifer
Dorkwood
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Social media bans for Trump and his supporters

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:52 pm

One interesting thing to note about Trump and Twitter.

Sure, he has other ways to reach people. He could give press conferences, release videos to the media or whatever.

But he isn't, and that's because they don't do quite what Twitter did for Trump. Twitter was the way he could get his thoughts* out without any intervention, any attempt from his staff to cool things down, or any pushback or questioning from journalists. That was what he needed to propagate his b.llsh.t - a one way system where he could rant however he pleased and get it published and just ignore how it was received.

Without that, his ability to grift, and his ability to control the Republican party, is greatly weakened.



*Or what passed for thought, at least

Post Reply