MABB v6.6.6

Controversial opinion: i dont think anyone should be banned from social media we combat idipts and harmful opinions through discourse

it'll take awhile for the sale to go through. i wonder if he'll ban that kid who was tweeting about all his flights

Noyka wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 00:36

Controversial opinion: i dont think anyone should be banned from social media we combat idipts and harmful opinions through discourse

I don’t think anyone should be arrested for yelling “fire!” in a movie theater (when there wasn’t one) resulting in several people getting trampled to death. They’ll learn their lesson and won’t ever do it again and no one else would be inspired to copy them after witnessing the horror and the culprit suffering no consequences.






Even free speech has its limits

Mesarthim wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 01:06

Noyka wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 00:36

Controversial opinion: i dont think anyone should be banned from social media we combat idipts and harmful opinions through discourse

I don’t think anyone should be arrested for yelling “fire!” in a movie theater (when there wasn’t one) resulting in several people getting trampled to death. They’ll learn their lesson and won’t ever do it again and no one else would be inspired to copy them after witnessing the horror and the culprit suffering no consequences.






Even free speech has its limits

Thats not comparable to things like twitter sir

It does but not in places like twitter or youtube

You can argue about forming meetups thats about it

Okay, let me clarify then: stochastic terrorism Is a thing.

Just because you don’t commit an act of violence doesn’t mean you can’t inspire someone else to do so and seem justified in doing so. Should we not try to keep influential people from spewing such things? People in general are not rational, it doesn’t take much to convince someone that their insane worldview is correct and act upon it if given enough encouragement. We know that this has happened with social media and those responsible are rarely held accountable. The best you can hope for is to monitor hate speech and act accordingly.

Mesarthim wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 01:23

Okay, let me clarify then: stochastic terrorism Is a thing.

Just because you don’t commit an act of violence doesn’t mean you can’t inspire someone else to do so and seem justified in doing so. Should we not try to keep influential people from spewing such things? People in general are not rational, it doesn’t take much to convince someone that their insane worldview is correct and act upon it if given enough encouragement. We know that this has happened with social media and those responsible are rarely held accountable. The best you can hope for is to monitor hate speech and act accordingly.

Issue is ANYTHING can inspire people to commit acts of violence. Potential isn’t a reason to ban. Isolating others causes more of an us vs them mentality it creates extremism. You combat it by listening as we expect others to do. If there is potential for harm you report not ban ideally authorities can handle dangerous individuals like the hard-on bearer who shot 10 folks before they attack based on threats. We know they dont always because our system sucks and is broken. Violence has been inspired bu blm, nazi rhetoric, obsession, all kinds of shit. If we ban folks for potential to inspire violence pretty much all of us would be banned.

slugbait wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 01:21

Noyka wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 00:36

Controversial opinion: i dont think anyone should be banned from social media we combat idipts and harmful opinions through discourse

When was the last time discourse worked with Republicans? Or Qanon folk? Or Nazis?

You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Extremists do not just exist on one side sadly. Isolating extremists leads to more extremists because it feeds into the idea that they are martyrs its a scary thing.

slugbait wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 02:26

I see your point, but freedom of speech ≠ freedom from consequences. There's literally a terms of service agreement you have to sign to join a social media site and if one violates said agreement and get banned, then that's on them.

Of course but i do feel because the power companies like twitter and youtube have they shouldnt ban as much as they do. Some things like straight up porn, copyrighted naterial, etc no slippery slope argument there. Opinions its iffy a lot if what gets banned on both sides it isnt just conservatives though they pkay martyr much louder.

I don't have any social media anymore so don't care at all.

the free speech thing around this purchase is complete and utter nonsense and you're being fooled if you think elon gives a shit about it. he literally tried to have one of his former employees killed for saying things elon didn't approve of. there are a lot of reasons for him to buy twitter, such as the ability to identify and punish anonymous critics, obtain a massive trove of blackmail material, and obviously promoting his own companies and suppressing negative coverage of them. i promise you he does not give a solitary fuck about free speech, there is a long and detailed history demonstrating the exact opposite!

jawn galliano wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 11:57

the free speech thing around this purchase is complete and utter nonsense and you're being fooled if you think elon gives a shit about it. he literally tried to have one of his former employees killed for saying things elon didn't approve of. there are a lot of reasons for him to buy twitter, such as the ability to identify and punish anonymous critics, obtain a massive trove of blackmail material, and obviously promoting his own companies and suppressing negative coverage of them. i promise you he does not give a solitary fuck about free speech, there is a long and detailed history demonstrating the exact opposite!

word

also i never used twitter and couldn't give less of a shit from a personal point of view about this sale

i was a staunch anti-twitter partisan in the site's early days but i caved and made an account years ago because it was the best way to stay abreast of developments in the professional street fighter 4 world

i don't even post on there but i am still hopelessly addicted to the timeline. ten years later and i've abandoned fighting games to take up the mantle of 'hard-on bearer who thinks the CIA is behind everything bad that's happened in the last 70 years' (which is 100% correct). it has been a wild ride

musk is the cia incarnate btw

I check on some bands twitters, but it's seldom

He'll probably rename it to Twatter.

Well maybe after he buys Twatter, he'll end world hunger?

jawn galliano wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 11:57

the free speech thing around this purchase is complete and utter nonsense and you're being fooled if you think elon gives a shit about it. he literally tried to have one of his former employees killed for saying things elon didn't approve of. there are a lot of reasons for him to buy twitter, such as the ability to identify and punish anonymous critics, obtain a massive trove of blackmail material, and obviously promoting his own companies and suppressing negative coverage of them. i promise you he does not give a solitary fuck about free speech, there is a long and detailed history demonstrating the exact opposite!

My rant wasn’t about him hes dirty just like all of them more that I think bag of diarrhea inside another, bigger bag of diarrhea and ithers should have never been banned to start with. Twitter doesn’t believe in free speech, no big tech company does. Him buying it wont be any different than Bezos and the Washington Post. Youtube is the worst offender with how they treat creators though.

Going that far to purchase a low-income company in order to allow a wider range of acceptable opinions is pretty stupid. He'll probably make the enterprise better in that sense, but who cares? It takes less than a minute to get a different perspective or a hot take on topics from other sources that don't condense complex issues down to limited, often snarky statements. Besides, a lot of loudmouths that cling to Twitter are apparently convinced they have life figured out anyway (no discussion allowed) so they'll probably just go find some other echo chamber to circle-jerk in.

But it's his paper wealth (which could easily evaporate in a snap) so who cares. Zuckerberg lost about $30bn in "money" in a day when Facebook crashed and hasn't since recovered.

That said, I think MABB should band together and purchase MySpace. I hear some of us are making bank working 60 hours per week, so it shouldn't take long to put in a juicy offer

MABBSpace

Wonder if Tom would still be our fellating lover?

My real name is Tom so the answer is yes

User wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2022, 14:37

musk is the cia incarnate btw

this is literally true, musk is tightly integrated with the military/defense-industrial complex. in the early days of spacex, musk worked with mike griffin, who was the head of in-q-tel (the CIA proprietary that invests in early stage tech firms working on products of use to the agency) and got elon to focus on gearing the firm to build and launch spy satellites for the US government. spacex later got a $400M cash infusion from NASA at the behest of mike griffin, who went on to work as a NASA administrator in charge of the commercial orbital transportation systems. they didn't even have a functioning product at that stage!

I'm in on the MABBSpace

how can we monetize mabb

we need more tits

Titcoin

I'm game.