• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Latest Lefty Move Against Free Speech

Jack Hays said:
I am resolutely nonideological.
Click to expand...

You claim to be, yet your posts belie that.

You incessantly harp on the "left" and absolve the "right." Don't bother trying to deny it.
 
Jack Hays said:
That is not the kind of value assignment under discussion here. And if you want your insult against conservatives to resonate you should address it to a conservative.
Click to expand...
Your ideology is consistent in its attacks on liberals and parroting the talking points of conservatives.

Whatever box you've checked on your voter form isn't particularly relevant, your patterns are.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It's funny how, when wrong-wingers speak of “science” and “scientific research”, they very often are not speaking of anything to do with genuine science, but of wrong-wing parodies of science that are willfully employed as sources of propaganda to promote a wrong-wing agenda, while giving them what they perceive as an excuse to accuse those who oppose this wrong-wing agenda of being “anti-science”.
Click to expand...

Lets pray about it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the study looks at both sides and found that right wingers do it more. You're just upset because the results demonstrated that YOUR side is more guilty of partisanship in social media. That's your motivation for being dishonest about the study.
Click to expand...

They came up with more right wing hits because they targeted right wing keywords.
 
Kobie said:
You claim to be, yet your posts belie that.

You incessantly harp on the "left" and absolve the "right." Don't bother trying to deny it.
Click to expand...

The right is less dangerous now. In the 1990's that was not the case.
 
Unrepresented said:
Your ideology is consistent in its attacks on liberals and parroting the talking points of conservatives.

Whatever box you've checked on your voter form isn't particularly relevant, your patterns are.
Click to expand...

Ah. So pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, pro-same sex marriage, support for a national income floor, support for infrastructure projects are right wing positions? When did that happen?
 
Jack Hays said:
It should not be interested in monitoring and judging individuals' tweets.
Click to expand...

The money goes for research. The government did not go "hey, let's get some one to research this", what happened was researchers applied for federal assistance. The researchers are the ones reading people's public comments, as part of research. She we not fund any research unless we can prove the results won't be embarrassing to conservatives?
 
Redress said:
The money goes for research. The government did not go "hey, let's get some one to research this", what happened was researchers applied for federal assistance. The researchers are the ones reading people's public comments, as part of research. She we not fund any research unless we can prove the results won't be embarrassing to conservatives?
Click to expand...

The federal government should not have any role, including funding, in such research.
 
Jack Hays said:
Read the OP.
Click to expand...

It does not prove that claim. It does not even offer any evidence to support the idea that they used more right wing keywords. In fact the article lists 2, one left, one right. Facts, they are good, you need some.
 
Jack Hays said:
The federal government should not have any role, including funding, in such research.
Click to expand...

It should not fund any research, or just research you don't like because it might make you far right wingers look bad?
 
Redress said:
It does not prove that claim. It does not even offer any evidence to support the idea that they used more right wing keywords. In fact the article lists 2, one left, one right. Facts, they are good, you need some.
Click to expand...

". . . . But there’s much more to the story. Focusing in particular on political speech, Truthy keeps track of which Twitter accounts are using hashtags such as #teaparty and #dems. It estimates users’ “partisanship.” It invites feedback on whether specific Twitter users, such as the Drudge Report, are “truthy” or “spamming.” And it evaluates whether accounts are expressing “positive” or “negative” sentiments toward other users or memes. . . ."

"dems" but not "repubs?" "teaparty" is not a "dem" equivalent. Where is, for example, "occupy?" The "Drudge Report" but not "Daily Kos?"
 
Redress said:
It should not fund any research, or just research you don't like because it might make you far right wingers look bad?
Click to expand...

It should not have any role in funding research that identifies and judges the merits of individuals' opinions.
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . . But there’s much more to the story. Focusing in particular on political speech, Truthy keeps track of which Twitter accounts are using hashtags such as #teaparty and #dems. It estimates users’ “partisanship.” It invites feedback on whether specific Twitter users, such as the Drudge Report, are “truthy” or “spamming.” And it evaluates whether accounts are expressing “positive” or “negative” sentiments toward other users or memes. . . ."

"dems" but not "repubs?" "teaparty" is not a "dem" equivalent. Where is, for example, "occupy?" The "Drudge Report" but not "Daily Kos?"
Click to expand...

Those are what we call "examples". They are not all inclusive, and the author of the editorial chose ones to try and make his point, to sound alarming to you fringe right wingers. To actually have evidence of what you claim, you would need a list of hashtags tracked, and do some counting. Get back to me when you got that, because without it, you have no evidence of targeting you right wingers.
 
Redress said:
Those are what we call "examples". They are not all inclusive, and the author of the editorial chose ones to try and make his point, to sound alarming to you fringe right wingers. To actually have evidence of what you claim, you would need a list of hashtags tracked, and do some counting. Get back to me when you got that, because without it, you have no evidence of targeting you right wingers.
Click to expand...

If it's a fair sampling to an FCC member then I'll let that stand until evidence to the contrary is provided.
 
Jack Hays said:
If it's a fair sampling to an FCC member then I'll let that stand until evidence to the contrary is provided.
Click to expand...

Oh for god's sake...

Why do you blindly believe anything some one says that you want to believe, despite them offering no evidence nor in this case any evidence that they even have access to that evidence, and despite his not being an expert on the topic(he is a lawyer, not a scientist), which makes this a double appeal to nonauthority.

It should also be pointed out that Ajit Pai is hardly a neutral source, and is in fact a partisan republican. I suspect that more than anything is why you blindly believe anything he says. I personally would be embarrassed to blindly believe anything I am told like that, but you can do as you choose.
 
Redress said:
Oh for god's sake...

Why do you blindly believe anything some one says that you want to believe, despite them offering no evidence nor in this case any evidence that they even have access to that evidence, and despite his not being an expert on the topic(he is a lawyer, not a scientist), which makes this a double appeal to nonauthority.

It should also be pointed out that Ajit Pai is hardly a neutral source, and is in fact a partisan republican. I suspect that more than anything is why you blindly believe anything he says. I personally would be embarrassed to blindly believe anything I am told like that, but you can do as you choose.
Click to expand...

He's a responsible man who has no record of false statements on public issues.
 
Redress said:
Oh for god's sake...

Why do you blindly believe anything some one says that you want to believe, despite them offering no evidence nor in this case any evidence that they even have access to that evidence, and despite his not being an expert on the topic(he is a lawyer, not a scientist), which makes this a double appeal to nonauthority.

It should also be pointed out that Ajit Pai is hardly a neutral source, and is in fact a partisan republican. I suspect that more than anything is why you blindly believe anything he says. I personally would be embarrassed to blindly believe anything I am told like that, but you can do as you choose.
Click to expand...

Here are the "Truthy" researchers themselves pointing out that they're focused on right-leaning tweets.

[h=3]While data mining for political astroturfers, truthy.indiana ...[/h]newsinfo.iu.edu › Newsroom Home › Indiana University Media Relations
Oct 25, 2010 - Truthy.indiana.edu, the website created by researchers at Indiana University Bloomington's School of Informatics and Computing to root out ...
 
Jack Hays said:
He's a responsible man who has no record of false statements on public issues.
Click to expand...

Which does not make him an expert on the topic, nor does it make him right. That is why evidence is so important, something you entirely lack for your claims. So far you have claimed it is a move against free speech, but have yet to show any actual move against free speech, and claimed that more conservative terms where looked at then liberal ones, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. And note that Ajit Pai does not even make your latter claim, that is one you made up all on your own.
 
Redress said:
Which does not make him an expert on the topic, nor does it make him right. That is why evidence is so important, something you entirely lack for your claims. So far you have claimed it is a move against free speech, but have yet to show any actual move against free speech, and claimed that more conservative terms where looked at then liberal ones, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. And note that Ajit Pai does not even make your latter claim, that is one you made up all on your own.
Click to expand...

Please see #247.
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . . But there’s much more to the story. Focusing in particular on political speech, Truthy keeps track of which Twitter accounts are using hashtags such as #teaparty and #dems. It estimates users’ “partisanship.” It invites feedback on whether specific Twitter users, such as the Drudge Report, are “truthy” or “spamming.” And it evaluates whether accounts are expressing “positive” or “negative” sentiments toward other users or memes. . . ."

"dems" but not "repubs?" "teaparty" is not a "dem" equivalent. Where is, for example, "occupy?" The "Drudge Report" but not "Daily Kos?"
Click to expand...

You don't know how Twitter works. There are generally accepted and used hashtags -- "repubs" is not one of them.

Also, I don't think you understand how examples work either. "Such as the Drudge Report" does not mean "The Drudge Report, but not Daily Kos."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom