Originally posted by Robtard
Usually when people dodge questions they can't answer without compromising their position, they just don't reply and wait for a page or two to flip. That always seems so much easier to me when I see it.
But I'm choosing to point out why I won't be answering you.
Sorry if this offends, I know sometimes realizing our actions have actual consequences can be disorienting.
And you're right, from now on I'll just let you ramble.
Originally posted by SurturWe flipped the page together! Voltron + Voltron-Lite combine ability, go to Ultimate form
But I'm choosing to point out why I won't be answering you.Sorry if this offends, I know sometimes realizing our actions have actual consequences can be disorienting.
And you're right, from now on I'll just let you ramble.
Certain things are far more regulated than others. Or should I say - certain views are certainly allowed and some aren't. Twitter especially seems pretty bad for it. It's unbelievable that certain things violate their community guidelines and other things don't ("Death to all white people", ISIS recruitment accounts, etc.)
These platforms are regulated already, just with a heavy bias.
Citations would be nice along with proof that the material in question was allowed to remain. Because I don't fault FB and Twitter for someone posting some "Death to all *insert racial type*!", they can't control what people post, they can do it after the fact though by removing the material and banning the user.
But iirc, they rely on algorithms to catch these types of posts and/or people reporting them. With a computer program looking for material, things can get by.
Originally posted by Robtard
By itself, sure.As it relates to the whole debate, the baker who would not bake for gay people was not honest about his bias, he used "but my religion" as a shield for his homophobia and that was okay then.
I don't know any practicing Christian who would be willing to make a gay-cake outside of liberal Christians like me. Of which I now know zero because they all became atheists as we got older. I'm the last one left that I know of from my large group of acquaintances.
The fundamental belief itself is homophobic. It's baked into the religion. lol
As for whether or not media should be regulated, this infamous 4chan thread about twitter bots, made by and maintained by google, appears to be correct:
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/164036759/#q164040937
Hello everyone, this is my first time posting on 4chan, but I need to get this out. And I need to stay anonymous.I work for Google, I'm not going to name the internal tech department for obvious reasons, I don't want anyone to pinpoint who I am. But I'm in tech, and work with AI. I'll explain.
My team and I created AI bots for twitter. These bots are slightly different than regular AI bots, these are remote signal bots, but I'll explain what they do.
My team, and a "human intelligence" team, which is really just a propaganda team, work together to make certain topics trend, and persuade public opinion, which persuades political pressure. We do this by a groupthink method, we have a name for it internally, but "consensus cracking" is a more used name externally. But the bots we created, go into twitter conversations and push a narrative. Some of the bots are verified accounts. And they start by arguing a point of view against someone, and then more bots join in and thumbs up the comment. We are doing it with gun control now. More people see a "consensus" of gun control and people on the fence get persuaded to our narrative, and politicians get pressured by thinking it's actual people. We had whole meetings about 4chan, because you guys, specifically this board, are disrupting the bots. You are basically doing what we are doing, but you are real people. We (not necessarily me) devised a plan to knock you guys from twitter. We accused Russia of doing what WE are doing, and used the narrative to wipe out "suspected bots", which we knew weren't bots at all.
I feel like shit about this. Here's the thing, I'm actually a democrat, and I HATE guns, but i believe in balance of the people more than anything. We are using software as a political tool instead of the will of the people.
This is also a violation of the SEC, we are fabricating twitter users and using them for stocks & advertisers. I signed that I wouldn't discuss this, so I need to stay anonymous.
This is similar to projects I worked on at the last place (chat bots that are made to seem real so people can fire people and pay for SaaS, not political narrative manipulation crap). It's not a "new" thing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know any practicing Christian who would be willing to make a gay-cake outside of liberal Christians like me. Of which I now know zero because they all became atheists as we got older. I'm the last one left that I know of from my large group of acquaintances.The fundamental belief itself is homophobic. It's baked into the religion. lol
Well regardless of your personal acquaintance which I can't speak of, the baker in question was homophobic and used his religion as a shield for it. He was not "honest" in his bias.