general
Discord ID: 463054787336732683
845,392 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 666/3382
| Next
the first time when people expected its okay,
It was 500 people, the "Largest gathering of alt-right in America"
FBI last statistics of the far right White Supremist and KKK were around 10K.
and this year it was 5
10K out of 300 million citizens.
350 million
350mill^
The last Unite The Right rally only had 12 participants and they left after 30 minutes.
exactly
Why?
Everyone there was either far left or liberals. They then turned against the cops.
that should tell you about A, the commitment of the alt-right to their own beliefs
And about the amount of impact they had
They barely have a impact.
exactly
But what I worry about... with the anti-white agenda being pushed by the media is attempt to push more whites towards the far right.
the Alt-right is a boogieman of the Media to scare people into staying fanaticall Left, cuz "Ohnoz, the nazis coming to get me"
Aka reason I am saying they are bolstering the right.
Far right^
It is so weird how Timcast has made me way more paranoid than any hyperpartisan propaganda media outlet
It wont push them as much "far right"
But it will push people away from the left
Its the beanie, it tends to make you feel uneasy when you're exposed for a while
They are attempting to push people to the far right.
Aka they are trying to bolster the far right.
Because without the far right, they have no cause.
They feed off each other.
yes
Any of y'all read Robert Greene?
but they forget that 90% of the people, really don't want to be violent, they just wanna be left alone and have their own happy lives
Go out on dates, have sex, drinking with buddies, play games
Anytime a far right individual appears at a event, they use that as justification for lumping everyone there as a far right.
Making it look much worse than it actually is.
look at how they treat Tim
Even if you say "I'm not alt-right, i'm a leftist" you're branded as a white supremacist
I know.
Reason I am peeved.
then again, the alt-right is socialists too <:TimThink:482277772497125378>
so alt-right IS left
meaning that the left just hates the left, cuz left is wrong
Tim is a amazing guy, he tries hard to be unbiased and respectful to both moderate right and left.
He wants everyone to get along which is a noble thing.
He wants people to have conversations, to debate, to return to civility.
But they want to paint him as a bad guy, corrupting his message and making him look like a villain.
That last article by Becca Lewis really set me of.
same is with Sargon, Jordan Peterson, Styx and most of these "right-leaning" pundits
People who think an ethnostate will bring cohesion seem to forget that half these retard socjus people are also white and will have to live with them... ๐ค
No one cares to hear nonsensational stuff
That's the other thing
I am so sick of the left leaning mainstream media.
Why are whites trying to kill themselves? lol
The newspapers and the tv channels.
they also forget that the west once WAS a white-ethnostate
What happened? ๐
minorities made things worse?
Haha dab
but it was an ethnostate, how did minorities come in? ๐
they let them in because people didn't think about it at the time
What happen, we realized it was wrong to enslave other races and it helps us grow by broadening our pool of ideas. We started the march towards progress.
People who are for ethnostates, forget that over time, that "We must stay pure" mentality erodes, and before long you have a mixed-state again
What have the unenslaved done that was productive since becoming free?
During the time of their freeing up to the civil rights movements, they done a lot to help our nation.
Like codifying jazz? ๐
becamse cheap labor! ๐
So we can't really discount their contributions. It is when they became part of the democrat party, the same party that enslaved them that they were held back and staled.
All thanks to the victim mentality that was instilled into them.
Yeah
I fucking hate it
also, the enslaved brought us Rock 'n Roll, and other music ๐
so they're good in my book
They used to be physically enslaved, now they are enslaved through the mind.
they need dragon energy
Black conservatives are now working towards freeing their brothers & sisters from the enslavement of the mind.
I applaud and support them.
Democrats for so long have hurt our nation.
It is time for them to realize their faults and change.
" Extremism pays. Thatโs why Silicon Valley isnโt shutting it down."
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
This was said in reference to the alt right -__-
Anyways I am heading to bed.
Silicon valley isn't alt right, they are freaking alt left.
They are heavily against conservatives, republicans, independents.
They want to force people to take sides.
Place them in bubbles, segregate people digitally.
silicon valley are corporatists
Whatever they can use to earn more money they'll side with
and since the current moguls of Silicon valley sell peoples information, and Leftists are all about virtue signalling, they sell big bank on those idiots
cuz thsoe people freely give info to be able to show how virtuous they are
AND they're easy to manipulate, so sillicon valley sides with them
Actually there been documentation regarding silicon valley CEOs and employees as very political, using the tools they have to enforce their own socialist ideology.
They are very heavily left leaning and they use their power to influence the social media.
Point is
Even if they are loosing money, they still push towards their ideology.
They're basically talking about themselves
they're not losing money
Youtube costs money for google, but they use the information YT gathers across all their platforms to sell ads, and it nets them profit
same with others
and those that DO lose money, bleed out really fast
Still they are not driven by profit Dr. Wol, they are driven by ideology.
Profit is a add bonus to them.
money does a funny thing with ideology
Lol this gets more prophetic every year
i don't get it Neptune
If they were driven by profit, we wouldn't be seeing the banning and deplatforming of individuals.
sure we would
Hell mastercard wouldn't have denied service to Alex Jones.
Advertisers fear negative brand association
the shitstorm of purity the MSM and Leftist hatemobs cause, makes companies afraid
That is Advertisers, not Silicon Valley.
cuz they fear it will cost them money, because they dont understand that this is a very small minority who doesn't even buy into things
Sillicon Valley does it too
Anyways I am heading to bed.
any company wants to sell things, goods, services, information
yes
go sleep ๐
Later all.
cya
Did you watch the whole thing?
cba
12 minutes of shitty Sonic snake quotes
Well that's not what it is at all.
Want me to find a script?
why not just tell me what i'm supposed to consider a prophecy
Lots of things they mention
Colonel:You exercise your right to "freedom" and this is the result.
All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt.
The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems.
Rose:Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum.
They stay inside their little ponds,
leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
but thats how its always been
Well that's just a piece of the dialogue
But anyway
This sounds pretty bad. I think this has more to do with EU rather than Big Tech. Getting a government involved in being able to tell these companies what to do is not the answer.
who komm susser todd rn
<:reimusun:319184406340173824> ๐ซ โ
Internet constitution! ๐
only solution
Doc, who do you trust to write one? Reddit? 4chan? Congress? If the US writes it the EU will just write their own.
If Silicon Valley was smart they would only censor illegal content period .
They want to make money ๐ฐ not police people
they ain't smart, they are greedy
and Nazis
im not worried about silicon valley probs gonna end up in the ocean soon anyways
<a:Water:393797164192759813>
I'd trust anyone to write one @Poppy Rider ,
If what is written is neutral enough, fair enough and solid enough so its not to be abused is a different issue.
Remember, even the US constitution wasn't completed when it was first accepted, what with amendments still being added
But it's a better approach than letting them freely take peoples speech away in favor of others,
And to "regulate" only leaves them open to whoever is in charge to call the shots.
You need a bill of rights, not a system of regulation
I would tend to agree but we are not in the good old days. I don't really mind YT or FB banning ppl, it sucks and it's unfair but it's not the end of the world, the net is a big place. I think a site like YT has the right to remove anyone for anyreason and I would not like that right taken away through regulation or a bill of rights.
I think we can all agree that government regulation is possibly the worst thing that can happen here. But a bill of rights is not much different. Look at the people in power, the people that would be writing it and voting on it. These people can not be trusted with such an important task right now.
FB is falling out of favour in the west and it's a trend that will happen in Africa as well. I think we should ride this out for a decade or so and see where the chips land.
We are like a toddler right now that's learning to run, we need to be allowed to fall over a few times.
Tbh, I think government regulation is required. Youtube and twitter have way too big of a monopoly on online speech
That's nonsense. The tech industry has formed a kind of cartel and if it is allowed to, it is completely possible to seal a given website off the net. Google search alone makes or breaks businesses.
The question is Youtube more of a newspaper or more like a telephone. I think the answer there is obvious. Google makes very little content on it's own and is really just hosting and indexing content for other people. It's much more like a telephone or the postal mail. We wouldn't claim that AT&T has a "right to deny phone service for any reason." We also know what happens when the telecoms are allowed to cheat--They elected the only president to have lost a majority of the electorate and get elected anyway by leaking information to their preferred political party.
When big companies like Google or Western Union can essentially dictate democracy by simply refusing service, it becomes a question of whether we really live in a free state.
As it is, Europe is regulating the internet but Europe doesn't have the same commitment to freedom of speech the US does. The US *must* counter-regulate.
As I see it "where the chips land" likely involves a de-facto oligarchy. That should really be avoided.
When you are talking on the phone to are not broadcasting your self to the world. YT is far more of a newspaper or free TV network and they absolutely have the right to say what is and is not shown.
Google is a different story.
Now you're being really odd. How do you plan to regulate Google but not Youtube?
I'd say it would make more sense to be reversed. Google Search is extremely hard to regulate, let's put it aside for a bit. Google is just a company, it's not the company that's the problem, it's the behavior.
YouTube is much more of a platform. A newspaper has an editor and a very limited number of articles a day. YouTube is automated and houses exabytes of videos uploaded by people so other people can watch them. If you want an idea of broadcasting yourself to the world, think then of ham radio. Youtube is much closer to infrastructure (a telephone) than a meticulously curated product produced by a dedicated team of people. It also serves as a public square, which makes the "broadcasting" argument against regulation even more dubious.
In the US, there is an argument that it is not really justified to use land control to completely disrupt political speech and organization.
Telecoms are explicitly not allowed to deny phone service for this very reason.
*some exceptions for economic arguments, like cost of laying wire and serving an area. Usually there's some kind of government deal in these cases to cover the costs.
YouTube at scale shouldn't really have these kinds of limits, so a blanket "no censorship" rule (with some minor, specific exceptions like stuff that's illegal) is practical.
You aren't going to just replace YouTube either. The network effects are strong. And there is a strong viewer-producer migration issue. YouTube would have to become nigh unusable to trigger a mass migration.
We also have seen what happened when Gab tried to replace Twitter. It's on neither the Apple nor Android store.
And then there's Freestrtr, and it's only a matter of time before they come for BitChute and Minds.
Again, Google can make stuff effectively vanish by removing it from search. Or removing it from the Android store.
In the 90s, Microsoft got broken up in an antitrust suit for bundling a browser with an OS. Now we live in walled gardens of curated apps where the platform has unlimited power to decide who can and cannot do business..
When Android has 80% of the market, and Apple has roughly the other 20%, this is a problem.
And the two companies have something of a revolving door of people.
But that requires regulation of the apple/android store. Not necessarily regulation of Apple or Google themselves.
@Poppy Rider If you want to talk about this a bit further, feel free to PM or flag me. I need to go.
real life stuff just happened.
:shirt: Check out **Tim Pool's TeeSpring Merch**:
<https://teespring.com/stores/timcast>
:dollar: Support **Tim Pool** on Patreon (exclusive rewards available):
<https://www.patreon.com/timcast>
The influencer network thing... Well, it does claim to utilise a snowball system. Which is genuinly useful to get some estimation of groups youd not gain access to such as crime syndicates. But if they did genuinly use a snowball system, how can they possibly have come across Chris Raygun but not Lacy Green?
@pratel i read your wall of messages good shit bro ๐
@Poppy Rider Poppy harlow im not for banning people when they constantly evolve terms of service
I didn't say I wanted to reg Google. My point is that the issues with Google Search are different to the issues with YT.
I wouldn't compere YT to ham. Ham is a decentralised system. You could knock out all but two nodes and it would still work. YT may be bigger than a TV net work but it works in a very similar way. We have to keep in mind that any regs put on sites like YT are going to apply to others. A no censorship policy will hurt smaller companies when the advertisers don't want their stuff associated with the extremes.
Your right YT isn't going anywhere any time soon. It runs at a massive loss already and google would be willing to absorb a bit more if it cemented them in place.
We already have antitrust and monopoly laws. You say you fear an oligarchy but that is exactly what I see happening with calls for regulation. Much like the ppl screaming for censorship then complain when they get censored, I fear demanding that YT and GS be completely open will make it to expensive for startups to get a foot hold. Creating a de-facto oligarchy anyway. We see it here in the UK, the Gov get unfavourable coverage from the BBC so they start waving the regulation stick in their face and look what happens, 8 out of 10 ppl on the BBC are anti-Brexit.
Jack declared twitter as a public square
but still people are silenced from that public square <:TimThink:482277772497125378>
The best thing we can do with Twitter now is use it as a billboard for other sites. When poeple complain that we stay within the rules and ppl don't really know what we think, 'it's a sanitised version of white supremacy' Then we tell them that what they campaigned for.
@Abel he did i memba dat and trump cant ban people so why is twatter allowed to ? And dont give me its their platform bs
It's not just "a platform" when there's literally no serious competition
It's the *only* platform
IMO, no one should be banned unless they post something actually illegal.
๐ฏ agree ^
I like exclusivity of smart people.
So what happens if I want to start a twitter for Christian fundamentalist. It's designed to be a bubble, I don't want any disagreement to happen on my site. Am I allowed to ban ppl? Where dose your rule stand with freedom of association?
But that should be for more specific ENCLAVES.
To ban someone from the entire service is a little ridiculous.
It's the equivalent of banning someone from THE FORMAT of all forums.
That's how big these services are now.
They're the equivalent of every forum in the world combining into a giant ultra-forum.
Twitter wants to be known as a public utility.
The second it said that, it should've relinquished its rights to ban whoever they wanted.
And regulating them means regulating any start ups to the same degree. It could very well cement them as the public square. The only people that want that are Big Tech and the government.
Telling you, repeal section 230
II would much rather see these sites fall by their own hand so the next sites to rise don't make the same mistake. YT and Twitter could very easily say that they need more gov hand outs to protect the service. This is not good for compation.
@Poppy Rider if you claim to be a piblic square you are a public square, if you want to create a platform for christians then your platform is not really public
So if you create legislation following those guidelines, all any of the companies has to do is stop calling themselves a public square, which would make it pointless.
Im fine with that then they can reap the benefits of not being a public square like not recieving tax dollars
Unless im misinformed on this
If they are receiving tax dollars the I would argue that stop regardless.
@Grenade123 Why do you think repealing 230 is a good idea?
It means they need to stop moderating their platform or be treated as a publisher and therefore liable for what is said.
Basically it makes Twitter liable for slander rather than the person saying it.
Etc
230 protects them from being liable.
If that happens everyone would get banned @Grenade123
And Twitter would be dead
If you take it away it means the sites are responceable for what is said.
No, they are only responsible IF they moderate
Ok that makes sense ^
So if they take one thing down they are no longer protected by the 230?
Basically, if they moderate, they are a publisher, if not they are like a library
Im fine with this then ^
So how would taking the protection away be helpful?
However, banning might still be protected, not sure exactly.
But what about moderating illegal content
And would users be able to block
That would be the governments job to have it taken down
Or they moderate, and are open to lawsuits
230 gives protection to unmoderated sites. Just coz Twitter and FB are playing both sides doesn't mean 230 is the problem. I can't see why repealing it help.
in stead of getting rid of it I think the answer is to enforce it. If twitter wants to curate their site then they are going to be liable for everything. If not, they are protact by section 230.
It seems we already have the laws in place to sort this mess out, they just need to be enforced.
230 does not give protection to unmoderated sites, those were already protected before 230.
There is another series of laws, original to protect like people selling newspapers for being responsible for what the newspapers say, but hold the newspaper publisher responsible for allowing it.
Best take on this
Even better then tims
I didn't know that @Grenade123 . It makes sense when you think about it. OK, thats fine, are you saying Twitter should be classed as a news paper vender?
<:GWfroggyFeelsUpMan:400751139563241473>
Who?
@Poppy Rider if they moderate, yes. If they want to stop moderating they can be classified as a platform (I believe that is the term used now to be equivalent to a library or somewhere hosting these works)
Publisher can get sued for the content in their publication, a platform cannot
At least that is my understanding of previous existing law before 230, where a website was sued for slander and it was argued that since they moderate "foul language" they should be a publisher.
Being prevented from moderating is going to have lots of unintended consequences.
Is spam protected by the first amendment?
What about dick pics?
If I crapflood a tweet with replies of meatspin.gif am I protected from intervention by Twitter?
Porn I think has a slightly different set of rules around it, so porn might still be able to be removed. And bans might still be allowed (it's like a library deciding not to have a book)
Wait now. Removing porn is moderating.
Spam would be be allowed, but it doesn't mean the user cannot have mute and block features
Except the president.
Removing illegal posts is not moderation by the platform, and it they don't claim the to be a porn site
What I'm trying to get at here is that there are lots and lots of ways that this can go wrong and we need to consider them.
Yes ^
If you want to see what 'no moderation except illegal stuff' looks like, go to /b/.
Right, and adding more laws won't be a problem
Would a site code of conduct be allowed?
Memba wen /b/ was good?
I don't think social media is helpful much at all.
So i don't really care if it dies.
But i think removing laws is better before adding new ones.
Let's not advocate for our own article 13
90% this
But yes, you might need to modify the old laws slightly to outline what level of stuff is considered editing/moderating and what isn't
But 230 should be removed
Because right now the government is the one protecting conservatives from really suing Twitter and Facebook and the like.
>Tim's annoyed that customers are giving companies customer feedback that their listening of a minority group outside their customer base is causing them to stop buying their products
Thankfully he is doing something about it. Exposing these people and their agenda, bringing attention to it.
About fucking time someone did something.
Dow Jones and S&P all time high
Investigating journalist.
Latest video from Project Varitas.
845,392 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 666/3382
| Next