BLSS: For the record I didn’t accuse you of lying. I said I was astounded that your experiences were so different from mine, and jokingly said you might be living in an alternate universe. [/QUOTE]You said:
All I can say is that you seem to live in a different world than I do and that many others do. I remember your description in responding to rpbobcat about how wonderful things were in NYC as you described an almost an idyllic scene of your experiences in Manhattan in terms of entertainment and dining. Meanwhile rpbobcat painted a much different description of what life was really like in NYC. In this case I trusted rpbobcat's observation.
Now, you describe a situation where after just a few searches you are getting all sorts of conservative push notices. This is absolutely amazing.
In other words, you cited a previous conversation from many weeks ago, out of the blue, as supporting evidence as to why you're choosing to dismiss my stance here. The use of "Now, you" is clearly there to connect the two examples. The first where my firsthand description of life in New York wasn't to be trusted above rpbobcat, and the second connected it to my "amazing" situation where Google pushed content that goes counter to your experience.
Notably, I provided proof and you ignored it. Also notable: you clearly didn't realize that rpbobcat hasn't actually seen any of this first hand, given that you referred to his view as an "observation." That you don't own your own words and are completely unwilling to acknowledge and examine when you're wrongheaded is illustrative of how you've approached this entire dialogue.
Backtrack all you want, but the implication and your intent are clear. And further, they're consistent with the intellectual honesty with which you've approached the entire conversation. You feel strongly; when facts are presented that seem inconsistent with your feelings, you either ignore them or find a reason to dismiss the messenger (me).
It's blatant, transparent, and completely hypocritical given the grandiose way you positioned yourself at the beginning of this thread as somebody who just wants, more than anything, a free flow of ideas and open conversation.
but some are more nefarious and sinister, and ultimately a threat to free and open discussion.
You continue to make assertions like this one. Broad assertions about companies silencing speech that doesn't adhere to "woke norms." You've been asked many times to provide evidence for that. You only provide anectdotes. The generous read on that is that you're just not able to grasp how these algorithms work, and the scale of the content moderation task. That would be perfectly understandable -- it's insanely complex. The less generous read is that it's just another example of your feelings being prioritized over evidence.
Feel free to provide actual evidence of how Facebook and Google's algorithms nefariously are creating a threat to free and open discussion. What you've provided thus far are content moderation decisions. You're making a huge accusation; you're providing little anectdotes that don't actually support that accusation. I've pointed that out in many ways; each time, you've ignored my responses. Why?
You seem offended by my submission of the CSM article.
I'm offended by you. I've explained why. I also find your hypocrisy representative of deep rot in American conservatism. You're not a free speech absolutist. You're lining up to use the power of the state to punish private companies that make decisions you disagree with.
It's fine if that's what you think is best here. And I'd respect you more if you just made that argument. I'm not even fully convinced it's the wrong path here, though I feel strongly that it likely is.
What I find offensive is the way you try and package your stance here as consistent with the ideals of Oliver Wendell Holmes and free speech, when they are so clearly and obviously not. You've consistently ignored direct questions asking you to explain the logical thread that connects your free speech absolutism to the stance you're taking on platforms. You also, of course, ignored the examples of Delta, Major League Baseball, and expressed tacit support for states trying to ban the teaching of the 1619 project.
I'm sorry, my man, but you don't get to wax poetic about the free flow of ideas and "challenging the unchallengeable" and then go "but yeah, I don't like the 1619 project." Especially if, when pressed on it, you shy away from justifying how that view's consistent with the way you entered the thread.
There's nothing intellectually honest about that, and it's impossible to have a respectful debate with somebody who doesn't approach the conversation in an intellectually honest way. You haven't respected my opinion, the facts I've presented, and engaged around them.
That's what I find offensive, not the Christian Science Monitor article.
As for the (new issue) at hand, here's a sampling of how rpbobcat described New York City:
You take your life in your hands trying to walk in midtown.
Its so bad,I know several police officers from NJ who have been told to make sure they have their "off duty" weapon, if they have to go to the city.
[QUOTE=rpbobcat]
In honesty,the local news shows don't begin to cover how decrepit midtown
Manhattan has become.