🐱 Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
CatParty
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
"We're going to claim you believe bad things even if you don't really. As punishment, we are opening up the floor to other bad actors who have already judged you letting them impersonate you with strawman positions that will justify our further punishing you."
TchPiKinmup
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2017
a visual cue that the person whose opinion you are about to be exposed to is horseshit.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2018
Five Guys is about double what it should cost given the mediocre quality, and I could change my engine oil with just the grease from their fries.
What I liked about In 'N' Out as a dirty Commiefornian was that I could get a burger that punched above its weight in flavor for under 5 bucks.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2014
Five Guys ain't bad. The burgers seem to have gotten smaller over the years doe.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2014
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
Funny thing about the Twitter reaction to that Ryan article is that those Twitter cunts are going to drive millions of Ryans to the Alt Right. Which is presumably the exact opposite of what they want to happen.
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
I guess it might be premature to said then Robert Mueller is hoisted by his own petard but the whole circus had probably take a new turn. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/is_mueller_taking_orders_from_russia.html
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
Yeah, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's not as good as it used to be a few years ago.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2018
Wallace
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
It's almost like Twitter was never designed for conversations, but rather as a way to make sound bites.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I'm looking forward to the orgy of hypocrisy as people screaming about Mueller being some kind of hyper-biased political hack, based on no evidence, suddenly claim he's an utter saint, while people who have been gloating about him inevitably delivering Trump's head up on a platter suddenly claim him of being a secret Russian agent himself.
Disgusting.
But funny.
PS1gamenwatch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...s-conservatives-over-liberals-at-a-211-ratio/
It’s no secret that Twitter censors and shadow-bans conservatives.
The Gateway Pundit has reported on this extensively over the past few years.
We reported in July 2018 that Twitter has long been accused of censoring conservatives. Twitter was indeed censoring and shadowbanning the President of the United States, Donald Trump’s twitter account, @realDonaldTrump.
Twitter is still at it!
In July 2018 we reported that a study by the leftist website VICE News found that Twitter is censoring top pro-Trump lawmakers. Twitter is targeting pro-Trump Republican lawmakers Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe with the same shadowbanning technique.
Twitter is also censoring prominent pro-Trump accounts including: Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, Paul Joseph Watson, TGP’s Jim Hoft, TGP’s Cassandra Fairbanks and Laura Loomer among others.
Last year Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told the Daily Caller Foundation on Wednesday he is considering filing a FEC complaint over Twitter’s preferential treatment of liberals versus its censoring of prominent conservatives.
In July there was even video proof that President Trump’s Twitter page is being censored.
Gateway Pundit contributor Cristina Laila received a notice in 2018 that her tweet violated Pakistani law.
What the h*ll?
The President has over 57 million followers on his account but rarely does he receive more than 20,000 retweets or 100,000 likes on his tweets.
Now a new study at Quillette by Professor Richard Hanania at Columbia University found that Twitter censors conservatives over liberals at a 21 to 1 ratio.
I found it difficult to establish the extent to which any of the suspended individuals or groups clearly supported Republicans over Democrats or vice versa. Classifying them along the left-right axis is also problematic, as there are some figures that neither side would be eager to claim. Most prominent individuals who were suspended did express a preference in the 2016 election, however. And by restricting our analysis to this subset, and counting how many supported Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, we can create a rough measure of whether there is bias, albeit one with a small sample size.
As noted above, of the 22 suspended individuals, only one was a Clinton supporter. This was actress-turned-activist Rose McGowan, who temporarily lost access to her account in 2017 for posting someone’s private phone number. Note that this is an unambiguous violation of Twitter’s rules, so the platform had little choice in this case. The platform does not seem to have suspended a single prominent Clinton supporter based on the substantive content of his or her expressed views.
Of course, the existence of this disparity does not prove that Twitter is actively discriminating against Trump supporters. Perhaps conservatives are simply more likely to violate neutral rules regarding harassment and hate speech. In such case, the observed data would not serve to impugn Twitter, but rather conservatives themselves.
Luckily, through the use of standard statistical methods—similar to those commonly applied to calculate confidence intervals in the physical and social sciences—one may determine that the underlying population disparity (i.e. the disparity between liberal and conservative behavioral norms) would have to be quite large in order for there to be any significant likelihood of observing a randomly constituted 22-point data set characterized by the above-described 21:1 ratio. Indeed, assuming some randomness in enforcement unrelated to bias, one would have to assume that conservatives were at least four times as likely as liberals to violate Twitter’s neutrally applied terms of service to produce even a 5% chance (the standard benchmark) that a 22-data point sample would yield a result as skewed as 21-1.
Are prominent Trump supporters more likely to break neutrally applied social media terms of service agreements than other voters? Perhaps. But are they four or more times as likely? That doesn’t seem credible.
Indeed, it is not difficult to find cases of liberals engaging in speech that appears to cross the line while not being punished for their transgressions. This includes the case of Sarah Jeong. After she was hired as an editorial writer for The New York Times, it was discovered that over the years she had posted dozens of messages expressing hatred and contempt of whites. When conservative activist Candace Owens copied some of Jeong’s tweets and replaced the word “white” with “Jewish,” she was suspended from the platform. Perhaps realizing how hypocritical this looked after they had not taken any action against Jeong, Twitter allowed Owens back on, but only after she deleted the offending tweets…
…Harassment and the advocacy of violence are serious issues, and there is nothing morally objectionable about social media companies removing this kind of content from their platforms. However, such laudable objectives should not be used as cover to prosecute ideological campaigns. While social media platforms are private companies, anti-discrimination laws generally allow legislators avenues to address businesses that exhibit unacceptable biases in how they treat the public.
It is unthinkable that we would allow a telephone or electricity company to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using its services. Why would we allow social media companies to do the same?
It’s no secret that Twitter censors and shadow-bans conservatives.
The Gateway Pundit has reported on this extensively over the past few years.
We reported in July 2018 that Twitter has long been accused of censoring conservatives. Twitter was indeed censoring and shadowbanning the President of the United States, Donald Trump’s twitter account, @realDonaldTrump.
Twitter is still at it!
In July 2018 we reported that a study by the leftist website VICE News found that Twitter is censoring top pro-Trump lawmakers. Twitter is targeting pro-Trump Republican lawmakers Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe with the same shadowbanning technique.
Twitter is also censoring prominent pro-Trump accounts including: Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, Paul Joseph Watson, TGP’s Jim Hoft, TGP’s Cassandra Fairbanks and Laura Loomer among others.
Last year Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told the Daily Caller Foundation on Wednesday he is considering filing a FEC complaint over Twitter’s preferential treatment of liberals versus its censoring of prominent conservatives.
In July there was even video proof that President Trump’s Twitter page is being censored.
Gateway Pundit contributor Cristina Laila received a notice in 2018 that her tweet violated Pakistani law.
What the h*ll?
The President has over 57 million followers on his account but rarely does he receive more than 20,000 retweets or 100,000 likes on his tweets.
Now a new study at Quillette by Professor Richard Hanania at Columbia University found that Twitter censors conservatives over liberals at a 21 to 1 ratio.
I found it difficult to establish the extent to which any of the suspended individuals or groups clearly supported Republicans over Democrats or vice versa. Classifying them along the left-right axis is also problematic, as there are some figures that neither side would be eager to claim. Most prominent individuals who were suspended did express a preference in the 2016 election, however. And by restricting our analysis to this subset, and counting how many supported Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, we can create a rough measure of whether there is bias, albeit one with a small sample size.
As noted above, of the 22 suspended individuals, only one was a Clinton supporter. This was actress-turned-activist Rose McGowan, who temporarily lost access to her account in 2017 for posting someone’s private phone number. Note that this is an unambiguous violation of Twitter’s rules, so the platform had little choice in this case. The platform does not seem to have suspended a single prominent Clinton supporter based on the substantive content of his or her expressed views.
Of course, the existence of this disparity does not prove that Twitter is actively discriminating against Trump supporters. Perhaps conservatives are simply more likely to violate neutral rules regarding harassment and hate speech. In such case, the observed data would not serve to impugn Twitter, but rather conservatives themselves.
Luckily, through the use of standard statistical methods—similar to those commonly applied to calculate confidence intervals in the physical and social sciences—one may determine that the underlying population disparity (i.e. the disparity between liberal and conservative behavioral norms) would have to be quite large in order for there to be any significant likelihood of observing a randomly constituted 22-point data set characterized by the above-described 21:1 ratio. Indeed, assuming some randomness in enforcement unrelated to bias, one would have to assume that conservatives were at least four times as likely as liberals to violate Twitter’s neutrally applied terms of service to produce even a 5% chance (the standard benchmark) that a 22-data point sample would yield a result as skewed as 21-1.
Are prominent Trump supporters more likely to break neutrally applied social media terms of service agreements than other voters? Perhaps. But are they four or more times as likely? That doesn’t seem credible.
Indeed, it is not difficult to find cases of liberals engaging in speech that appears to cross the line while not being punished for their transgressions. This includes the case of Sarah Jeong. After she was hired as an editorial writer for The New York Times, it was discovered that over the years she had posted dozens of messages expressing hatred and contempt of whites. When conservative activist Candace Owens copied some of Jeong’s tweets and replaced the word “white” with “Jewish,” she was suspended from the platform. Perhaps realizing how hypocritical this looked after they had not taken any action against Jeong, Twitter allowed Owens back on, but only after she deleted the offending tweets…
…Harassment and the advocacy of violence are serious issues, and there is nothing morally objectionable about social media companies removing this kind of content from their platforms. However, such laudable objectives should not be used as cover to prosecute ideological campaigns. While social media platforms are private companies, anti-discrimination laws generally allow legislators avenues to address businesses that exhibit unacceptable biases in how they treat the public.
It is unthinkable that we would allow a telephone or electricity company to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using its services. Why would we allow social media companies to do the same?
I
IV 445
Guest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2018
But...but...but... They are at the wrong side of the history, so it's okay to silence them.
Sure Jane. I guess Hitler silencing the Jew back in the day also means that Jews are at the wrong side of the history and don't deserve basic human right.
Sure Jane. I guess Hitler silencing the Jew back in the day also means that Jews are at the wrong side of the history and don't deserve basic human right.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2018
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2019
Huh, Trump's shadowbanned. Learn something new every day.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-47236355
Stick 'em on the Colossus, they'll love it.
A theme park is objecting to plans to build new retirement homes nearby because it fears residents may complain of screams from people on the rides.
Thorpe Park bosses say they are considering legal action over a planning application for a retirement home complex next to the park.
They say the development could be "detrimental" to the park's business.
A planning application for the development of a neighbouring Grade II listed building has been deferred.
The application for the development next to the Surrey theme park had been due to be approved by Runnymede Borough Council on Wednesday, but was delayed while discussions between the park's owners and developer Eden Retirement Living continue, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
Merlin Entertainment said the development of 79 apartments could impact future investment at the attraction because residents might object to noise coming from the rides and visitors.
In a bid to "protect its position" the firm said the impact of the complex would be "significant and detrimental to its ongoing operations".
Image copyrightGOOGLE
Image captionMerlin Entertainments also owns Legoland and Alton Towers
Linda Gillham, councillor for the Thorpe ward, said: "The main problem is that future residents may complain about noise, but in recent years the village residents have not complained about noise."
A noise survey carried out in July 2018 found that "noise emitted from the theme park consists of screams from patrons and the noise created by the passing of a roller-coaster car".
The application has been deferred until a later date, the council said.
Stick 'em on the Colossus, they'll love it.
KerryDixon9
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2017
I can't understand their SHOCKING NEW STUDY headline.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
I oppose retirement homes in general, on the principle that there are too fucking many all over the place already.