Trump Gets Mad That Twitter Won't Take Down A Parody Of Mitch McConnell; Demands Unconstitutional Laws
from the bringing-free-speech-back? dept
I’m still perplexed by Trumpian folks insisting that the President is a supporter of free speech (or the Constitution). It’s quite clear that he’s been a huge supporter of censorship over the years. The latest example is, perhaps, the most bizarre (while also being totally par for the course with regards to this President). For unclear reasons, the President has retweeted someone with fewer than 200 followers, who posted a picture of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in traditional Russian soldier garb… while complaining that Twitter won’t take that image down, while it has “taken down” manipulated media from his supporters.
The tweet says:
Why does Twitter leave phony pictures like this up, but take down Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true? Mitch must fight back and repeal Section 230, immediately. Stop biased Big Tech before they stop you!
He then tags two Republican Senators who have spent years pushing bullshit bills and making misleading arguments about how evil certain internet companies are.
There are so many things wrong with this one tweet, I feel it’s best to number them:
- First of all, content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, so it never is reasonable to use a single anecdote to prove bias or to claim that Twitter is somehow doing something wrong. And that’s even if this image should have been taken down, which it should not have.
- Next, this is just parody. And it’s obvious parody (except, I guess to our humorless President). There’s no reason to take down parody.
- Twitter isn’t taking down “Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true.” They are taking down or putting warnings on manipulated media that has been posted with the intent to mislead. No one is going to look at the picture of McConnell and think it’s proof that he really is doing Putin’s bidding.
- And, what “Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true” has Twitter actually taken down?
- Repealing Section 230 would make this situation worse for Trump and his fans, not better. If Twitter was likely to face lawsuits for tweets that infringe upon rights, then it has much stronger incentive to take down the kinds of defamatory, bogus tweets that Trump and his fans like to put up regularly.
- And it would still have no reason to take down a parody image like the one Trump is tweeting.
- Even if Twitter was choosing to take down content from Trump fans and allowing content from his critics to stay up that’s perfectly legal (and, again, there remains no evidence to support this claim). There is nothing against the law about being politically biased. If there were, then Fox News, Breitbart, OANN and others would be in a deep pile of shit. Yet, somehow all the “social media is biased!” folks never seem to address any of that.
- Bonus round: Because of Trump’s continued unwillingness to understand the Streisand Effect, he just gave this image that very few people saw, a massive boost in attention. For what?
But, of course, Josh Hawley rushed in to use this travesty to push his blatantly unconstitutional bill.
Hawley doesn’t say which of his many, many anti-Section 230 bills he’s talking about, but in saying that it’s the bill that would “permit individuals unfairly censored by #BigTech to sue!” he likely means this particularly unconstitutional pile of garbage. Even if the bill somehow passed (and it won’t) both Houses of Congress and somehow wasn’t judged unconstitutional (it would be), it still wouldn’t do what Hawley and Trump seem to want it to do.
Without Section 230 protections Twitter would be much quicker to take down this kind of nonsense to avoid liability. It wouldn’t magically decide to keep up Trumpian propaganda that might get it sued. We already know this is true because we see it in the copyright space. In copyright, there is much more liability for leaving infringing content up, because of the DMCA 512 safe harbors not being nearly as broad as Section 230’s immunity provision. And, because of that, we’ve seen Twitter take down infringing content from Trump and his fans much more frequently than they take down (or label) other content. Because the lack of a liability shield means that Twitter would have more pressure to take this content down.
It’s difficult to believe that someone like Josh Hawley doesn’t know this. But Josh Hawley — the very definition of the elite — has made his reputation by lying to stupid people, while pretending to be against the elite. And so he knows that this bill can’t pass and that it’s unconstitutional, and that it would do the opposite of what he claims. But he seems to be betting on stupid people buying into this latest culture war.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, donald trump, free speech, josh hawley, mitch mcconnell, section 230, social media
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Trump Gets Mad That Twitter Won't Take Down A Parody Of Mitch McConnell; Demands Unconstitutional Laws”
Trump: ““Advocates”” for freedom of speech and rails against ““censorship.””
Also Trump: Advocates for freedom of censorship and rails against freedom of speech.
Re: Re:
Also Trump: "you also had free speech that were very fine free speech, on both sides."
You’ve misunderstood.
He has no love for Mitch McConnell. He doesn’t even have a fondness or an alliance to maintain with him.
Instead, he’s irritated that someone would dress him up like a Russian. He doesn’t like the Republicans being associated with Russians in a mocking way.
Why?
Because his handlers tell him to not like it. It interferes with the SVR’s plans for the November elections.
Conservative cancel culture at it’s finest. For all the wailing about the left and society as a whole shunning conservatives who say and do crappy things, they sure do love trying to use the weight of government to inflict their will and crush anyone and anything that hurts their feelings. Maybe something could be done about the thinness of their skin if there was universal healthcare.
Mike, I almost said "you are being too hard here", but that’s not quite right. you are being harsh for the wrong reasons. When your world is (deliberately) made out of lies, finding an "obvious lie" (parody) looks no different from all the rest of the lies.
Ah, that is no parody.
This is parody.
Perplexity Resolved.
the perplexity is not so hard to discern: there are those who will not take truth for authority, but want authority for truth.
Perplexed
"I’m still perplexed by Trumpian folks insisting that the President is a supporter of free speech (or the Constitution)"
He does support free speech when it is speech he approves of and he loves the constitution when it agrees with what he wants.
So he is just like most of the other politicians, nothing perplexing about it really.
Trump is just jealous. He felt it should have been his face and not McConnell’s
The answer
All speech is free but some speech is freer than others.
Re: The answer
They want all dissent to their views silenced, but no restrictions on their own speech. Same as ever.
I wish Twitter would just take his account away. He would be so lost.
Re:
I hope Twitter bans him as soon as he leaves office.
Re: Re: Re:
Trump is using every trick in the book to maintain power that he’ll never leave voluntarily; he’d have to be forced out kicking and screaming.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s a whiner, not a fighter.
I can’t rule out the possibility of a 2000-style Supreme Court fight, but if the election is ultimately decided in Biden’s favor, Trump doesn’t have the guts to put up a fight — or the loyalty of the Secret Service, the generals, or the White House staff.
Biden instructs the staff to disconnect the cable TV, change the wifi password, and stop taking Trump food. How long do you suppose he lasts after that?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
More importantly, how long can he go wothout golfing? He’s no Julian Assange!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The clown seems to have trouble believing there were people who didn’t vote for it. I doubt it would actually acknowledge a loss. It might even declare a national emergency.
Re: Re:
They wouldn’t do that to Twitler.
Parody?
"Ah, that is no parody."
But https://i.imgur.com/JB39tXD.jpg is…
and so is this:
https://i.imgur.com/jxYgzeA.jpg
Re: Parody?
Just so you know, the links do not work. They produce a message "If you’re seeing this message, that means JavaScript has been disabled on your browser, please enable JS to make Imgur work."
This may be a bug on imgur, though it seems hard to imagine why one would need or want javascript to dump out an image file.
Re: Re: Parody?
Lazy developers. You know the old saying about "when all you have is a hammer…?". A lot of devs only use JS.
Re: Re: Re: Parody?
…and since javascript is one of the wider exploits for cross-platform malware naturally most browser security settings at reasonable levels, as well as scriptblock addons, often refuse to run java to begin with.
It’s the old golden rule of the security triangle – when you add convenience to a cheap system, security suffers.
Re: Re: Re:2 Parody?
And here, where is the convenience? Images do not load, which means that the image storage site fails in doing the one thing which it is supposed to do.
Re: Re: Re:3 Parody?
The convenience is for the lazy developer, not the end user. You want to use those links, you use what the de tells you to use.
Why would Moscow Mitch not be dressed up in a Russian uniform?
Maybe when he is riding bareback bitch with a shirtless Putin.
idk
Oh the hypocritical irony...
You’ve just gotta love how the scumbag that is Hawley jumped all over Trump calling for censorship and spinning it as a reason to support his unconstitutional bill that he claims will prevent ‘censorship’.
Yet another sterling example of how ‘conservatives'(not to be confused with conservatives, people who aren’t just using the label to defend their bigotry and hypocrisy) only seem to care about free speech when it’s speech they agree with, and indeed have no problem calling for the silencing of those that would dare criticize and/or mock them.
Re: Oh the hypocritical irony...
It’s like Hawley put in so much effort, he dislocated his own neck to suck someone else’s cock from the other side of the room.
Re: Oh the hypocritical irony...
Thanks for drawing that distinction. The conservatives I grew up with were very decent people, who would be appalled at short skirts, but much more appalled at the racism that is entering the public eye now.
(please don’t interpret this as a condemnation of short skirts, just stating the views those people had. I honestly don’t think someones opinion on minimum skirt length has a direct relationship with their opinions on murdering black people)
Re: Re: Oh the hypocritical irony...
"The conservatives I grew up with were very decent people, who would be appalled at short skirts, but much more appalled at the racism that is entering the public eye now."
Ah, the current centrist democrats, you mean?
Because that’s where even Reagan would be sitting today. The current US conservative is apparently a full-on bigot against everything before he or she is anything else.
I think the future US political landscape, if nothing is done about the first-past-the-post election rules feeding the two party system, is eventually going to be that the ever more inclusive democrat party is going to split into left and right, while the current GOP will turn into a subsidiary of that other extreme right wing party on the fringe – the one with the swastika.
Let’s just hope that happens before the US breaks out in internal armed hostilities.
Re: Re: Re: Oh the hypocritical irony...
"The current US conservative is apparently a full-on bigot against everything before he or she is anything else."
Well, yes and no. That’s only true if you make the mistake of conflating "conservative" and "republican". Many conservatives haven’t changed their own views, it’s just that the political window has been pushed so far to the right that the party that used to represent them is now representing the fringe lunatics, and actual fiscal conservatives are now firmly within the democratic party’s scope.
While there are certainly some mainstream "conservatives" who seem to have turned into raging bigoted lunatics, there are equally some conservatives who are as appalled by that as the rest of us. The question is whether they understand that the way to stop this is to not vote the worst of the republicans into office, even if that means temporarily voting D to affect change.
Re: Re: Re: Oh the hypocritical irony...
You mean before we have armed conflict with both sides having a military/militarized force?
"Big Tech is bad"
I have yet to see anyone report on the fact that Trump constantly rails against Big Tech, yet they are 100% responsible for the stock market growth he loves to crow about.
When has anything posted by republicans this last four years been true? I’m sure this applies to not just Twitter but to every social media platform out there.
Re: Re:
"When has anything posted by republicans this last four years been true?"
I have a few examples from Trump’s campaign:
Although, some others haven’t aged as well:
If you dispense with the notion that they’re acting in good faith, things start making more sense. They’re fascists. Fascists gaslight and lie pathologically.
Someone needs to photoshop trump ‘presenting’ his flabby ass for Putin’s wrinkly old penis.
And add fake sound "thats it, take me daddy putin..take me good".
Nothing Trump could do.
Trump should move to Facebook, then. I got a thirty-day ban for sharing a picture of Trump and Putin together where Trump was wearing a ballgag and on a leash being held by Putin. Apparently, that was sexual imagery or nudity. -___-
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Tough
It’s really tough when an individual reacts to blatant discrimination and censorship. It matters not if that is Trump or anyone else. Because anyone with an ounce of sense and a half pound of humanity would know that Trump is right. Tech censorship is totalitarian. There’s no justification for it. There’s no excusing it.
Re: Tough
I note you are complaining about censorship in an article about stuff not being taken down.
Also: maybe try looking up some of those bigger words, I don’t think they mean what you think they mean
Re: Re: Tough
"I note you are complaining about censorship in an article about stuff not being taken down."
You think he reads the articles?
Re: Tough
"It’s really tough when an individual reacts to blatant discrimination and censorship."
Especially tough when that person is a whiny baby who doesn’t understand that they are facing consequences for their own actions.
"Tech censorship is totalitarian"
No, your heroes removing the rights of private citizens and organisations because they don’t like the way that they’re exercising their free speech rights is totalitarianism, so please stop supporting that.
Re: Tough
No, no, no, Baghdad Bob!
You’re supposed to aim that propaganda blip the other way.
Or did you actually intend to affirm Twitter’s decision to spite Trump by not taking down a parody?
I think you should just stick to your "But Obama!" spiel and cheap racism. It’s what you do best.
Big tech bias
If you don’t see big tech bias you should you need LASIK surgery. Burying effective conservative blogs, removing years of their content, belittling their points with overlays to refute their views. Hello? Here’s an obvious one you can try: Okay Google, Show me images of the AR-15… When I did using the Google AI in my Pixel 3aXL, I got a bright a cheery voice saying, "Okay, here are images of assault rifles."
Re: Big tech bias
I don’t see clear and convincing evidence that any of the “big tech” companies’ platforms/services are more likely to remove/hide/demonetize actual conservative viewpoints/users than liberal ones or for presenting core conservative values (like sound fiscal policy, supply-side economics, deregulation, etc.) as opposed to things like tone, harassment, spam, etc. The burden of proof is on you.
[citation needed]
Seriously, I need specifics and statistics. Maybe they had blatantly false information or foul language or something. Maybe they were white supremacists or misogynists or something. Maybe they just didn’t have the link-backs or page views or whatever to rank highly on Google Search. I don’t know, partly because you’ve given me nothing to work from.
Furthermore, have you not considered that “effective” liberal blogs might also get buried or removed for the same reasons? And what exactly constitutes an “effective conservative blog”? Or “burying”?
Finally, the plural of anecdotes isn’t data; we need statistics that show that there is a significant difference in treatment that specifically disfavors conservatives for conservative viewpoints.
I’m sorry, but since when is providing context evidence of bias? And how are the things that are getting overlays conservative viewpoints? It’s mostly flat-Earth, COVID, and vaccines, none of which are partisan issues. And as for mail-in ballots, a lot of conservatives use mail-in ballots and it wasn’t until very recently that Trump turned that into a partisan issue. So again, that’s not anti-conservative bias; that’s anti-disinformation bias.
I don’t see what’s nefarious about that. Lots of people think AR-15s are assault rifles, and a lot of the media coverage on AR-15s have called them assault rifles or otherwise associated them with assault rifles. It’s perfectly reasonable that an AI would come to equate “AR-15” with “assault rifle” based solely on it learning from various media outlets, blogs, and social media posts, no direct input from the programmers necessary. That’s not necessarily proof that Google is biased; it could just be the contents of the internet are biased/misinformed. The results are just reflective of the sources it pulls from, not the programmers’ biases.
I would also call that “ignorant” or “misinformed”, not “biased”; not everyone knows the difference here, or even what makes something an “assault rifle” or not.
Basically, Hanlon’s Razor suggests no bias here. It’s certainly not “an obvious one” like you say it is.
Re: Re: Big tech bias
I am happy to show many examples a conservative bias. I am not sure if I am violating a forum policy by posting so many links but I will show you a few I easily found. These were just searches, I do not support any of these sites or their views. They are just indications of a problem. By sheer number (search and see), there is a problem. They come from way more than any one concerted effort to spread misinformation.
https://medium.com/swlh/youtube-censorship-right-wing-breadtube-content-moderation-f6fa4683f17e
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/19/21373960/social-media-companies-censor-political-bias-trump-pew-study
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/youtube-remove-extremist-videos.amp.html
I also do not fall for your bait and switch antics. If there were equal or even more liberal bias, it would not make it any more acceptable! Duh! Bias is bias! I also believe when you are fighting for a political view that can be proven to have good benefits, and will change minds if they just get to hear the whole story, not a carefully edited misleading one, and that narrative is shadow-banned, removed, or labeled in one of about 16 words and phrases strictly meant to deflect a good, honest message that may not be the ‘fad of the day’, any bias that does not allow the idea is not acceptable.
As far as misinformation about Covid, let me count the ways: The World Health Organization first said it could not be transmitted from human to human.
If I posted on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter that I thought it could, should they remove my content?
Travel bans were not recommended by CDC or WHO.
If I posted on YouTube Facebook, or Twitter that I thought they should, should they remove my content?
Then the Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams Dr. Fauci said masks should not be worn unless you show symptoms,
If I posted on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter that I thought we should, should they remove my content?
The experts have been and will be wrong again, so how can a liberally controlled video repository know if I am suggesting good information? Ideas need to be heard to be debunked.
I’ll bet the majority of Americans viewing the classic news services think as the Governor of California that global warming caused the fires. Fires happen annually in California, and arson, and people related incidents is suspected in two of the three raging. Also the lack of clearing of old dead wood, and not cutting fire paths contributes to the rapid escalation of these fires. If the Governor really believed that global warming affected those fires, he would be clearing that dead wood out yesterday!
As far as the AR-15, it was never used in combat, it was never effective enough by military’s standards to protect our soldiers! It is not an automatic weapon. And again your bait and switch, it’s not important whether lots of people think it’s an assault rifle. It is not the job of a search engine to alter my search slanting me toward a narrative, especially one I know to be false. More people die from hands and feet, than any rifle, ‘assault’ or not! This is from FBI and CDC data.
https://fee.org/articles/are-ar-15-rifles-a-public-safety-threat-heres-what-the-data-say/
Data from 2007-2017, newer data was not packaged as these are not done every year. There is a new site that reports all gun deaths within 72 hours and very few are from rifles.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours
These tech companies are not ‘mom & pop’ outfits that could be excused for mistakes. They are Billion Dollar state-of-the-art organizations, manipulating us through high tech psychology, secret algorithms, and even child-like pastels to give the impression they are harmless. It started out as a moneymaking concept, but not being stupid, they soon discovered that what they consider to be correct politically, can and should be promoted. They see it as good over evil, but when you step back and see the big picture, they are causing more harm than good. We used to each have a say, mostly respectful, but now cancelling is promoted when anyone opposes the fad of the day.
I write blogs and the Google rating as to how attractive my title is caused me to change ‘One too many parties’ 45% attractive, to ‘A toxic media & PAC ‘rats gnaw at America’s free choice’ which gave me an attractive rating of 93%! This may be accidental, but big tech Google is inciting more emotion and potential violence by their ‘monetizing algorithms!
Now that you know they recommend about 50 to 55 characters in your title, including emotional word, unusual word, and power word, notice the titles of YouTube videos. Interesting, now when you look… You can’t ‘un-see’ it!
Re: Re: Re: Big tech bias
It’s not anti-conservative bias if both sides are treated equally or the other side is treated worse. It’s also not bias at all if both sides are treated equally.
I confess ignorance to the details of specific models of firearms or the official definition of “assault rifle”. I assumed for the sake of argument that AR-15s are not, in fact, assault rifles, and I never argued otherwise. I only argued about how an AI and ignorant people might think that they are. I’m also not getting into the gun debate here. Basically, the only question to be answered on this particular topic is whether that example is clear and convincing proof of bias or are there other plausible explanations. I argue the latter.
My point is that the AI doesn’t know it’s false, and it wasn’t necessarily programmed to do that, specifically. When it comes to image searches, AIs often just funnel particular queries into more general categories. Image searching works differently from other searches. Basically, it was an error that wasn’t definitively made by the programmer/developer. That it comes up with incorrect results doesn’t prove bias but faulty programming. I refer again to Hanlon’s Razor. That the results may appear biased doesn’t prove that the ones behind them are biased. And frankly, you’re reading way too much into that. One mistake isn’t proof of an agenda.
Dude, at the scale these companies operate at, making a number of mistakes isn’t just excusable; it’s inevitable. Again, you’re reading way too into this.
Again, that doesn’t prove anti-conservative bias or what you asserted.
Again, that’s a separate discussion.
Re: Re: Re:2 Big tech bias
"It’s not anti-conservative bias if both sides are treated equally or the other side is treated worse. It’s also not bias at all if both sides are treated equally."
I’ll repeat again what I often say – it’s possible for both sides to be treated equally, but the results to skew toward one set of people. If every white supremacist gets banned, but most of them are people who align with you politically, that doesn’t mean Twitter has a bias. It means you side politically with a majority white supremacists.
"I confess ignorance to the details of specific models of firearms or the official definition of “assault rifle”."
Most people don’t care. AR-15s get mentioned because that class of weapon has been used in mass shootings numerous times, and sane people are questioning why a private citizen would actually need such a weapon at all, especially in a normal urban setting. But, people scared of a fictional idea of what any common sense weapons reform might lead to, and who see no problem with sacrificing innocent lives to stop those fictions from happening, will obsess over the make and model of the weapon being used rather than allow real discussion of how the problem should be handled.
"That the results may appear biased doesn’t prove that the ones behind them are biased."
Even if they are, that doesn’t mean they’re deliberately skewed. To use a random example of something non-political. If I type "Samsung is a" into the search box, the autocompletes that come back suggest "chinese company" and "indian company" among them. This doesn’t mean that Google are trying to deny that Samsung is Korean, or trying to push some Chinese or Indian agenda. It just means that a lot of people are searching for those terms, and they happen to be wrong.
Google’s algorithms can only suggest based on data it has, and if results are skewed, that may be low quality or biased data, not an issue with the search algorithm.
"Dude, at the scale these companies operate at, making a number of mistakes isn’t just excusable; it’s inevitable."
Bingo. The question is how we minimise the effect on legal activity and free speech by these mistakes, not to try and achieve an impossible 100% accuracy.
"Again, that doesn’t prove anti-conservative bias or what you asserted."
It probably means that even he knows his anecdote is questionable, so he paraphrased what he wrote to try and back up his false claim.
"Again, that’s a separate discussion."
Plus, I’m not entirely sure how Google recommending how a new YouTube video might be able to make itself stand out against the hundreds of thousands of other videos uploaded to them every second would mean anything, other than the fact that it’s in their best interest to get as many of them viewed as possible to increase ad revenue. They gain from a video that trends because it’s marketed correctly, they lose if they are hosting millions of videos that never get watched. So, they suggest using titles that get the most search results.
Big Tech Bias
I knew you would bring out the liberal ‘paintbrush’. Everything has a label! I have listened to interviews where leaders of Google and Twitter said that tweaks to make the world a better place are acceptable. One example in an interview I watched was, if we skew the number of women in executive jobs higher, the result will encourage more companies to promote women to those positions.
Money is not a good excuse for revving up emotional rhetoric, that can lead to increased violence. Google and YouTube may walk right into a massive lawsuit if and when one of those guided titles gets too much reaction.
I was stunned by your thinking Google can assign a conservative with acceptable platforms, and restrict anything outside of that list! You obviously do not know the conservative voter. We are open to discussion!
I voted Democrat all my life until 2016. As many others have said, I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, The Democratic Party left me! These algorithms are protected like the formula for Coke, because if they were exposed you would see what is going on.
Here is a Google employee that states there is bias! He handed over 900 pages of evidence. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7357201/Google-whistleblower-reveals-tech-giant-DOES-blacklist-news-sites.html
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/google-machine-learning-fairness-whistleblower-goes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/
I, first hand have experienced the demonetization of my favorite conservative blogger. He is an edgy comedian that deals in political satire. And another had most of his library removed, with no warning. If they were that bad, why did he survive for almost ten years on YouTube?
They cannot have it both ways. Either they are a private company that only publishes content they find acceptable and are legally responsible for all the content displayed, or they stop curbing free speech and are not the publisher of the content and can continue being protected.
Re: Big Tech Bias
Talking about parodies…
"Here is a Google employee that states there is bias!"
Why is it that so many of your people fall for PV’s outright fiction? Is it because vetting your sources is so difficult, or is it that nobody else is telling their particular fable? You can easily find a decent breakdown on how they are lying to you on this story if you wish to find it, and no the fact that the Daily Fail incredulously repeated the story doesn’t help your claim. They earned that nickname for a reason.
"He is an edgy comedian that deals in political satire"
I’m reading that as "dickhead edgelord troll went too far", but without names I can’t really verify.
"If they were that bad, why did he survive for almost ten years on YouTube?"
I dunno. Did his behaviour and material change recently? I’ve seen more than a few "conservative" voices go from being quiet dogwhistles to using megaphones to transmit their hatred since Trump emboldened them to drop the charade. But, again, since you refused to identify the man in question I have to assume he’s just facing the correct consequences for his actions.
"Either they are a private company that only publishes content they find acceptable and are legally responsible for all the content displayed, or they stop curbing free speech and are not the publisher of the content and can continue being protected."
Why do you people have to lie about them in order to have a point? Is reality that opposed to your beliefs?
Re: Re: Big Tech Bias
I disagree with everything you just said, and all seven of your demfamatory (sic), labels.
Your echo chamber is alive and well.
https://youtu.be/B8ofWFx525s
Re: Re: Re: Big Tech Bias
"I disagree with everything you just said, and all seven of your demfamatory (sic), labels."
Yet, you do nothing to disprove them.
Re: Re: Big Tech Bias
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/technology/facebook-manipulation-whistleblower-sophie-zhang.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/technology/facebook-manipulation-whistleblower-sophie-zhang.html
another one bites the dust…
Re: Re: Re: Big Tech Bias
Sorry 2nd link did not copy correctly. it should be:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/facebook-memo-leak-sophie-zhang-mark-zuckerberg-social-media-b446138.html
This link was added as the NY Times is quite aggressive in subscriptions so some may not be able to view that article.
Re: Re: Re:2 Big Tech Bias
Yes, and I thank you for that. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the story is about a Facebook employee telling you that they did NOT censor political interference, which is at odds with your other whining.
Re: Re: Re: Big Tech Bias
Posting a link twice doesn’t magically make it more true.
Nor does it have anything to do with your previous whining. Your other claim is that other social media outlets are unfairly censoring your chosen political tribe. The story you just linked is about a former Facebook employee complaining that they did NOT censor political interference by foreign governments. These are completely different issues.
I will just note that you posted this instead of identifying the mysterious comedian you were whining about before, which can only lead me to conclude you were either lying about him, and you know that mentioning who he is will lead to a mountain of evidence about how full of shit you are. But, what can we expect from someone who thinks that PV are a reliable factual source?
Re: Re: Re:2 Big Tech Bias
The Twin link posting was an accident and I clearly apologized in the next post seconds after posting the first, so cool your jets.
My favorite comedian satire guy is Louder with Crowder (Steven). He regularly offends everyone so there is no focused bias. I’m sure he has offended you. Offense is not a crime, and free speech is a guaranteed Constitutional right.
You keep trying to put me in a box, to label me. BTW, you used one of the 16 demfamatory labels used by the left, ‘Whining’. I am the fartherest thing from whining, dude! Pointing out high tech accidental or deliberate skewing of free speech is my duty as an American.
Do you also have something against Ted Talks? The speech by Eli Pariser about filter bubbles is absolutely provable! I guarantee my search for Donald Trump will look very different from yours, LOL) It was designed to ‘addict’ us by presenting pleasing results. That is why this country is so polarized today. I predicted this in the summer of 2011, after hearing his speech. I also predicted that the liberals were in an echo chamber and did not realize there was as much contradiction to their platform and Hillary’s harsh words. She would be President today if she never uttered the phrase, ‘basket of deplorables’.
Read the Subject: BIG TECH BIAS… my message is broader than your concept. If there ever is the kind of proof you want, Sundar will be arrested! I doubt we will get past accusations, but the noise and bright lights, will reel him in a bit I am sure.
Twitter just suspended a respected Chinese virologist for blowing the whistle on Covid-19 origination. Remember, China claims it was made in the USA! More Big Tech Bias. It should not be up to Twitter to run interference for the Chinese Communist Government. Did Twitter get hired as Xi’s PR firm?
This is the second Wuhan whistle-blower, the first Ai Fen has mysteriously just disappeared! Watch for the story when Li Meng Yan also evaporates! I hope not, but it is very likely.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-dr-li-meng-yan-twitter-account-suspended-wuhan-b454268.html
Re: Re: Re:3 Big Tech Bias
"The Twin link posting was an accident and I clearly apologized in the next post seconds after posting the first, so cool your jets."
That’s fine, I had not read the following post before I answered, my bad. But, the point on those links still stands. That story is about an ex-Facebook employee being disturbed by the company’s policy of not censoring, to the point where multiple elections may have been influenced on the favour of right-wing candidates. This is a very valid concern, but it neither fits with your claim of overbearing censorship, nor your claim that the bias is again the right wing.
"My favorite comedian satire guy is Louder with Crowder (Steven). "
OK, thanks for finally naming him. These discussions are easier when you provide enough information for people to verify your claims, especially since the claim you made in the original post was so poorly sourced.
But, in the case that got him kicked off YouTube, he directly attacked the LBGTQ community with speech that triggered a major backlash from their customers. They did actually defend him at first, but they made a decision to temporarily demonetise him, before returning the videos back after having him make changes so not as to offend their other customers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-restores-steven-crowder-monetization-carlos-maza-2020-8?IR=T
So, I can see why you didn’t name him at first, because your version of the story is very misleading. You claimed that he had all his videos removed from the service due to his political views, without warning. What actually happened is that the videos were temporarily demonetised due to complaints from a large number of YouTube users, and they then worked with him to enable them to remonetise the videos without risk of losing business from other users. That’s not political censorship, it’s business. That’s YouTube understanding that a boycott from the LGBTQ community would likely cost them more money than a reaction from Crowder’s fans, and reacting accordingly.
So, your version was a lie. This is why people here and elsewhere are so sceptical of these claims when posted in vague terms – whenever a concrete example is provided, it usually doesn’t say what the person complaining says it does.
"you used one of the 16 demfamatory labels used by the left"
So? Are we not allowed to accurately use adjectives now in case you get offended? Does the left now own specific words in the dictionary? Are you so thin-skinned that you think this is an extremely offensive word?
It is funny that you’re so upset by this, but happy to mislead everyone about an example of targeted homophobic abuse because the guy doing it aligns with you politically.
"Do you also have something against Ted Talks?"
No, but I’m not going to waste my time watching random YouTube videos. If you have something to say, say it yourself. If the YouTube video provides context then fine, but if you’re doing nothing but linking to a random video, I’m not even going to follow the link to see who posted the video. Especially since you already proved that your ability to judge the value of a video is questionable, given that you thought a debunked PV video was evidence of something.
If you have something worth saying, use your own words. Thank you for doing that here.
"Read the Subject: BIG TECH BIAS… my message is broader than your concept"
Yet, the three examples you’ve provided are: a debunked fiction peddled by some of the most notorious creators of misleading propaganda, a YouTube celebrity who was temporarily inconvenienced after indulging in outright homophobic attacks on individuals, and Facebook not censoring enough to stop certain activity.
If you wish to prove something, you either need to think about what your sources are selling you, or provide better examples to the discussion.
"Twitter just suspended a respected Chinese virologist for blowing the whistle on Covid-19 origination."
Yes, they shouldn’t have done that, but that was Twitter bowing to the Chinese government demands to protect their bottom line there, not an example of Twitter deciding to dictate its own politics to people. You must be extraordinarily naive if you think this is only a problem on social media.
Re: Re: Re:4 Big Tech Bias
The Eli Pariser video is far from random, he found in May 2011 the very heart of the Big Tech Bias that has torn America apart. The very reason that a large majority of left won’t even allow discussion, present company excepted, (as you will engage.) Both left and right are ‘grouped’ into pods of agreement.
Before the algorithm was launched, we all spoke and most listened and after some emotion people’s minds changed. By reinforcing your belief that you are always correct and me, that I am always correct, (believe it or not!), the filter bubble has split the country like never before. So badly protesters are rated on peacefulness with a percentage. If a meteorite the size of a bus hits the middle of the U.S., the World was 75% peaceful that day. The fact that Millions see that one way and millions see it the other, is Eli’s filter bubble. His video is only nine minutes. But it did more for my understanding of Big Tech Bias, than anything I had heard those 19 years ago.
I am not sure of the guy that lost his YouTube library. But if you go back and read my original comment I clearly said that was another person. I will research him. He was freaking because he did not have a full backup and was planning to move to another platform. I don’t lie. I can be mistaken, but I don’t lie. Lying to win an argument is to me like cheating in cards. What have you accomplished? Nothing! I think that was Linus of Linus Tech Tips, maybe? YouTube did not explain to him why. Probably an AI controlled decision, so a human explanation might be impossible. But still the fault of Big Tech for the algorithms in the AI.
Google’s reluctance to help the US military with AI, but actually planning to engage AI in China is scary if you ask me. I heard they had second thoughts, but not sure if there wasn’t some light shined on that, how they would have gone?
Crowder regularly dresses in stereotypical garb to be politically incorrect. He has no fear of any group or race. He just pokes fun at everyone. He has a half-Asian lawyer and half-black co-host, and insults himself as much as anyone else.
I don’t accept your paint brush that cancels his right to honest fair free speech. His humor is edgy like Eddie Murphy, or Chris Rock. I have never heard him say hateful words against any race or group. Making fun of a character similar to what Saturday Night Live does is not the same as being in a hate group. He never leads anyone toward hate or violence. He often says he doesn’t want anyone even fired, (because of political differences), even when that person had to retract false news stories, which has happened more than once.
I am not offended as much as frustrated by labels. People aren’t labels. Yes there are Left, Democratic, liberal and right Republican, conservative, and Independent, Libertarian, etc.. which are labels but mostly documentable, but the litany of labels intended to dismiss someone with an opposing view is wrong. I try to refrain from smacking labels on people because I always believe people can change.
You got me on the mat! I give up. My original premise is only a working theory. I do still believe in the Subject. There are some very harmful ‘Big Tech Biases’ in play. If we don’t fix this it is going to get much worse, I am sure.
Re: Re: Re:5 Big Tech Bias
"The Eli Pariser video is far from random"
The problem with YouTube links is that it’s not possible for me to know what it leads to unless you either say what it is, or I click on it, and I’m not participating in the political equivalent of rickrolling. If you have something to say, say it. If you wish people to follow your links, tell people what they are. Unless you do that, every YouTube you link is random.
"I am not sure of the guy that lost his YouTube library."
The one we just established didn’t lose his library, but was merely prevented from taking ad revenue until he came to an agreement as to how to make it palatable to advertisers again?
"But if you go back and read my original comment I clearly said that was another person"
So, when I asked you to identify the person you were talking about, you named someone else? how does that work?
"Crowder regularly dresses in stereotypical garb to be politically incorrect"
Yes, and in the same way as anyone appearing on network TV, he has to avoid stepping over a line and thereby making himself toxic to advertisers. That’s the problem with being "edgy", sometimes you step over the line. If he doesn’t like facing the consequences, maybe he should find something other than mainstream ad-supported platforms that do big business from the people he’s offending.
"His humor is edgy like Eddie Murphy, or Chris Rock."
Yes, but Eddie Murphy on SNL and Eddie Murphy in Raw are 2 separate animals. If he decided to run his Raw set during SNL, he would also have had problems being supported by advertisers. There’s a reason those guys left some material for standup, HBO and movies. Also, those comedians had their heydays years, or decades, ago. Yes, "edgy" humour from the 1970s would not be acceptable from a new comedian today, take it up with the society you live in that’s a problem.
Business is business, and if you’re offending advertisers on an ad-supported network owned by someone else, your ass is toast, no matter if that platform is print, TV , radio or YouTube.
"I am not offended as much as frustrated by labels"
Yet, here you are freely applying them.
" There are some very harmful ‘Big Tech Biases’ in play."
There are, so let’s actually address some real ones instead of some dickhead provocateur complaining about how he temporarily lost a free ride due to his behaviour.
Again, it’s not that there isn’t a problem, it’s that things like this and the idiotic PV videos aren’t even glancing at the real problems. In fact, they’re making them worse, since nobody’s going to take the real problems seriously if the public face of the issue is a troll having a tantrum because he lost his free money.
Re: Re: Re:6 Big Tech Bias
It is interesting that as different as we may be, we can find some common ground by being respectful with each other. Morgan Freeman when asked what he thought of racists, said he was brought up being one by his Grandmother, and finds that you can learn something from anyone if you are open to it. There is a remarkable man behind that phenomenal voice.
Not to ‘beat a dead horse’ here, but you can see I was talking about two different bloggers. Here is my statement, copied from the above post:
I, first hand have experienced the demonetization of my favorite conservative blogger. He is an edgy comedian that deals in political satire.
(I separated this so it is easier to see. And another, not the same guy..)
And another had most of his library removed, with no warning. If they were that bad, why did he survive for almost ten years on YouTube?
Also ‘Big Tech’ is not ‘demfamatory’, it just is a common slang so you don’t have to say Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Instagram etc… and I do realize some are a bit repetitive as they are currently owned by another, but that could change quickly, these days.
Re: Re: Re:7 Big Tech Bias
Ah, I see me confusion, you are referring to bloggers, but talking about YouTube (bloggers are not YouTube hosts, they’re writers), talking about them interchangeably, and still only bothering to identify one of them. OK, Crowder was temporarily demonetised, but not for his political beliefs, and you’re still lying if you continue to pretend that he was. What’s the other one who was deleted, then?
"it just is a common slang"
…often used by right wingers to conflate a bunch of vastly different services and problems with those services to pretend there’s a grand conspiracy against them. I know.
The fact is that you’ve identified a bunch of completely different problems, pretended that they’re all part of the same issue and then lied about the nature of the examples you’ve bothered to provide us with. You are fundamentally dishonest in your argument.
Re: Re: Re:8 Big Tech Bias
I am beginning to feel I am talking to a drunk individual? No. Not a blogger a vlogger. Linus Tech Tips is a YouTube vlog. He has maybe a thousand vlogs that he has done for over ten years. One day I clicked on one of his, and he was mortified. He woke up and found massive amounts of his content gone. I looked for it in his stored YouTube content and could not find it.
It could have been a cloud glitch and he did not save his rant or YouTube may have made a deal that would not allow him to keep the rant. Although he is a tech vlogger he has gotten rather x-rated at times, some of those are still in his current catalog of old shows. Yes. I know, ‘I am a liar!’ Anything I cannot prove is a guaranteed lie to you, it seems.
About your drunken insistence to call me a ‘liar’ my friend, your VQ (vitriol quotient), has exceeded your IQ. Your need to use vitriol has blurred your common sense. A ‘lie’ is a deliberate untruth. Even if I was in error, (which I am not currently convinced), it would NOT make me a ‘liar".
You are welcome to spew vitriol by calling me names, but liar is not applicable here.
I do not see a vast conspiracy of the Big Tech companies because most are in serious competition to gather the majority of our information. Information is power, and power corrupts. There is no ‘star chamber’ where the Big Tech CEOs get together to inflict maximum harm on us, they are each motivated to secure the dossiers of everyone in the World!
Re: Re: Re:9 Big Tech Bias
"Not a blogger a vlogger"
vlogger is short for "video blogger", and the terms mean different things, hence the qualifier. Plus the preferred term tends to be "YouTuber" or similar nowadays. If you use terms that mean different things interchangeably, you can expect reader confusion, especially given that Google also run the Blogger site, which is very different from YouTube.
"Linus Tech Tips is a YouTube vlog."
Good for him. Don’t assume everyone knows who the hell he is, or why they should care, though. I admit I did miss your first mention of him, but it was lost the other misinformation you were posting.
"He woke up and found massive amounts of his content gone"
These videos? https://www.youtube.com/user/LinusTechTips
"It could have been a cloud glitch"
Exactly. There’s many reasons for the problem that don’t involve any kind of deliberate censorship, yet that’s what you leapt to instantly, and you strangely omitted the part where the issue was apparently resolved.
From a quick search, it seems that the guy has a reputation of posting misleading and inflammatory content that heavily favours certain manufacturers, so it’s likely that there was also an issue where YouTube were responding to high levels of complaints, although you can correct me if I’m wrong. The other likely option seems to be that he was using his channel to promote his Twitch channel, which while problematic in terms of competition does make sense without any conspiracy – which platform wants to be promoting a competitor? – and like the Crowder example seems less concerning than the version of the story you pretended was real.
"About your drunken insistence to call me a ‘liar’ my friend"
I can only go on the evidence you present to me, and your insistence on lying about my sober state does not help your cause.
"I do not see a vast conspiracy of the Big Tech companies because most are in serious competition to gather the majority of our information."
So, stop using the terminology that’s used to lie about there being a conspiracy, perhaps? Given that you are blatantly omitting or misrepresenting almost all of the examples you’re giving, you should be avoiding terms that are used to lie by others.
Re: Re: Re:10 Big Tech Bias
I have been patient, willing to hear what you have to say, and relatively respectful, but I feel we need a translator to continue. If necessary, hit me with your final vitriolic shot. Whether or not my two poorly chosen, off the cuff examples fly, or not, we both know there is a serious raping of privacy that needs to be reined in, and a deliberate, or inadvertent manipulation of politics and the future of our lives through technology.
Re: Re: Re:11 Big Tech Bia
"Whether or not my two poorly chosen, off the cuff examples fly"
No, that’s the exact problem. You chose your examples poorly, and spent several comments pretending they were relevant, even after being challenged on the fact that they didn’t happen the way you originally claimed.
You started the thread by complaining about widespread political bias, and in doing so you alluded to 2 vague targets you had in mind (but didn’t identify), while linking to debunked stories by known "fake news" peddlers. When pushed, you eventually provided the identities of the people you were vaguely hinted at. Yet, even the most cursory search of those people has led to evidence that not only did the stories not happen the way you were hinting, but they have been settled amicably by both parties and were purely business disputes, not anything related to politics.
Those don’t fly as anything other than an issue between a supplier and customer, which happens millions of times every day in every industry. This is not an issue.
"we both know there is a serious raping of privacy that needs to be reined in"
Yes, but then the question is why, if your concern is privacy issues, you initially decided to bang on about 2 YouTubes who were temporarily demonetised because they offended the advertisers who pay YouTube. That has absolutely nothing to do with privacy. You did introduce other examples later on, but these were not part of your original claims.
I thank you for actually answering comments in this thread, as most people who start the way you do are cowards who disappear the second someone researches their claims. But, you really need to work out what you’re complaining about. I’d also knock off the pathetic victim complex as well – I called you out for whining because you were whining, not because I’m part of some left wing conspiracy controlling language against right wing marks who believe that PV is somehow an actual news source.
I should point out that you haven’t proven either of those vloggers weren’t treated unjustly for political reasons any more than I have the other way. I just allowed you the fairness of admitting I don’t have conclusive evidence.
I have however heard interviews from both Google’s Sergey Brin, and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey. Both clearly not only leaning, but certain that the left is the only correct path, even to the point of offering advantage to what they believe to be a better life for all of us, through their technology. This is not a conviction of wrongdoing, but a motivation, IMHO.
You seem to clearly have all the answers and when not sure, you make assumptions that at least semi-justify the potential offender. You would make a good defense attorney. True, I try to convict prematurely. You believe it or not, have caused me to re-think my positions on Big Tech. Not ready to let them off the hook just yet, but my mind is open. It would be a much simpler world if they weren’t skewing history, hiding one view and promoting the other.
If there is any Big Tech Bias, we are all ‘victims’, arguably even those that agree with the bias!
Re: Re:
"I should point out that you haven’t proven either of those vloggers weren’t treated unjustly for political reasons any more than I have the other way. "
Burden of proof – you make the claim, you prove it. I merely checked your examples and found obvious evidence of non-political reasons for what had happened. If you have other evidence I have not considered, please provide it.
"I have however heard interviews from both Google’s Sergey Brin, and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey"
Good for you. Now prove that the personal opinions of either CEO has any bearing on the moderation methods of the companies they run. Especially since Sergey Brin is not CEO of the part of Google that runs YouTube ( that is Susan Wojcicki). Also, you’re on shaky ground with Twitter, given that their main criticism at the moment is that they let certain prominent right-wingers (most notably Donald Trump, openly flaunt the rules on their platform where there’s profit to be had. There’s have been some right-wingers who have claimed that they were kicked off Twitter for their political views, but when individual examples are looked at, they invariably show other reasons for their blocking. Although, once, again, if you have ay examples I’d be willing to look into them.
"You seem to clearly have all the answers "
No, I’m familiar with reality, and am willing to take a few moments to confirm the validity of the complaints of right-wingers when they bother to provide enough information to validate them.
"You believe it or not, have caused me to re-think my positions on Big Tech"
This, I’m glad to hear. I hope you’ve noticed that the conversation did change once you went from vague claims and complaints about how people were responding to familiar obfuscation tactics to examination of actual examples.
"If there is any Big Tech Bias, we are all ‘victims’, arguably even those that agree with the bias!"
No, if there’s bias against Nazis and anti-vaxxers we’re all better off a society, as an example. It’s not my problem if you find those people to be allies. Similarly, if those platforms show the "bais" of fact-checking misinformation being spread in order to influence votes in this election cycle, I’m all for it. The worst that can happen is that they let the lies and misinformation spread in fear of being called biased. Reality will always be biased against those who find it difficult to deal with, that shouldn’t mean that everyone else should coddle them.
But, honestly, before we discuss whether bias is bad, you have to prove that it actually exists. Which, again, your examples of two people being temporarily demonetised for non-political reasons before being restored does not do.
Re: Re: Re:
One of those Big Tech orgs has admitted their employees have gone over a line. Conservatives that have worked at them, say they are in a vast minority so, the hands ‘flipping the switches’ and writing the code are greatly biased, even if the leaders of the orgs were interested in being impartial. ‘Do no evil’ is already a biased mission statement, as ‘evil’ has no real-world perfect definition, but is truly in the eye of the beholder.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Do no evil” isn’t biased; it’s subjective. There’s a difference. And again, the question is whether the bias is political in nature and is against conservatives. That conservatives are in the minority in these organizations tells us nothing.
As for the employees crossing a line, please provide more detail because I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"“Do no evil” isn’t biased; it’s subjective."
…as is pretty everything else these guys are complaining about. Hence the problem getting facts from them to make their arguments – it’s hard to keep up the vague platitudes when you finally identify a verifiable fact to work with.
"As for the employees crossing a line, please provide more detail because I have no idea what you’re talking about."
A shame, since I almost managed to get across to him that argue whining was no substitute for specifics. This seems to be another example – there’s several instances in recent years of current or ex employees of certain sites, especially Facebook, talking about the bias in moderation approaches. These range from ex employees with with clear axes to grind who talk to Project Veritas (i.e. zero credibility) to people who explain in great detail how they were stopped from moderating right wing content.
So, once again we can carry on the conversation when we know what he has in mind, but as with the discussion of YouTube above it’s likely that whatever he has in mind says something very different to what he’s claiming.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"One of those Big Tech orgs has admitted their employees have gone over a line."
Ah, back to vague accusations rather than specifics? That’s probably your strength since you didn’t even bother to learn who the current CEO of YouTube is before launching accusations at someone for directly controlling the content of a site they don’t work for. Strange how you didn’t note that after you’ve been corrected.
So, which example were you mentally cherry picking / misrepresenting here?
"Conservatives that have worked at them, say they are in a vast minority so, the hands ‘flipping the switches’ and writing the code are greatly biased"
Yet, the examples I am aware of deal in them being biased towards conservatives – for example, as well as the claims of Sophie Zhang you already kinked to above (and show massive bias in favour of right-wing politics), there’s several other "whisteblowers" working for the contracted companies that handle the moderation who claim that they regularly give a pass to right-wing content.
Oh, you didn’t realise that much of their moderation isn’t even handled internally? You still have much to learn about the subject..
"even if the leaders of the orgs were interested in being impartial"
The leaders have no requirement to be neutral, nor should they. Not least because half the things you people are crying about is when abuse and misinformation are blocked, and most sane people would rather they not let that stuff fly even further than they already do, lest some thin-skinned group get all butthurt over the truth being revealed.
" ‘Do no evil’ is already a biased mission statement"
It’s also totally unrelated to YouTube as they never used it AFAIK, and Google themselves (well, Alphabet at least) haven’t even used it since at least 2018.
Seriously, are you taking your talking points from some 2015 article? You don’t seem to have any understanding of things that have happened in the last few years.
how to tell if a vietnamese woman likes you
Oxfordshire wonderful County for Adult Dating
The county of Oxfordshire is an affluent and sort of highly populated region, Well suited to what’s needed of adult dating. It is situated in the South East of England and is just about the most scenic counties in the south. there won’t be any shortages of places that make for romantic dating rendezvous and regular adult parties take place in Oxford and Banbury.
Oxfordshire has a people in this country of 640,000 and an overall society density of 640 people to the square mile. The most booming area is [url=https://www.love-sites.com/latin-women-date-online-dating-advice-for-men/%5DLatin women date[/url] the city of Oxford where nearly 135,000 americans live. The other main centres of population are: Abingdon,Banbury, Bicester, Chinnor,chipping Norton, Didcot, Henley within Thames, Kidlington, Thame, Wantage, Wallingford to Witney.
Henley on Thames is another of Oxfordshire’s picturesque towns that has proved popular over the years with a well established group of younger swingers who have organised boat parties and parties in luxurious accommodation overlooking the Thames. The group is a special one and restricts its invitations to the under 35’s who are physically attractive and lead affluent, Healthy way of life. within Banbury, Regular swingers parties of a less exclusive nature are host in a spacious private real estate.
country wide, People who go in for adult dating and swinging can be less than 0.25% of the general population which would lead one to suspect that in Oxfordshire around 1600 people do this kind of activity. However an study of profiles active on a leading online adult dating sites, recommends a higher figure than that.
My ownership of one of the main adult dating clubs Club Aphrodite, Also enabled me to go one stage beyond this and to view actual membership figures for Oxfordshire. These supported the final outcome that Oxfordshire has a higher number of active swingers and adult daters than the national average.
in this method of reckoning, A ballpark figure for the numbers of people engaged in adult dating in Oxfordshire is more likely to be in the region of 2000. This in time breaks down as 880 couples, 600 single males and 520 single ladies. It is clear from these figures that Oxfordshire affords anyone drawn to adult dating in your neighborhood a better than average chance of success.
The county’s adult parties are available on a member only basis and shavers that are hosted in private residences are by invitation only. To get on accepted into the circles of recurrently invited guests, One needs first to be active as a member of an adult dating swingers club like Club Aphrodite who have a lot of members in the region. it’s vital to have a photo profile and a really appealing write up. Be prepared to spend plenty of time on line acquiring well known and respected. It can be well worth while reading some of the advice articles that are written to help newcomers to adult dating acquire the right sort of online personification to achieve these goals.
[—-]