I don't believe social sites are protected

Post your thoughts here if you are not sure where to post it!
Post Reply
bumper
udonmap.com
Posts: 8869
Joined: July 16, 2008, 1:54 pm
Location: London

I don't believe social sites are protected

Post by bumper » July 10, 2018, 8:01 am

Protected under Freedom of speech. If you post private thoughts you are fair game. These days good idea to think things out before you post.

In this case the guys job is a huge problem to be making postings as he did

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/san-b ... spartandhp
I reserve the right to be wrong, mispell words type badly. leave words out of sentences because my mind works faster then my fingers. To be an OLD GIT I've earned it

User avatar
christian_2013
udonmap.com
Posts: 67
Joined: April 21, 2009, 6:56 am

Re: I don't believe social sites are protected

Post by christian_2013 » July 10, 2018, 10:24 am

bumper wrote:
July 10, 2018, 8:01 am
Protected under Freedom of speech. If you post private thoughts you are fair game. These days good idea to think things out before you post.

In this case the guys job is a huge problem to be making postings as he did

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/san-b ... spartandhp
This is all just a lead up to the implimentation of the 5G social credit system being trialed in China currently.
Where pre-determined AI algorithims determine what is offensive or not.
It's the next advancement from the gullible who gave up there freedoms based on "If i didn't do anything wrong, then I have nothing to hide" which came out of "War on terror" which was created by there own governments "Hegelian dialectic theory" Problem reaction solution.
That's why it is so important for many to destroy the US constitution especially 1st, 2nd and 4th ammendment to create the police state that's happening.
The role of the MSM is to bring to the attention of the public more and more offensive behaviour and the consequences and punishment of such behaviour.
Th role of social media companies controlled by only a few is to input the correct algorithms to bias 1 group over another to lead the social engineering of our society in the desired direction mainly based on emotions not a critical thought process.

Personally I would rather see people express there views, so any real offensive behaviour and potentially dangerous behaviour can be identified and monitored, we are heading in a dangerous direction in my opinion when the social engineering of a society is input by the corporations running it.

For example there are those that support open borders and the flooding of migrants in to Europe, then there are those that oppose this idea and believe unelected officials corrupted by corporate back handers are destroying our societies and culture. Do we input the algorithm in to social media of the view of the unelected EU beaurocrats and punish those under the social credit system who have the same view as say the leaders of Poland and Hungary? Anyone who is anti-EU is a fascist, racist, white supremacist and don't deserve to have an opinion and will be punished if they don't follow the required agenda or a narrative created by it's own government that's a complete lie?

Another example is race bating, white priviledge, war of the sexes, religion? It's ok that all white people need to die because they have caused everything that is wrong with society. Minorities are oppressed all men are sexist and rapist's which is a systematic problem. All Christians are paedophiles and Islam is the religion of peace.

The next system of control after the social credit system is introduced will be thought crimes when technology invents it. Arrested for a crime based on what you are thinking hopefully I'm dead by then but it's coming if society has not been destroyed beforehand.

User avatar
Faraday
udonmap.com
Posts: 371
Joined: December 4, 2015, 10:53 pm

Re: I don't believe social sites are protected

Post by Faraday » July 10, 2018, 2:21 pm

Great post Christian.

However, to a limited extent don't we already have 'thought crime' with ', Intention to commit crime?

User avatar
christian_2013
udonmap.com
Posts: 67
Joined: April 21, 2009, 6:56 am

Re: I don't believe social sites are protected

Post by christian_2013 » July 10, 2018, 7:16 pm

Faraday wrote:
July 10, 2018, 2:21 pm

However, to a limited extent don't we already have 'thought crime' with ', Intention to commit crime?
Agree Faraday!
Specific intent is a state of mind and need not be proved as a fact; it may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.
General intent is defined as the state of mind required for the commission of certain common law crimes not requiring specific intent and it usually takes the form of recklessness or negligence.

I just see thought crimes of the future being prosecuted by an AI program that extends beyond just simple facial recognition and biometrics to actual proven thought crime Not inferred from the circumstances of the transaction or without the action of the defendant but from the mind of the defendant.

Similar to a progressive lunatic that talks about racism being subconscious bias, where you don't know your racist but you subconsciously (according to them) are. Where your chasing ghost's around in you own head but don't know it. :confused:

Post Reply

Return to “Open Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests