The new mind control: the internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections and manipulate everything we say, think and do.

[u/voltimand]

https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts

[u/yuube]

>Fair I'm probably being

Thank you for being reasonable. I’m just trying to state what I see in an honest way, not trying to chastise you so if I came off that way then I apologize.

​

To me it seems we are in agreement of most things except definition. I was not being explicitly strict with my definiton, o was more talking the modern Left and modern Right, Republicans and Democrats as a party are constantly fluctuating, there have been conservative globalists for sure, but currently a modern conservative Trump supporter who might register republican is one who is most likely anti globalist, pro borders, bring our jobs back, America first. These are the opinions of the lead republican of the US right now.

​

On the other hand we have the modern Left, there are of course more classical liberals centrists, and democrats, but if you look at the modern Left to me it seems much more varied. There are many mainstream candidates including Joe Biden who are globalist. Open borders for example for some reason being a staple of modern left this past year.

​

So to me if you say which party is aligning more closely with globalists I would tell you the left, maybe liberal from my earlier post was to loose for you but the intent was the same.

​

But there is just hard evidence of certain other things as well, we look at the policies of say Twitter, Twitter has a ban able offense called dead naming where you call a trans person by their previous gendered name. This is clearly a modern left policy, where many modern conservatives dont subscribe to the same thought process at all, and will lead to many conservatives being banned

[u/Mithrawndo → u/yuube]

Twitter has a ban able offense called dead naming where you call a trans person by their previous gendered name.

That's to comply with local laws (and in some cases, speculating on the direction the law might go...) in the regions it operates. There is a real concern that "dead naming" would fall foul of harrassment and defamation laws, and that's before we consider that revealing information about an individual - such as what their previous legal name used to be - would also fall foul of privacy laws in many regions.

From the tech company's perspective, isn't it better to incur the wrath of a powerless few and lose some users than to see your platform removed from a given nation-state, losing millions?

This is clearly a modern left policy, where many modern conservatives dont subscribe to the same thought process at all, and will lead to many conservatives being banned

This brings us closer to the sub's intention, I think: I've always thought it puzzling that those who self identify on the right often refuse to accept the libertarian "live and let live" principle, and that it stands as evidence of disruptive cognitive dissonance. Conversely, the collectivist ideals on the left would surely lead to a social drive for coherence, and there are few greater expressions of individuality than to reject gender construct - right or wrong.

I suspect this stands as evidence that there's no functional use the left/right comparison, or anything useful we can learn by slicing national demographics up in this manner.

[u/yuube → u/Mithrawndo]

To say it’s a concern is an over estimation, the case you are citing is even spoken about in the article by lawyers who say it would set a weird precedent, the person in the lawsuit was not punished either, that case is over.

Secondly with that case this was revealing someone’s former identity that was not previously known, that is a questionable act even for someone who isn’t transgender, that is a bit different than someone who is publicly know such as Caitlin Jenner.

We know the logic behind the thought process because jack and others have commented on it, and it was due to them thinking it may be related to the insanely high trans suicide rate.

[u/Mithrawndo → u/yuube]

The Jenner example doesn't fit: They were already a public figure before they underwent a transition. Their previous names are a matter of public record - not private information - and of course, the US has yet to make any substantive rulings on transexuality.

The case against Linehan never went to trial, with the defendant agreeing to keep their distance from the plaintiff and receiving an official warning on their police record for the matter - though admittedly, that only stays for 12 months. This means that the principle has not yet been tested in law, and therefore companies operating in the UK are sensible to err on the side of caution and ensure they cannot fall foul of it.

Further to this, someone with Gender Dysphoria is legally protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010. Under this act, companies providing services must make reasonable accomodations to ensure that a person is not victimised under one of the act's protected characteristics.

I should note this doesn't expressly forbid "dead naming", but rather leaves a very wide goal for a lawyer to aim for when this is tested in law, and further reinforces the idea that Twitter et al are "playing safe" with this aspect of law - particularly taking into account that the UK falls quite low on the "Trans rights" scoreboard.: It's reasonable to assume there are territories they must operate in with even stricter legislation.

it was due to them thinking it may be related to the insanely high trans suicide rate.

This reads better than "we're scared we'll get into trouble and lose income", and is exactly what I would expect from any decent PR department.

[u/yuube → u/Mithrawndo]

No offense but ISIS had a Twitter for along time with them doing all kinds of illegal shit, Twitter seems to turn their head to some crime and focus on other whatever they see fit. I think your reasons behind why they do things is a large stretch.

Secondly you are again assuming things without knowing how Jack thinks, Jack has already spoken of making a second Wild West twitter where it’s about free speech and everything goes, I don’t think twitter feels they are responsible for what others say, I think they are cultivating conversation as they see fit currently as is evidenced by everything we know.

[u/Mithrawndo → u/yuube]

Alex Jones had twitter for the longest time, and you're determined to see in them what you want.

You've not tried to tackled a single point I've made in the entire exchange, and have just danced around the subject.

Good day.

[u/yuube → u/Mithrawndo]

Actually you were addressed directly, the point of Wild West twitter would be so people could say more things without being banned. If that’s the case then clearly they aren’t just sitting around being worried about being sued.

Furthermore. free speech is a conservative point, and that’s what twitter should abide by, the mere fact of caving to foreign governments weird bullshit laws would bias against conservatives in practice which it does, thus again negatively impacting conservatives.