Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Machismo]

Hold on, what's this?



Congratulations on refuting yourself, I guess.

You literally edited out definitions.

Saying someone's zipper is down, when it's not, is misinformation.

It's weird how you keep editing out comments... how very deceitful of you. And yes, I am enjoying the irony. Feel free to edit more, proving me right every single time.

[Elegiac]

I'm simply betting that they won't.

There was no "betting" mentioned, bruh.

George Carlin was right.

Yeah, he was:

"One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is ‘Libertarian.' People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable, and to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, it’s just one more bullshit political philosophy."

- - - Updated - - -

You literally edited out definitions.

That's nice, still doesn't change the fact you literally just debunked your own nonsense about needing to prove intent. Lul.

[Machismo]

There was no "betting" mentioned, bruh.



Yeah, he was:



- - - Updated - - -



That's nice, still doesn't change the fact you literally just debunked your own nonsense about needing to prove intent. Lul.

Yep:

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”

-George-

[Elegiac]

Yep:

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”

Indeed, they might do something silly like vote libertarian.

[Machismo]

There was no "betting" mentioned, bruh.



Yeah, he was:



- - - Updated - - -



That's nice, still doesn't change the fact you literally just debunked your own nonsense about needing to prove intent. Lul.

So, why did you edit out definitions that you didn't like?

Are you attempting to deceive, and hide information that doesn't fit the narrative?

I happen to know someone who wants to ban such things, and considers that manifestly harmful.

[Elegiac]

So, why did you edit out definitions that you didn't like?

Simply exercising my free speech, buddy.

[Machismo]

Indeed, they might do something silly like vote libertarian.

I mean, you literally just edited out my comment, and cherry picked what you wanted, and discarded the rest that didn't fit the false narrative that you wanted to push.

I literally caught you pushing misinformation. Seriously, I want to thank you for that. That was the mother of all self-owns.

- - - Updated - - -

Simply exercising my free speech, buddy.

I agree, it is free speech, and it is misinformation.

Well, this is awkward for you.

[jonnysensible]

another thread that's become unreadable.

[Elegiac]

I mean, you literally just edited out my comment, and cherry picked what you wanted, and discarded the rest that didn't fit the false narrative that you wanted to push.

I didn't force you to link a definition that disputed your own nonsense about intent; if you don't want people to draw emphasis to it, maybe don't do it. Lol.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, it is free speech, and it is misinformation.

Then you'll shut up about it because you don't have an issue with that, right?

Unless that was simply another falsehood on your part.

[Machismo]

I didn't force you to link a definition that disputed your own nonsense about intent; if you don't want people to draw emphasis to it, maybe don't do it. Lol.

- - - Updated - - -



Then you'll shut up about it because you don't have an issue with that, right?

Unless that was simply another falsehood on your part.

Now that we've concluded that you are perfectly content pushing misinformation, I guess we're probably done here... unless you think you should be punished.

It didn't refute what I said. It was false information (and I meant to deceive), making it misinformation. I also spread it about. So, goodie for me. It fits all the definitions.

I will shut up about it, when you stop trying to censor it. Otherwise, I will simply point to your own usage of misinformation, and giggle.

[Elegiac]

Now that we've concluded that you are perfectly content pushing misinformation, I guess we're probably done here... unless you think you should be punished.

Nah, because what I said was not actually misinformation anymore than your nonsense about people's flies was misinformation.

If you believe it to be misinformation and thus protected speech, then you'll shut up about it since you don't have an issue about it.

It didn't refute what I said. It was false information (and I meant to deceive), making it misinformation. I also spread it about. So, goodie for me.

It did refute your assertion that intent is a relevant factor, tho.

I will shut up about it, when you stop trying to censor it. Otherwise, I will simply point to your own usage of misinformation, and giggle.

Why though? You've already stated you don't have a problem with either misinformation or censorship of harmful material.

Really just seems like you're here to be contrarian for the sake of it, lol.

[Machismo]

Nah, because what I said was not actually misinformation anymore than your nonsense about people's flies was misinformation.

If you believe it to be misinformation and thus protected speech, then you'll shut up about it since you don't have an issue about it.



It did refute your assertion that intent is a relevant factor.



Why though? You've already stated you don't have a problem with either misinformation or censorship of harmful material.

Really just seems like you're here to be contrarian for the sake of it, lol.

It fits the literal definitions of it.

See the problem?

I don't need to shut up, because it refutes your own argument on the issue.

When did I say misinformation was a relevant fact to it being the very definition of the word? Methinks you may be mistaking when I was discussing libel, or lawsuits. That may be more misinformation on your part.

I have plenty of issues with certain types of misinformation, especially about anti-vax nonsense. I simply don't feel the need to ban it. Not liking something, and wanting to ban it, are two very different things. I'd recommend not trying to equate the two.

[Elegiac]

It fits the literal definitions of it. See the problem?

Not really. We're not talking about a dictionary context.

When did I say misinformation was a relevant fact to it being the very definition of the word?

Move them goalposts further.

I have plenty of issues with certain types of misinformation, especially about anti-vax nonsense. I simply don't feel the need to ban it.

And why do you have an issue with anti-vax nonsense?

Could it be because... it's harmful?

[Machismo]

Not really. We're not talking about a dictionary context.



Move them goalposts further.



And why do you have an issue with anti-vax nonsense?

Could it be because...it's harmful?

What context are we talking about? Are we talking about pretend definitions? You seem to think I should just ignore what words mean...

No, I don't like people peddling in willful ignorance, or pushing anti-science bullshit.
I don't need to move goalposts, I even went back and looked at what i was discussing, and it was about legislation and lawsuits, and burdens of conviction.

[Elegiac]

What context are we talking about? Are we talking about pretend definitions? You seem to think I should just ignore what words mean...

We're talking about a regulatory context. That requires a little more nuance than a dictionary.

No, I don't like people peddling in willful ignorance, or pushing anti-science bullshit.

Because reasons? Why's this a problem if you don't view it as harmful?

[Machismo]

We're talking about a regulatory context. That requires a little more nuance than a dictionary.



Because reasons? Why's this a problem if you don't view it as harmful?

Well, that's something I asked you to do many, many times, and you didn't seem to want to do it. So, what definition do you want to give it? Mind you, I'll still use the dictionary definition, but at least I'll know where you're coming from.

Because, I'm not a fan of willful ignorance, and I like science.

[Elegiac]

Because, I'm not a fan of willful ignorance, and I like science.

Good to know your opposition to anti-vaxxers is entirely a function of intellectual abstraction rather than the harm it causes to actual people in the real world, I guess?

Smh.

[Machismo]

Good to know your opposition to anti-vaxxers is entirely a function of intellectual abstraction rather than the harm it causes to actual people in the real world, I guess?

Smh.

Looks like we'll have to use the dictionary definition, since you chose not to define it yourself. Agreed?

I'm not one to paint "harm" with a wide brush, especially when it comes to speech.

[Shadowferal]

another thread that's become unreadable.

It does put macho's earlier Trump statements in context.

[unfilteredJW]

Someone please get the baby out of the boxing ring.

It’s getting murdered.