[Newsbot]

Title: Federal government blocking social media users, quietly deleting posts
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2017-11-09 06:02:28
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

If anyone thinks they live in a free country I've got some bad news for them.

The gov't has now become the sole arbitrator of what's acceptable as free speech on the internet and what's not. So, given that we can't see these posts, we have to the Liberal Gov'ts word for it that they're all related to porn spam and hate speech rather than things the Gov' has decided might be subversive to their philosophy or image.

0:

68657e843e95b7a6e852427a1d2b5700--russian-memes-in-soviet-russia.jpg [ 17.65 KiB | Viewed 656 times ]

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If anyone thinks they live in a free country I've got some bad news for them.

The gov't has now become the sole arbitrator of what's acceptable as free speech on the internet and what's not. So, given that we can't see these posts, we have to the Liberal Gov'ts word for it that they're all related to porn spam and hate speech rather than things the Gov' has decided might be subversive to their philosophy or image.

Our constitutional right to free speech does not include the right to be heard. It only protects us from the government legislating our right to speak, it doesn't mean the government has to give us a place at (or on) which to speak.

Mods at CKA delete spammers, personal attacks and vulgar posts all the time, and the country is still free.

Funny, when the Conservatives were destroying entire paper libraries, where were the calls to preserve those?

[fifeboy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If anyone thinks they live in a free country I've got some bad news for them.

The gov't has now become the sole arbitrator of what's acceptable as free speech on the internet and what's not. So, given that we can't see these posts, we have to the Liberal Gov'ts word for it that they're all related to porn spam and hate speech rather than things the Gov' has decided might be subversive to their philosophy or image.

Our constitutional right to free speech does not include the right to be heard. It only protects us from the government legislating our right to speak, it doesn't mean the government has to give us a place at (or on) which to speak.

Mods at CKA delete spammers, personal attacks and vulgar posts all the time, and the country is still free.

Funny, when the Conservatives were destroying entire paper libraries, where were the calls to preserve those?

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If anyone thinks they live in a free country I've got some bad news for them.

The gov't has now become the sole arbitrator of what's acceptable as free speech on the internet and what's not. So, given that we can't see these posts, we have to the Liberal Gov'ts word for it that they're all related to porn spam and hate speech rather than things the Gov' has decided might be subversive to their philosophy or image.

Our constitutional right to free speech does not include the right to be heard. It only protects us from the government legislating our right to speak, it doesn't mean the government has to give us a place at (or on) which to speak.

Mods at CKA delete spammers, personal attacks and vulgar posts all the time, and the country is still free.

Funny, when the Conservatives were destroying entire paper libraries, where were the calls to preserve those?

I'm glad you are so trusting of this Gov't because I'm not, especially after seeing their constant image building and attempts to block any of the bad publicity that it's members seem to constantly be covered in.

But, since you also seem to think it's not our constitutional rights to be heard, especially by using their media and that it's alright for someone to arbitrarily remove, redact or delete posts on any Gov't websites because of that ownership, I have a question.

Since we don't know what was actually removed, what's the difference between this gov'ts blocking of people's right to express their views on a gov't website and the previous Conservative gov't doing the same thing with the scientists who attempted to use gov't websites to express theirs?

Seems to me that if what you say is true, there's a double standard here some people think that if you're an employee of the Gov't and hold a university degree you should automatically have the right to use Gov't websites to espouse your own personal views, while denying others the same right.

But hey, I'm glad you think that this blanket policy isn't about image and bad publicity from mea culpa posts because I'd sure hate to think that something like their right to block comments from the public could be used to stifle any bad publicity

$1:

The numbers came as Environment Minister Catherine McKenna found herself in a social media firestorm over a tweet from her official departmental account on Tuesday which praised Syria for joining the Paris climate change agreement.

But while McKenna announced very publicly that that tweet had been deleted, the numbers tabled in the House of Commons reveal there were 97 other posts deleted from that department's accounts between Jan. 1, 2016 and Sept. 18, 2017.

In the department's answer, signed by McKenna, it said posts were deleted that were inconsistent with Treasury Board guidelines or "when it was necessary to correct errors in information, grammar or visual imagery, to clarify or more accurately reflect a priority, or to ensure adequate service in both official languages." The Treasury Board sets rules for government communications, including social media.

"Social media moves quickly and sometimes mistakes happen."

But the environment department isn't the only one that has deleted an awkward tweet.

because it sure looks like that's what's happening.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I'm glad you are so trusting of this Gov't because I'm not, especially after seeing their constant image building and attempts to block any of the bad publicity that it's members seem to constantly be covered in.

But, since you also seem to think it's not our constitutional rights to be heard, especially by using their media and that it's alright for someone to arbitrarily remove, redact or delete posts on any Gov't websites because of that ownership, I have a question.

Pigeonholing again? I've never shown any trust towards any government, ever. It's your own biases painting me with that brush, not mine.

And I don't think we have no right to be heard, I can read it in the Constitution.

$1:

Fundamental Freedoms
Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Cons ... .html#h-39

No where in there is the 'right to be heard'.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Since we don't know what was actually removed, what's the difference between this gov'ts blocking of people's right to express their views on a gov't website and the previous Conservative gov't doing the same thing with the scientists who attempted to use gov't websites to express theirs?

People have no right to express their views on a government website, it is strictly for government communication. If people want to express their views on a website, they can get their own. Nothing the government deleted prevents them from doing that.

Destroying Libraries full of hundred or two hundred year old information that was never copied, saved or archived in any other form isn't comparable to deleting posts on a website. Those historical records were important scientific records that cannot be replaced, and will end up costing us untold amounts in the future because we can't make as accurate predictions due to the loss of data. And it was done solely out of partisanship, not for any logical reason.

Deleting racist, pornographic, or hateful posts doesn't compare.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Seems to me that if what you say is true, there's a double standard here some people think that if you're an employee of the Gov't and hold a university degree you should automatically have the right to use Gov't websites to espouse your own personal views, while denying others the same right.

The double standard is only in your own mind. Book burning is not the same as deleting hateful speech on a website that has no obligation to allow it.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But hey, I'm glad you think that this blanket policy isn't about image and bad publicity from mea culpa posts because I'd sure hate to think that something like their right to block comments from the public could be used to stifle any bad publicity

$1:

The numbers came as Environment Minister Catherine McKenna found herself in a social media firestorm over a tweet from her official departmental account on Tuesday which praised Syria for joining the Paris climate change agreement.

But while McKenna announced very publicly that that tweet had been deleted, the numbers tabled in the House of Commons reveal there were 97 other posts deleted from that department's accounts between Jan. 1, 2016 and Sept. 18, 2017.

In the department's answer, signed by McKenna, it said posts were deleted that were inconsistent with Treasury Board guidelines or "when it was necessary to correct errors in information, grammar or visual imagery, to clarify or more accurately reflect a priority, or to ensure adequate service in both official languages." The Treasury Board sets rules for government communications, including social media.

"Social media moves quickly and sometimes mistakes happen."

But the environment department isn't the only one that has deleted an awkward tweet.

because it sure looks like that's what's happening.

Again, there is no obligation to maintain those posts. Just like the rest of us, government ministers have the right to delete what they think is inappropriate that they themselves wrote, even though it made perfect sense before they wrote it. I don't see the problem in encouraging rogue states when they make a small step in the right direction, but I guess some tightie righties are easily triggered and unable to distinguish the difference.

Unless you believe government ministers once appointed are no longer human and never make mistakes?

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I'm glad you are so trusting of this Gov't because I'm not, especially after seeing their constant image building and attempts to block any of the bad publicity that it's members seem to constantly be covered in.

But, since you also seem to think it's not our constitutional rights to be heard, especially by using their media and that it's alright for someone to arbitrarily remove, redact or delete posts on any Gov't websites because of that ownership, I have a question.

Pigeonholing again? I've never shown any trust towards any government, ever. It's your own biases painting me with that brush, not mine.

And I don't think we have no right to be heard, I can read it in the Constitution.

$1:

Fundamental Freedoms
Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Cons ... .html#h-39

No where in there is the 'right to be heard'.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Since we don't know what was actually removed, what's the difference between this gov'ts blocking of people's right to express their views on a gov't website and the previous Conservative gov't doing the same thing with the scientists who attempted to use gov't websites to express theirs?

People have no right to express their views on a government website, it is strictly for government communication. If people want to express their views on a website, they can get their own. Nothing the government deleted prevents them from doing that.

Destroying Libraries full of hundred or two hundred year old information that was never copied, saved or archived in any other form isn't comparable to deleting posts on a website. Those historical records were important scientific records that cannot be replaced, and will end up costing us untold amounts in the future because we can't make as accurate predictions due to the loss of data. And it was done solely out of partisanship, not for any logical reason.

Deleting racist, pornographic, or hateful posts doesn't compare.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Seems to me that if what you say is true, there's a double standard here some people think that if you're an employee of the Gov't and hold a university degree you should automatically have the right to use Gov't websites to espouse your own personal views, while denying others the same right.

The double standard is only in your own mind. Book burning is not the same as deleting hateful speech on a website that has no obligation to allow it.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But hey, I'm glad you think that this blanket policy isn't about image and bad publicity from mea culpa posts because I'd sure hate to think that something like their right to block comments from the public could be used to stifle any bad publicity

$1:

The numbers came as Environment Minister Catherine McKenna found herself in a social media firestorm over a tweet from her official departmental account on Tuesday which praised Syria for joining the Paris climate change agreement.

But while McKenna announced very publicly that that tweet had been deleted, the numbers tabled in the House of Commons reveal there were 97 other posts deleted from that department's accounts between Jan. 1, 2016 and Sept. 18, 2017.

In the department's answer, signed by McKenna, it said posts were deleted that were inconsistent with Treasury Board guidelines or "when it was necessary to correct errors in information, grammar or visual imagery, to clarify or more accurately reflect a priority, or to ensure adequate service in both official languages." The Treasury Board sets rules for government communications, including social media.

"Social media moves quickly and sometimes mistakes happen."

But the environment department isn't the only one that has deleted an awkward tweet.

because it sure looks like that's what's happening.

Again, there is no obligation to maintain those posts. Just like the rest of us, government ministers have the right to delete what they think is inappropriate that they themselves wrote, even though it made perfect sense before they wrote it. I don't see the problem in encouraging rogue states when they make a small step in the right direction, but I guess some tightie righties are easily triggered and unable to distinguish the difference.

Unless you believe government ministers once appointed are no longer human and never make mistakes?

I'm sorry but, until someone can prove that the deleted posts were actually hateful speech and not valid criticisms, there isn't any argument because, the secretive actions that the gov't used in this case when their Minister was put under attack for being an idiot probably included the deleting of at least some critical but valid posts and was likely nothing more than a form of censorship by a gov't intent on managing it's own public image.


BTW since nobody but the people saying "trust us" can't prove that the deleted posts were hate speech your analogy of a book burning isn't exactly valid but, it does go alongway in debunking you're first statement about not trusting any gov't.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I'm sorry but, until someone can prove that the deleted posts were actually hateful speech and not valid criticisms, there isn't any argument because, the secretive actions that the gov't used in this case when their Minister was put under attack for being an idiot probably included the deleting of at least some critical but valid posts and was likely nothing more than a form of censorship by a gov't intent on managing it's own public image.

I'm also sorry, because it doesn't matter what they were, the government has no obligation to let people post comment at all on government web sites. Regardless of what was posted, removing them does not diminish anyone's rights.

And what 'secretive actions'? Are you trying to 'fake news' us? Everyone knows what went on, there is no secret, and no one is being repressed so there is no censorship.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BTW since nobody but the people saying "trust us" can't prove that the deleted posts were hate speech your analogy of a book burning isn't exactly valid but, it does go alongway in debunking you're first statement about not trusting any gov't.

It's not an 'analogy'. It actually happened.

$1:

Many collections such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library in Mont-Joli, Quebec ended up in dumpsters while others such as Winnipeg's historic Freshwater Institute library were scavenged by citizens, scientists and local environmental consultants. Others were burned or went to landfills, say scientists.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... ings.shtml

$1:

Q: Did the Harper government burn books? Because that always looks bad.
A: “It is absolutely false that any books were burnt,” Ms. Shea said.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sus ... tant-books

$1:

Keeping the public and press in the dark about what's happening at the DFO is not without dangerous historical precedent, says Kelly Toughill, a journalism professor at King's University in Halifax. "About 18 years ago the federal government ignored, then muzzled DFO scientists who were warning that cod was being over-fished in Newfoundland," she wrote to me over email. "The result was the complete collapse of the cod fishery and the complete collapse of the economy of what was then Canada's poorest province."

In a 1995 piece that garnered him a National Newspaper Award, Canadian Press reporter Steve Thorne wrote of scientists at the DFO whose research was suppressed and neutered by the government in an eerily similar fashion to what many Canadian scientists are saying today. "Federal fisheries officials routinely destroy memos, minutes and other records to hide politically unpalatable science and thwart access-to-information requests," he wrote. "[...] Officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have even tried to discredit scientists whose findings don't jibe with political agendas."

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/4w57 ... -documents

Actual destruction of knowledge is a far cry from deleting some internet troll posting a penis bird.

[herbie]

$1:

I'm sorry but, until someone can prove that the deleted posts were actually hateful speech and not valid criticisms, there isn't any argument

J'accuse?
You're defending your free speech argument with "prove your innocence to what I claim"?

[CharlesAnthony]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Since we don't know what was actually removed, what's the difference between this gov'ts blocking of people's right to express their views on a gov't website and the previous Conservative gov't doing the same thing with the scientists who attempted to use gov't websites to express theirs?

The difference is that this latest move provides media exposure to the fun-loving American social media companies which are slowly dying.

You are looking at things the wrong way. Canadian dog-fuckers should not have Fakebook nor Twatter accounts at all.

[BeaverFever]

This seems to be about posts made to government Facebook pages.... not posts people make on their own pages. So I don’t see what the problem is.