I have been censored and kicked out of LinkedIn after decades :-)
- Thread starter fullautotrading
- Start date
LOL,
the social medium experiment ended even before I thought:
I can only hope some of my advice is actually activating some neurons
The place felt like a desert during the experiment. Huge blatant ignorance from many of the young candidates. I also saw a lot of increased advertising from IBKR, too, and felt a bit sorry for them, as I like the founder and the company.
(For consistency, during the experiment I only used Bing, which normally I never actually use.)
the social medium experiment ended even before I thought:
I can only hope some of my advice is actually activating some neurons
The place felt like a desert during the experiment. Huge blatant ignorance from many of the young candidates. I also saw a lot of increased advertising from IBKR, too, and felt a bit sorry for them, as I like the founder and the company.
(For consistency, during the experiment I only used Bing, which normally I never actually use.)
Last edited:
You were NOT shut down due to your comments. Your account has been TEMPORARILY restricted because you apparently refuse to provide requested proof of identification. You may disagree with their policies to request such proof but you are engaging with a PRIVATE business who has a right to choose its customers and discriminate as long as it does not discriminate based on protected rights.
LOL,
the social medium experiment ended even before I thought:
View attachment 319914
I can only hope some of my advice is actually activating some neurons
The place felt like a desert during the experiment. Huge blatant ignorance from many of the young candidates. I also saw a lot of increased advertising from IBKR, too, and felt a bit sorry for them, as I like the founder and the company.
(For consistency, during the experiment I only used Bing, which normally I never actually use.)
Yes, sure.
As I mentioned, I have been a user for decades maintaining very large groups, including IBKR's, and the official ID is requested as a pretext when comments started to become not desired and needed to be censored. It's obvious to me.
Of course, they can invent any excuse they want to try "protect", with "creative" law, their posterior, but that is the ugly evidence.
Where are the pro-Putin comments? I don't see any. Ah, I get it, all the civilized world, without 1 exception, thinks that Putin is bad, while Nadella is a genius. I get it.
Where is some criticism of AI, explaining that it is nonsense to pretend those (old) models are a form of artificial Intelligence, statistically speaking?
I do not see any, and mine have been conveniently erased.
If I were such a genius, I would rather be advertising my natural intelligence, not try to rely on an inexistent "artificial intelligence".
There are thousands of users who are obviously fake (on Saturday I was joking with "Jordan Belfort", yes sure!). And I don't think that Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or all the people listed over there have sent their IDs.
May I see Jeff Bezos' ID ? And Jordan Belfort's ID ? LOL
Only an insane person or a clueless desperado would send an official ID over the internet, to be used for any scam.
Please, at least, continue quietly what you are doing (autocratic behavior, imho) until it works, but do not insult the collective intelligence with puerile excuses!
Last edited:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575833
Government responded
The government recognises concerns linked to anonymity online, which can sometimes be exploited by bad actors seeking to engage in harmful activity. However, restricting all users’ right to anonymity, by introducing compulsory user verification for social media, could disproportionately impact users who rely on anonymity to protect their identity. These users include young people exploring their gender or sexual identity, whistleblowers, journalists’ sources and victims of abuse. Introducing a new legal requirement, whereby only verified users can access social media, would force these users to disclose their identity and increase a risk of harm to their personal safety.
Furthermore, users without ID, or users who are reliant on ID from family members, would experience a serious restriction of their online experience, freedom of expression and rights. Research from the Electoral Commission suggests that there are 3.5 million people in the UK who do not currently have access to a valid photo ID.
The online safety regulatory framework will have significant measures in place to tackle illegal and legal but harmful anonymous abuse. Services which host user-generated content or allow people to talk to others online will need to remove and limit the spread of illegal content, including criminal anonymous abuse. Major platforms will also need to set out clearly what legal anonymous content is acceptable on their platform and stick to it. The government will set out priority categories of legal but harmful material in secondary legislation.
Users will also be better able to report harmful content, and expect to receive an appropriate response from the company. This may include, for example, the removal of harmful content, or sanctions against offending users. Compliance with the online safety framework will be enforced by Ofcom, who will have a suite of powers to use against companies who fail to fulfil the duty of care. These include fines on companies - of up to £18m or 10% of annual global turnover - and business disruption measures. The Online Safety Bill, which will give effect to the regulatory framework outlined in the full government response, will be ready this year.
Protecting children is at the heart of our plans to transform the online experience for people in the UK and the strongest protections in this framework will be for children. All companies in scope will be required to assess whether children are likely to access their services, and if so, provide additional protections for them. They will be required to assess the nature and level of risk of their service specifically for children, identify and implement proportionate mitigations to protect children, and monitor these for effectiveness. We expect companies to use age assurance or age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing services which pose the highest risk of harm and to provide children with an age appropriate experience when using their service.
The police already have a range of legal powers to identify individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for online harms, where the activity is illegal. The government is also working with law enforcement to review whether the current powers are sufficient to tackle illegal anonymous abuse online. The outcome of that work will inform the government’s future position in relation to illegal anonymous online abuse.
The Government has also asked the Law Commission to review existing legislation on abusive and harmful communications. The Law Commission has consulted on proposed reforms and a final report is expected in the summer. We will carefully consider using the online harms legislation to bring the Law Commission’s final recommendations into law, where it is necessary and appropriate to do so.
Anonymity underpins people’s fundamental right to express themselves and access information online in a liberal democracy. Introducing a new legal requirement for user verification on social media would unfairly restrict this right and force vulnerable users to disclose their identity. The Online Safety legislation will address harmful anonymised activities online and introduce robust measures to improve the safety of all users online.
Send your legal IDs, they will be in good hands:
https://legaltechnology.com/2023/06...n Law Firm,California Invasion of Privacy Act.
" the defendants used “stolen private information” including personally identifiable information from hundreds of millions of users, including children, without their knowledge or consent. The claim also alleges that the defendants continue to “unlawfully collect and feed additional personal data from millions of unsuspecting consumers worldwide, far in excess of any reasonably authorised use, in order to continue developing and training the Products.”"
https://thenationaltriallawyers.org...edia,employment while violating their privacy.
etc...
https://legaltechnology.com/2023/06...n Law Firm,California Invasion of Privacy Act.
" the defendants used “stolen private information” including personally identifiable information from hundreds of millions of users, including children, without their knowledge or consent. The claim also alleges that the defendants continue to “unlawfully collect and feed additional personal data from millions of unsuspecting consumers worldwide, far in excess of any reasonably authorised use, in order to continue developing and training the Products.”"
https://thenationaltriallawyers.org...edia,employment while violating their privacy.
etc...
Thank you, at least you confirmed what is at issue here: Your refusal to provide proof of identification. You probably agitated so much that they wanted to verify you are who you claim you are. End of story.
That was already said first thing in the first posts if you were following.
Invasively asking for an ID after 20+ years and only when you do not appreciate some posts, is a deprecable and unacceptable thing in any case, as even the UK government has explained in an official document:
"Anonymity underpins people’s fundamental right to express themselves and access information online in a liberal democracy."
that obviously means that you want the user to be silenced and shut down because obviously, no person in his right mind would ever send a legal ID to these kinds of entities.
Agitated? I suddenly became agitated after 20 years of doing the same things. Right, that is believable. Well yes, I am agitated, and I am also suffering severe (and costly) moral damage. LOL!
They obviously (to me) just like to censor opinions while spreading propaganda. I have seen so many posts affirming that Nadella is a genius. Hammering posts daring to compare Simons with Buffett. Occult propaganda and advertising are mixed/masked as genuine posts. Hammering propaganda about the Ukraine war and against Putin. Idiotic propaganda about "AI", gives a false representation of the real scope and limits of these statistical models.
And, at the first word they do not like, they ask you to send a legal ID.
I have just proved it by creating an obvious straw user, as thousands already there, and showing that the comments addressed to Nadella about AI were immediately targeted.
I did not write any insults in those comments, as can be seen as they were published here in real-time too. Just my professional opinion. This is also probably the opinion of any scientist working on these topics. Still, they did not want them to be shown to the public.
So, instead of replying and arguing, they just shut you down. They want to be right at all costs. This means creating a specific representation that does not necessarily correspond to any truth.
It's like me and you are talking, and to continue the argument, you need to send me your ID or I will just shut you down. How ridiculous is that? Your being right or wrong depends on who you are, not on your argument.
It does not matter who I am. If I am a famous scientist, or professor, or whatever. Just reply to the point if you can. Do not mute or suppress your opponent, taking advantage of your position and making an absurd request.
Arguments from authority are just for fools. Arguments for censorship are for the foolish and unethical autocrats.
I call that censorship and autocracy. You can call it as you like.
Send your own legal ID to them if you wish ... and send it also to me to continue the conversation, LOL
I can only send my finger and possibly a lawsuit. Only in that case, can they see my ID. LOL
LOL, I know how that feels. Well, let's wait for his legal ID before discriminating; we can't say anything based solely on his reasoning ...