Lighthouse

Is that suppressing content or simply not promoting it? I don't use twitter or than to follow certain accounts but you're posting something then surely everyone who chooses to follow yo can see it. If you're talking about the search/hashtag function then that's different. I don't think you can really complain if your posts aren't being promoted to people who don't chose to follow you. What actually is being promoted, by whom and how that content is selected perhaps should be looked at but that's not an issue of censorship. Your friends who I assume are not liking or commenting on it.

How do you know it’s virtually invisible? Without meaning to be rude, there’s a good chance what your posting on Facebook just isn’t that interesting. I have friends on FB posting all sorts of political guff, in support or criticism of most major parties and TBH I’m just not interested. There are plenty of pages out there posting very strong views for and against every political opinion. I can’t see why they would be allowed but your individual posts would be subtly kept quiet. As an example, one friend is very pro-Corbyn and always posting articles about how Boris will destroy the NHS etc. I’m not even saying he’s wrong but when he posts three of these articles per day everyone stops caring. I saw all of the posts (or at least I did until I chose to unfollow him) and without fail they had 0 comments and 1 sympathy like from his husband.

It’s impossible to know that for sure because you can’t know that you haven’t seen something, if that makes sense. However I would have to say no. If they were deleting certain posts from individuals or pages word would spread very quickly and it would look very bad on them. The best example of how hard it is to cover up a story is the whole Ryan Giggs - Imogen Thomas super injunction story from a few years. Despite a high court ruling that it should be kept quiet and not mentioned by anyone, let alone a major news network, over 75,000 people had mentioned it on twitter and basically everyone knew. The only time I’ve seen content removed, everyone knows it has been removed because it contravenes the site rules (pornographic images, sales of dangerous weapons etc.)

I just don't see how and by who. They can't be government appointed or regulated as there's an obvious conflict of interest there. There are thousands of website which will need continuous moderation, every day. It will take thousands of trained, impartial moderators. Who moderates them? With all that power to control the content the entire country has access to, they will literally queues of goons from Trump, Putin, Johnson, Corbyn etc. outside their house, with envelopes full of cash and letters saying, "do this if you want your family to live." What about foreign websites, should they all be banned? What if RT says something derogatory about the Lib Dems? We can't control their content. It's a nice principle but it's just not practical. Pretty much every ban or infraction we give out on this site gets a PM in response saying, "FFS! What have I said wrong, it's just my opinion, how come he is allowed to post XYZ, blah blah blah..." It'll be ten times worse in real life and after 2 months literally everyone in the country will be convinced they are being censored in some way." The internet is just a means to communicate. I think the best we can do is caution and educate children in school about the dangers of misinformation.

I'm now picturing the a bunch of Arsenal players tied to chairs whilst a very angry group of Chinese triads hook a car battery up to their nipples. "You were supposed to throw the game! We told you we put the money on Southampton to win!" "We tried *sobbing* I promise we tried everything but they're just so, so bad!"

That's the thing though, we all know what happened. The truth leaked out very quickly and they have now lost credibility over the incident. Same as that edited interview with Keir Starmer. We have much more freedom of information than at any time in history. Is it any coincidence that in the most oppressed countries in the world the internet is either banned or severely government restricted? Let me put it this way, supposing Boris wins a landslide majority and on his first day back in office tells the nation he is going to ban the internet as it spreads hurtful misinformation. Would you support him in that?

How is that any different to being in some grotty pub and having to listen to a group blokes going on about how Muslamics and immigrants are giving everyone cancer? People have been perverting the truth and flooding the population with tsunamis on misinformation since the beginning of time. How do you think religion got started thousands of years ago. If anything were better off now because the internet is impossible to suppress. 50 years ago stories like Andrew/Epstein would have been hushed up, swept under the rug and the victims kept quiet. I don’t believe most of the bullsh*t I read on line but as long as I continue to see post for AND against all of our politicians, I’m fairly happy.

Er..... what?!

I don’t really see what the problem with these algorithms is, it’s just targeted advertising. It’s no secret that the ads I see on Facebook are usually from the brand or similar to what I’ve been googling 10 minutes ago. To me it’s no different to going into a cafe, ordering a coffee and being asked if I’d like a pastry or biscuit to go with it.

I wouldn't be too sure, Everton just lost 0-2 at home to Norwich.

Yep. This kind of thing would be tolerable if we were getting the business done elsewhere. A nice solid 2-0 at home to Bournemouth, Ings equalises against Liverpool, a comprehensive 3-1 over Everton and I can live with results like this. When we’ve had fewer wins than 9-0 defeats at home since April, snatching a draw from the razor-sharp, titanium jaws of victory isn’t good enough, against any team.

I honestly, genuinely wonder if a game behind closed doors would do this lot some good. They’re just so frail mentally, you can almost read it in their faces as they walk out at St Mary’s; they’re just going to bottle it in front of their own fans. Again. Let’s all just stay at home and give the lads a chance.

I can almost here the arsenal players in my head... "Okay, we’re going to give you this one because you guys need a break. Right, you’re 2-1 up so that’s a good start, here’s another chance, 3-1 should make it comfortable.... okay, you missed that, not to worry, here’s another.... okay you missed that too, don’t worry you can have another go... okay don’t worry about all those chances you missed, it’s 2-1 in the third minute of injury time, just stick this one in from 8 yards and you’ll be fine... okay you missed that too, just see out the last 4 minutes, we haven’t got a clue.... okay, here’s one last ball into the box, just clear this and you’re fine... oh FFS, well we tried our best to give it you."

It's not a typo, we'll need a calculator to keep track of the score.

Eh? You can’t change your captain after the teams are released for the first game.

It'll be tactical. They aren't that long international trips. Bit of an odd team but whatever, I'm expecting a loss anyway.

It really wasn’t if I’m honest. As crap as we were, at least you could get tickets for away games, usually for a reasonable price. You also had a chance of winning every game, as I learned to my astonishment when we I went to Reading that season. Yes those days were bad but no worse than this as a fan.

I'm honestly not sure I can bring myself to vote for any of this lot. Having said that Swinson gets bonus points for not wanting to scrap Trident, despite what that dipstick in the audience just said about the environment.

Prospective buyers are not going to care 1% about the fans. It's a risky investment which means Gao might be willing to sell at a knock down price and someone might be willing to buy. Both on the assumption that we will get relegated anyway.

I think putting Fonte and Virgil in this team would more than make up for the differences between Puel and Ralph. I'm not defending everything he has done but we can't just keep changing managers in the hope that something will happen. It's basically a roulette wheel of managers, continuously throwing money on one number until you eventually get one that pays out. There's no strategy and it will just fail long term. Before we sack him we need to address the issues which are DEFINITELY wrong and that's the squad. Then if he is still failing, we can look at another manager.

Dream on! We will struggle to give Moi away with his wages, let alone £10m. Cedric is out of contract in summer, nobody is going to pay for him. Nobody wants to buy our CBs As for signings, I'd be surprised if we brought in more than one player, let alone four.

I've got ham but I'm not a hamster!

I honestly wouldn't wear that shirt if you gave it to me free. Right now I'd sooner walk around in a gimp mask than ANY Saints shirt, let alone the hideous rag UA built this season.

Puel did not have the same squad, he had Fonte and Virgil for half a season. Those two are easily worth six points in six months, compared to our current defence. Take those away and Puel finishes 17th. Nobody has covered themselves in glory here but that’s four managers in a row fighting the drop. Our squad is crap.

It's part of a long term plan (I hope) to turn us around. There will be little he can do in the short term; we will still likely get relegated and I doubt we will see much if any movement in January. His time to shine will come over the next two or three years. As the contracts start to expire on the likes of Long, Cedric, Hojbjerg, Forster, Lemina, Boufal etc. it will be interesting to see who he brings in.