Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When Companies Like Twitter Regulate Own Content (reuters.com)
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, the U.S. President Donald Trump said that it is "very dangerous" for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate the content on their own platforms. Trump's remarks come on the backdrop of technology giants Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and YouTube ridding select kind of content of their platforms in the recent weeks. On Saturday, Trump argued that social media companies are "closing down the opinions" of conservatives. He tweeted, "They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Further reading: Twitter Is 'Rethinking' Its Service, and Suspending 1M Accounts Each Day.
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
seems to be a euphemism for hate speech. Stop being a bigot and your problems will solve themselves.
The moment any platform that allows public user comments starts meddling in who can speak, and who can say what - that is dangerous. Even more so when multiple companies collide to prevent one person from speaking as is the case with Alex Jones.
But that should, if anything, be a legal matter; someone I read somewhere said that Alex Jones may well be able to make a restraint to trade lawsuit happen against a variety of companies.
HOWEVER what is even more dangerous is letting the government have direct sway over what actions companies like Facebook or Twitter can or cannot have over users. You have to be able to let them run platforms as they see fit, then let the market of users and financial consequences dictate what actions are appropriate for a company to take.
Even though Twitter banned Alex Jones, you also see people like Will Wheaton self banning - so it's not like there is a balance naturally occurring anyway, even as things are.
For myself, I continue to use Twitter but the way to enjoy it is instantly mute anyone who goes political. Technical Twitter seems OK still.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He is more concerned that far right are being kicked off but the real concern for the companies is once they start down a route of saying what views can and can't appear they are opening a never ending problem for themselves and possibly risk changing their legal status from an open platform to a curated one and hence liable for their content
are you worried that you won't have a platform to whine, cry, and incite hatred on once you're removed from office?
Twitter is doing exactly nothing to stop people from starting their own service. If they don't like the terms at Twitter they are free to go start a new service where they can set the terms. Twitter is not obligated to bend to the whims of Trump or anyone else if they fear it would be bad for their bottom line. After all at the end of the day they exist to make money, not to be the mouthpiece of any one man.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Trump will be escorted directly from the White House, to Joint Base Andrews and from there to Sherman Army Airfield near Leavenworth, KS. From there he will be transferred under heavy FBI armed guard to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary where he will be housed permanently in isolation for collusion with a foreign government and violation of the emoluments clause. Depending on what Mueller turns up, it could even be Treason and Pence may be along for the ride.
Biggest Soap Opera Comedy Drama show since the twentieth century.
BS OCD
mainline
As in who they decide is allowed to buy one? Either you allow all private companies to select who can use their service or you allow none of them to do so.
Because Trump knows (because he purchased them) most of his followers are Russian 'bots. He's feeling threatened that his number is going to get smaller like his hands.
Fixed that for you.
There is a difference, IMO, from Comcast removing negative comments from its site, and not allowing me to go to comcastsux dot com. I'm ok with the first but not the later.
This is quite tricky territory for companies such as Twitter, Google etc.
If they now censor speech as a matter of course, does this mean they are making editorial decisions? If so, does this make them liable for all speech on their platforms. Or will they only use this power to stop speech they don't agree with even if the speech is not illegal / defamatory etc.
Clown supports Clown supreme. So are you a member of NAMBLA? Who needs Nazis...
OK, so can the crazy. On the actual, non-conspiracy hand, it is Trump who decries the "lying media" and "fake news" whenever he does something stupid, outlandish, against current cultural norms, etc. They aren't lying; he is. But HE would like to regulate what they can say like in China. Who is dangerous here? Facebook for taking a raging nutbag like Alex Jones off for telling people to get their guns ready? Or Trump who would like to stop the press from being mean to him?
There was a person in another forum who denigrated Youtube's effort at fact-checking videos (Youtube recently started publishing links to Wikipedia articles on climate change, next to videos skeptical about the existence of climate change) - this poster was claiming that fact checking was tantamount to silencing alternative viewpoints. It's... an interesting corruption of the notion of truth. This person was equating "being incorrect" with "having a different opinion."
Would solve the problem...
Lol, and guess what the platforms have asked ? to no be the judge and have someone else to decide if it should be censored or not.
Look at the DMCA.
I can' wait for the proposal, so who should accept to remove it? under which law?
Trolls do tend to say that whenever moderation starts removing abuse dominating a conversation channel.
The other top response is saying that they wouldn't be trolling of only the other side would stop being so wrong.
But to never moderate those things would mean that everything becomes rhetoric - all noise and no signal. It defeats the purpose of having having a channel of communication... which is kind of the point of this modern form of trolling, isn't it?
Ryan Fenton
You can compare websites to ISPs when I have more than one viable option for my ISP
Who really cares what he has to say about anything?
No need to be use bigoted imagery to describe a bigot.
Twitter is a colossal cesspool and no amount of regulation or non-regulation, internal or external, will fix it. I long for the day when Tweets weren't newsworthy.
There is no law preventing them from filtering content, and it is their platform.
I'm sure he's perfectly fine with the government regulating social media, and the press for that matter.
Things will be full of the correct facts then... just like in China and North Korea.
And Jones was fine for years until he started doing borderline incitement to violence. It doesn't help that he caters to an extreme right wing base that's been shown to act on the kind of crazy conspiracy theories he specializes in.
BTW, does anyone else think in the "two minutes of hate" from 1984 when watching Jones rant? Serious, that creeped me out more than anything he's done (yes, more than the references to blood libel whenever he criticized someone Jewish).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you're welcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGEsN1v9cZA
This coming from an administration that justifies ending of net neutrality, on first amendment grounds (the ISP company's 1st Amendment rights, not yours).
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
your comment is so wrong, you don't have an understanding at all. You don't like twitter don't use it. You don't like the internet, well tough there is only one.
Oh yes, please lecture us on how a 'conservative' government administration should regulate private industry. But oh, shut down all those lousy newspapers that are saying such mean things about you. Gotta toughen up those libel laws!
Dumbfuck.
The shit will hit the fan, and the Tech Left will loose out. That's right folks regulation is coming, you cannot shadow ban all the republicans on Twitter, without it blowing up in your face. This goes for FB Google, and Youtube. (google owned) I am very happy to see this finally coming to a head. Time to pop the Tech left like a ripe pimple. The Angry Cat.
Republicans view private companies as being free to do what they want, that they are subject to the free market deciding what is right and wrong. So for Trump to say that it is very dangerous when Twitter makes its own decisions is 1. anti-Republican, and 2. inviting government regulation.
Republicans (including Trump): if you want platforms to allow unfettered hate speech from the right, and even to censor left wing speech if so desired, go and start your own competing platforms. Let the free market decide. And stop being snowflakes.
He's 100% libertarian "hands off muh corporation" until he disagrees with the corporate stance, then he's "corporations can be told wut to do cuz Murica" - what a hypocritical douche you are Ken Doll lol.
or maybe we should boycott slashdot until your account is removed, you're worse than Trump
If it were any other president, it would be worth debating this. However, President Trump is a compulsive liar, criminal and derides all content he doesn't like by calling it "fake news". Twitter should have booted him long ago but refused to do so because it would hurt their business.
I have no sympathy for sources of disinformation.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Comcast is highly flawed. But then you knew that...
I am fairly certain well-known pedophile milo yiannopoulos is on the Trump side. Dennis Hastert, anyone?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The Left: "The internet is a public utility, and Service Providers have no right to control what content we see on their platform!"
Also the Left: "Service Providers have an absolute right to control what content is allowed on their platform!"
The Right: "The internet is NOT a public utility, it is a business tool for commerce, and you have no free speech on private platforms!"
Also the Right: "Businesses on the internet have no right to censor speech on their platforms!"
No wonder we're going to hell in a handbasket...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
He's still better then the ,white-man hating, catholic bashing, baby killing, witch he ran against even with all his flaws. ( so there I can string together a bunch of meaningless labels too ;P )
LOL.
But its OK for Captain Covfefe to threaten newspapers he does not like with closure.
Sargent BoneSpurs is just scared that if they ban actual fake news, he is a goner .
No not really but then you knew that his point was about corporations hidding behind "we're a business" and can do as we please in that area.
If social media wants to shadow ban and curate posts then they are, in effect, publishers deciding who gets to say what on their site. Meaning they should be held liable for defamatory statements and can be sued for libel and slander they allow to occur.
If they are a platform that is open to the public, but do not curate and hide posts they don't agree with then they should enjoy the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
What will happen is the government will decide they no longer qualify for 230 protection and the flood gates open. All the racist, awful posts on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are now open for law suits against those companies. They will quickly back pedal and try to unscrew what has happened, but it will be too late.
Millions of class action lawsuits from people that have been subjected to online harassment, libel and slander from social media. Jack and Zuckerberg know this and they are trying like hell to avoid getting hit.
The ACLU should be all over this.
> But HE would like to regulate what they can say like in China.
Huh?
Caution: Contents under pressure
That's a disgusting thing to say. To call a victim of rape as a child a pedophile is ridiculous. He was the victim.
Twitter is censoring content at the demands of their owners Alwaleed bin Talal and the state of Qatar. Those anonymous "angel investors" that Silicon Valley celebrated having were the state sponsors of al-Qaeda.
Twitter is censoring content for the state of Qatar. Wikipedia's advisory board is packed with partisan Democrats and Alwaleed bin Talal's people and people working for the UAE and HSBC. Those anonymous "angel investors" that Silicon Valley celebrated having were the state sponsors of al-Qaeda.
Technically he is correct. All children that are sexual abused are pedophiles.
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
Is it? Is there another "Facebook" that you can practice free speech on if Facebook decides it doesn't like your politics? What happens when Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter all decide it doesn't like your politics, and censors you? Right before the midterm elections?
You have free speech, go talk in the dark alleyway! Build your own social media network, become part of the oligarchy, and then you will have the free speech you desire!
"Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action":
"Generally speaking and simply put, Democrats got clobbered in the digital space. [..] And the right colonized Facebook, which has established a virtual monopoly on information distribution."
"Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists."
"Toxic alt-right social media-fueled harassment campaigns that silence dissent and poison our national discourse will be punished and halted."
you're worse than Trump
If you mean the monospace text, I totally agree
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Net neutrality is about the transport method not the end point presentation method. But I guess that distinction gets lost in the series of tubes.
The question boils down to, can a platform control comments in order to push an agenda
No, the question boils down to whether a platform can establish minimum standards for behavior. Nobody would bat an eyelid if a bar bouncer kicked out a shit-talking asshole. Twitter is no different.
Its not like there aren't plenty of other places to go. Jones has his own website and ahole plebs who can't afford their own website, go to gab.ai or stormfront or whatever.
To answer your question, conservatives are worried they are being pushed off various social media platforms (which they are). But liberals are also leaving the same platforms, sometimes also pushed out (like the Antifa group from England that Facebook tossed) or self-selecting out like Wheaton, because they do not believe enough people are being tossed off the platform... so there is some balance as the most extreme people end up leaving on either side, more balance than most are willing to admit.
To respond to what you were actually thinking through, yes Antifa/Wheaton kinds of people and Jones are indistinguishable to me. People here claim Jones called for violence - I don't know for sure as I never watched anything but humorously re-edited clips of Jones. However if so it would place Jones very low on the "incites violence" scale compared to nearly the entirely of the left which has thousands of people marching in streets with banners showing "Others" being assaulted by force and literally punching (or more accurately bludgeoning) anyone they perceive as against AntiFa GroupThink.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
man,when will you ever grow up enough to take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to blame a woman. Oh, and repeating proven falsehoods only shows your complete lack of integrity in the matter instead of justifying your actions.
The president can suck my bung hole....
Thanks... the Hacker
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Authoritarians are so thirsty for liberal approval. They are always whining that athletes and hollywood types with political opinions should just STFU but they embrace d-listers like scott baio, reagan, sonny bono and trump like they are the second coming. And when Kanye runs his mouth without thinking, they rush to kiss his ass too.
Even the dead-eyed Dana Loesch of the NRA wanted to be in hollywood but got rejected and had to settle for making propaganda videos instead.
Platforms like this quickly get overrun with spam. Any measures that deal with spam eventually move to dealing with spam created by action groups.
I totally agree with both statements.
One man's censorship is another man's garbage collection - it's only when it gets applied unfairly or unevenly that it becomes a real problem.
I also agree with this, the problem is that it will always end up being applied unfairly eventually if it's the company doing the blocking.
I think the best approach is to treat it like email - anyone can send anyone email. But I also never see spam anymore because spam blocking tools at various levels have gotten really good.
To me, I'd rather have a platform like Twitter that never removed any content or posters unless legally required to.
Then, have a great API to allow third party readers where I could customize how I liked to read, who I wanted to follow and exactly what kinds of posts I even wanted to see. Then tools would naturally develop where the majority of people would be able to shut out spam themselves with no aid from the company. The Bia on blocking would then be per-user, not per-company.
Twitter itself as a platform is a great start for something like that since it's inherently a white list, where I only read things from people I selected to follow - but even more than that because the communication itself is pretty limited so spam can't be very effective. All it needs to be great again (yes I guess I did imply that we could could Make Twitter Great Again) is to fully open an API and embrace third party clients.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Was that supposed to be a cohesive argument? If you want to disagree, fine. I happen to agree that there is a huge hypocrisy when it comes to the left. It's evident in the media as well as these private companies using their power and influence to silence viewpoints they disagree with. There's a discussion to be had here. Calling people names throwing up strawmen just suggests to me that you don't actually have a valid argument.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
When the King speaks all will obey. This is the TrumpublicanPutinPuppet version of freedom.
It's almost like you, and whoever moderated you up, didn't bother to read the last half of my post whatsoever...
To make it REAL CLEAR for the mouth-breathers out there, I am 100% against government regulation of platforms like Twitter, and most things in general for that matter. As far as free speech goes though I don't believe in banning any speech.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is nobody more knowledgeable nor more of a stable genius to guide the American people through all the Fake News. Whatever 45 says IS THE Truth, everything else is FALSE.
The page you linked to mentions that Brandenburg (1969) held that political speech which may be politically dangerous is protected. That's because the first amendment was written with political speech in mind. Brandenburg in no affects the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
Just five years later, SCOTUS held in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater would be a "false statement of fact" for which there is little protection, and the government has a strong legitimate interest in protecting from deaths and injuries from trampling and other injuries caused by such an action.
This is what Trump actually said from the Reuters The folks who did the interview.... ""I won't mention names but when they take certain people off of Twitter or Facebook and they're making that decision, that is really a dangerous thing because that could be you tomorrow,"" Trump said. https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Trump has no ability to self-regulate and he fears those who do.
On a more serious note, this isn't like the IRS targeting scandal. This is "you've spent three years encouraging your supporters to be abusive and so it shouldn't be a surprise that some of them are getting blocked." Social media companies might have a leftward bias in their content blocking but people like Alex Jones are hardly the test case to use.
Hillary also did not have an agenda, all she did was attack Trump.
Maybe she didn't publicize it well enough, but she definitely had an agenda. https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
Trump on the other hand HAD an AGENDA "Make America Great Again"
That's a slogan, not an agenda.
The only people who voted for her were airheads who thought having a vagina was a requirement for the white house.
Now you're just being stupid.
The Economy woke up and got in gear the day after the election
Citation needed.
No, what I do agree with is Alex Jones' Terms of Service of InfoWars:
If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.
Funny how Alex Jones is being a huge hypocrite when he gets banned from other websites and then claims he's being censorwd.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I don't normally like the "point by point" refutation, but this post is so completely whacked... here goes:
> with no bases in truth
"Truth" (or lack of) is not a reason for censorship. Deleting things based on truth is subject to all kinds of bias and misrepresentation.
> Alex Jones pushed violent attacks on innocent individuals
Then he should be arrested. Was he arrested? I'm now wondering if your assertion is, in fact, true. The legal system has very explicit rules on what is legal speech, and a public forum for appeal with well-known rules and restrictions.
> To defend him makes you a nutter,
Insults are not arguments. I'll bet you're a liberal - because insults are all they have.
> giving him das boot.
"Das Boot" was a movie, originally in German ("The Boat", about a German U-boat during WWII), and you use the phrase as a pun of "the boot", meaning "to kick out".
I don't see how this works in any comedic, ironic, or literal way, unless you're casting the social media as nazis? Which I suppose they are, but it looks like the opposite of what you intended.
> Kendall happily defends traitors and dangerous people
A jab at Trump and Kendall. People are waking up to the fact that extreme rhetoric is simply noise in the public dialog. We get it, you're full of hatred, you have to throw insults because you have no arguments.
> [Kendall, Trump] so long as ideologically they agree with him. Otherwise he's for the opposite.
Someone who defends a position they agree with, and argues against a position they disagree with is... what?
If you have an argument that's not based on emotion, I'd like to hear it. Saying that social media "can run their business the way they want" is starting to wear thin, as social media invited everyone to participate and built a huge base and following, only to suppress certain viewpoints in the run-up to an election.
The term "anti-American" has been tossed around lately, but actually that previous sentence 'kinda fits. By suppressing one political viewpoint, those companies are using their built-up power to influence the results of an election.
On the face of it, that seems anti-American.
What's the fucking point?
The thing that keeps me on Technical twitter, is I can have this stream I follow with a lot of little minor events to keep up on easily - like releases of some development tools or software I care about, or some interesting technical tips for stuff I work with. Similarly I also at times come across some hard-won technical knowledge that I throw out on Twitter - maybe it helps someone, maybe it doesn't but at least it's out there in a lot of other heads for someone to remember in the future.
That's why I don't think Twitter will really die, because fundamentally it's very useful.
Now a replacement platform could very well arise because of Twitter missteps. Mastodon sadly ain't it because of the fragmentation of topic and moderation levels, and I've seen nothing else even close (I even foolishly paid for app.net when it opened to try and promote an alternative, that's how I learned a pay platform will never work).
All a successful Twitter replacement would need to do is:
A) Be free and ad supported.
B) Supply an extensive API along with decent default clients for most platforms.
C) Censor 0 people ever unless legally required to remove posts.
D) Allow editing of posts for five minutes, and allow others to view edit history for any edited post.
People are desperate to find something like Twitter that is not Twitter, so do all of the good things Twitter is seemingly not willing to do. If nothing else you may even just show Twitter how they are supposed to be and they course correct back to a platform everyone would enjoy again.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is this a joke? Yes, there are tens of thousands of them. You posted your question right here on one of the (formerly?) more popular ones.
Well, they don't have the capacity to censor me, even if they all ganged up and worked together to try. But I assume you're actually asking about what if they didn't let me post on their websites. What would happen? Um, I'd post somewhere else. Or I'd bring back my own website.
With everybody else. Seems you might be a little too attached to Facebook's well-lit alleyway.
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
antifa is the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. Just a bunch of Angry men. I haven't seen a lot of Black Lives Matters violence since, well, the entire point of the movement is to _stop_ violence, but I suppose it's possible. Again, if any such exists they should be prosecuted as normal.
I really, really wish those antifa schmucks would stop already, btw. The Left is way, way worse at violence than the right. They're not as well organized (what with being an anti fascism movement and all) and they're mostly just being baited by the right wing so they can be used as an excuse to crack down. Meanwhile we spent $100k a piece protecting the right wing protesters...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You don't trust the government so you elected trump to ruin it. So I wouldn't use the broken american political system, where they are trying to elect the least qualified person possible
Your post didn't make any sense to me. How is Trump not the most qualified person to ruin government? Pretty obviously he was the most qualified of any candidate, including the ones in the primaries.
I have seen and dealt with lots of governments in other countries thanks. The UK alone owes me about 3k pounds which they basically stole from me just because I shipped an expensive lens through that country. So I agree with the old quote that says "America has the worst form of government, except for all the others" - America has nothing like the extreme corruption and sheer malice you see in every other government across the globe, in countries small and large.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the left wing is about policy and outcomes, not ideals. The goal of the actual left, e.g. the Bernie Sanders left and the Justice Democrats (google it) is to get away from pointless identity politics used by _both_ sides to distract from the very real issues faced by the working class. Right wing economics have failed the working class time and again, and the sooner we can put this nonsense aside and focus on things like universal healthcare and college, ending the 8 wars (and counting) we're in, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and getting a decent life for everyone then better.
That said, our country has centuries of racial oppression and that shouldn't be ignored. But we also shouldn't ignore the reason for that oppression: money. Specifically racism in America was used to create an underclass that not only could be exploited for cheap labor but would stratify the working class into easily managed groups that the ruling class can control. Universal healthcare has gone up for a vote 3 times in American history (not counting Hilary's non-starter in the 90s and the nationalized version of "Rhomneycare" that is the ACA) and all 3 times it was shot down because the racists wouldn't let it cover races they didn't like and the progressives insisted we cover everyone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and Alex Jones. Most of the Blood libel stuff is down now. It's preserved on Secular Talk's channel though. For the "hate in" stuff just about anything Steve Colbert made fun of will do since it tends to be the sillier stuff Jones did, but I don't really find it silly given the context (2.5 million really angry white with guns who've been crapped on economically for 20+ years watching his show every week...).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Twitter isn't going to block you as you bring in too much money for them. They care more about the money than their principals.
No. It's not correct in a world where words mean anything. Pedophile has a very specific meaning, and does not mean "a sexually abused child." If the child was abused by another child it might questionably qualify for pedosexual, but usually such terms are reserved to express proclivities rather than abuse.
If he were making the rules I have no doubt he would ban "fake news" like CNN.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
in most jurisdictions. California has some limited protections. But there's another different. Jones didn't get banned because twitter doesn't agree with him. They got banned because he was inciting violence, repeatably and to an audience that is known to act on that incitement from time to time (e.g. Abortion clinics). He violated a completely reasonable set of terms and conditions.
The equivalent would be if those guys went to the baker and asked for a cake with "Kill Bob Mueller" written on it and also the baker knew the cake was going to be the center piece to a convention of gun enthusiasts who routinely discussed assassinations...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution just keeps the government from censoring your speech. Since social media is not the government, they can do whatever they want: allowing you to speak unfettered, closing your account, censoring what you say. There's NOTHING illegal or wrong about that; it's only a problem when the government starts censoring your speech.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Hillary legitimately lost (worst candidate ever), but Trump did not legitimately win (electoral college).
The DNC was broke both because of Obama letting it languish and because Hillary Clinton made them sign a contract funneling all subsequent donations into her election.
Youâ(TM)re right that she lacked a platform, and that hurt her. The corporate Democrats havenâ(TM)t learned yet, but come November, Progressives are going to have a caucus in Congress and the left will have a voice in government again.
Wikileaks showed a political bias in the election that should trouble you. It shows that they got played as well.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
> How likely is it that a guy who incites his own mob to attack the press is a supporter of free speech?
Antifa is left wing. Oh wait, you weren't talking about times the press was actually injured, were you?
> Or a guy who makes a list of former intelligence officers who he's going to punish based upon whether or not they criticized him?
What right does anyone have to a security clearance, exactly? Oh, right, none. And did you already forget he's the guy who spied on Congress? It wasn't that long ago you guys were out to fire him. Does that count as Gell-Man amnesia? It feels related.
> Fuck you. Trump doesn't care fuck-all about free speech. Remember how envious he was of how Kim Jong Un could get everyone to sit up and pay attention?
That's... not even an argument. As expected from a leftist, you guys forgot how to craft them quite a while ago, which is why you can get people to believe that you lost to Russian memes on Twitter or that Trump had prostitutes pee on Obama's former bed.
As in heâ(TM)d like to regulate free speech similar to the way they do in China.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Taking Alex Jones down was his own fault. Inciting violence has long been considered an exception to free speech.
Also, corporations can regulate whatever they want internally. Itâ(TM)s called capitalism. When the government does it, itâ(TM)s unconstitutional.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
All those people who disagree with us are so stupid and wrong! We're so superior for pointing this out.
for the people to seize the means of media production!
Criminal Trump has said he's the only one alowed to censor the media. If you don't obey him, he will pay Russian criminal friends to force you.
Funny how the anti-socialists co-op non-government platforms, smells like fascism.
n/t
Hundreds of people screaming "Fuck Alex Jones! He was inciting violence!" and not a single person can provide a source. How are folks this gullible? At any point in time someone could be banned on a site where user comments are king, and all that company has to do is say "Banned for lewd comments towards a minor" and you chuckle-fucks would eat it up like it's candy!
Anyway, it's not like they're turning the frogs gay or anything......
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301151927.htm
An atrazine-induced female frog (a genetic male) is shown (bottom) copulating with an unexposed male sibling. This union produced viable eggs and larvae that survived to metamorphosis and adulthood. Yet, because both animals were genetic males, the offspring were all males.
Create a new twitter account. Follow the president. Do nothing else. You will be banned.
It's pretty clear who the useful idiots are.
The Guardian? That's your answer?
If you bothered to listen to Milo Yannopolis's remarks, you'd see that he didn't support pedophilia, he just thought it would helpful if young gay boys had gay men as role models. Somehow the hysterical left turned this into accusations of pedophilia, and Breitbart was fooled.
The reality, as your other example proves, is that nearly every pedophile is a liberal, and they tend to identify as part of the "LGBTQIA+ Community."
Wait - why can a baker deny baking a cake if he doesn't like how it'll be used (gay marriage, trans celebration) in spite of non discrimination laws but private companies have to host content which they do not agree with and calls for violence?
There is a conversation to be had, but if you're going to call out the left's hipocracy then I suggest you take a long hard look at the right's.
He's not being a hypocrite when he rightly states he's being censored. He IS being a cry baby. Alex Jones is clearly a whiny, pathetic loser who can't put up and was shut up. He's unwilling to own up to it and instead is deflecting with the obvious, but irrelevant, fact that his rambling hyperbolic bullshit borderline calling for shit he wouldn't dare do because it'd get his fat ass arrested has finally got to the point that any sane platform, including his own comments section, would not tolerate it.
So, the asshole is getting properly delisted and he thinks if he cries enough crocodile tears people will pay attention to him? With a charlatan like Alex Jones, the best thing to do is what Twitter did: ignore him.
Big social media sites are the public square for a very narrow few. Yes, they get headlines, but as people start to realize that they are not the public square they thought, their power and threat diminish.
It is only a matter of time before Facebook and Twitter are eclipsed by the next wave.
Wake up and move on. Most of the world could care less what wither Kim Kardashian or Donald Trump Think.
There is evidence that neither think at all and that evidence is clearly posted on Twitter every day.
They are entertainers and nothing more.
And that's the problem, people like you saying "there is a discussion to be had" over some pretty black and white topics, like Nazis ("fine people")...
Not everything has to be discussed to death just because it allows people like you to put forward their questionable view points. It's your stance which forces media companies to "show both sides of the argument" which results in a climate change denier sitting alongside a climate change expert as if they were an equal side in the discussion, when in fact the fact of climate change is supported 90:1 in the scientific community.
Not very smart using your real name....not very smart at all....
Such a funny guy, one week hes complaining that news papers are talking shit, next week hes complaining that conservatives aren't allowed to talk shit.
On Saturday, Trump argued that social media companies are "closing down the opinions" of conservatives
That idiot is just worried that Twitter will follow it's own terms of service and ban Trump for violating them.
So wait, wait...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That was real news? That wasn't characteristic of CNN at all?
honestly if you watch CNN they contradict themselves within the same minute constantly and are totally dishonest in their framing.
Just ask anyone of the more than 1300 people who's sued him in civil court in the past decades. They certainly didn't sue him because he was being honest with them. Or any of the dozens of women and underaged girls who accused him of sexual harassement, claims that he all denied. Or the claim that he never had sex with a certain porn-star (albeit consensual sex, but that's besides the point).
But as a typical trumptard, you will simply disregard every single example of him lying, just like flat-earthers deny every single piece of evidence that the earth is not flat. You people are simply completely endoctrinated and brainwashed, just like members of a cult. The more you are presented with evidence of you being wrong, the harder you cling desperatly to your misgueded belief.
Because the cake didn't exist yet and he would have to work to create it as a piece of art. As opposed to an already made cake sitting on a shelf, which he would have to sell to anyone who wanted to buy.
It *is* dangerous for private parties to have freedom. They might do things you don't like with it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Hate speech isn't free speech.
2. Holding up another countries flag and declaring actions, on another countries soil, is treason to the soil of that country.
Sorry, but there is no reason to argue those 2 points above, unless you are a bigot or against human progress.
Science, Fact, I'm done, mic drop.
CNN along with the sea of left media and celebrities is more addicted to, and obsessed by, Trump's tweets than any of Trump's followers.
How funny is it that the only analogue you could find to the President of the United States' behavior is a group of anarchists.
Tells you everything you need to know about Trump.
You are welcome on my lawn.
what do marlon brando lookalikes have to do with this?
...It's even more dangerous when governments step in and regulate all content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He refused to bake any cake for a wedding.
Even if he made no different actions than any of the standard cakes baked by the dozen.
How about 2,300 examples and counting?
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/
Oh, it's dangerous all right. You know what's more dangerous than corporations regulating their own content? Literally anyone else doing it for them.
You are not being censored. You are being ostracized. No one wants you around, and no one will miss you when you are gone. If you don't like this, you can change it. All you have to do is change.
If he regulates them like a utility. But if he does some bullshit that results in another loop hole that somehow results in the oligarchs getting more money,then he's a piece of shit.
I can't believe Twitter doesn't have a checkbox that says "Allow people to follow me, but only if they aren't Russian".
Keep drinking the flavor aid shitlib.
There was a time when the Left would have had a massive cow about huge media companies literally colluding to suppress unapproved points of view.
I see, these people are just right wing by name only. they just do what the lobbyists want.
He didn't legitimately win by... winning in the only way that matters per the system we have today?
How does that work again?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Oh just because you say it's true means its true, no evidence required, no references.
You conflate anything he said that isn't factually true as being a lie.
I mean, this is seriously minor, easily arguable minutae.
There is no sorting according to importance.
Fits exactly with your drone psychology. It's about points and empty signalling, not about meaning.
Yeah, you're fucking crazy.
Seriously, why don't you make one of those for every recent president, or any authority figure, compare them, and see how fucking crazy you are.
How does that work again?
The electoral college is itself illegitimate, an arcane abomination that was imposed centuries ago, when it ostensibly served some purpose (but never did) and which still fools people into thinking it protects smaller states or some other bullshit.
This includes the whole apportionment businesses that has been falsely applied to Congress since the 1920s.
These objections, by the way, predate Trump, so don't assume it is merely partisan grumbling.
but Trump did not legitimately win (electoral college).
Yeah, the electoral collage is the legitimate deciding factor. The only one.
Progressives are going to have a caucus in Congress
Yeah they dont seem to be doing to well. Marxists are not good at bringing in votes, neither are the Corparate Democrats. Its the Blue Dogs which Bill was, which JFK was, but they have been chased away buy the Corps and the Marxists, which is why Trump won and even the mainstream media have given up on any blue wave. Without the Blue Dogs, the Democrats have a hard time pivoting to the centre where elections are decided.
Wikileaks showed a political bias in the election that should trouble you. It shows that they got played as well.
Yeah the right said the same thing when Republicans got exposed. Its always bias when your own side is the one caught wrongdoing.
Trump won because he faced the only candidate even more incompetent than he was.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
it's the rest of America that's skewed to the right of the Overton window. America started a move right when Bill Clinton took the Whitehouse by shifting the Democratic party to the right with a new breed of socially liberal economically right wing "corporate" Dems. The Republicans needed to preserve a separate brand and moved right themselves, and, well, here we are.
Meanwhile the rest of the civilized world has Single Payer healthcare, robust safety nets and environmental regulations and generally better standards of living (I know, I know, I can already hear the shouts of "But Venezuela". All I can say is you try being a tiny nation just who recently clawed its way out of third world status and having the largest government in the free world slap you with sanctions while your only natural resource plummets in value and let me know how that turns out for you).
What I'm saying is, leave your echo chamber and enter the world at large. Democratic Socialism (not to be confused with fascism that occasionally prints a copy of the Communist Manifesto) is working for the rest of the world very, very well. There's no shortage of empirical evidence for that. Meanwhile I'll refer you to the smoldering crater that is Kansas' economy and education system, the aftermath of the Great Depression and the 18th century robber Barrons for what happens when capitalism is left to it's own devices. The facts just aren't on the side of the right wing. If you're going to hang out on a science and technology focused forum you should do your own investigation and then recognize that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I guess forum moderation is on its way out.
Kill yourself, retard
You mean like his more than one viable version of any given website? Ones with similar reach, similar amounts of people he knows and connects with, similar ease of use, and similar marketing ability?
Facebook is entirely free to edit as they see fit, but they need to disclose it up front, not buried on page 79 of the EULA or whatever.
A simple banner or subtitle would do:âFacebook is a loyal servant of the All-Glorious State.â That would tell you all that you need to know about what is allowed and not allowed on the sight.
On the other side you have âoeA subdivision of Koch Industries.â And so forth. Itâ(TM)s when they claim to be impartial and then are proven not to be that gets people riled up.
Yup, que the adhominin attacks and troll status because you know the parent is correct.
Last year, facebook and twitter were frequently showing in their carefully curated top news streams popular posts with memes titled "how to punch a nazi" usually showing a woman punching a man in the nose (presumably the nazi).
These posts were usually accompanied by comments about how satisfying it would be to punch a nazi, encouragements that you should do so any time you see one, because it's the right thing to do, and also what they consider a punchable nazi. Hint: everyone who agrees with Trump's policy about illegal aliens, the wall or generally anyone agreeing with Trump (although lately the definition has been expanded to include MAGA hats and other such violence).
The logic went like this - these people are against illegals, so they don't want them here, so they're nazis, and nazis killed lots of people, so this is the same thing as violence and wanting to kill them all and probably worse - so any such person is clearly free game for punching.
I am amazed how many self-proclaimed intellectuals propagated these memes inciting violence against people simply over their opinion or sometimes not even, and congratulating each other about how much more intelligent they are than the masses that don't know what's good for them.
There’s also only one Twitter. What other platform gives you similar reach? You could just as well say that you can stop using the internet and get busy setting up those radio stations and printing presses.
I think its "very dangerous" to give the president unregulated access to twitter.
There has never been a public platform free from moderation, so how would you know if it's dangerous or not?
There have always been laws which create a necessity for censorship. For example... starting a Facebook page for paedophiles and publishing child pornography would clearly be in breach of the laws of most countries on this planet and rightly so. Regardless of what Facebook's stand is on censorship they would be obliged to pull this content. And from they obvious example you can move into more grey areas such as content promoting terrorism, racial hatred etc etc...
I'm absolutely fine with Facebook, Twitter having a system for removal of content which doesn't meet a certain standard for civil discourse. I don't even care what that standard is, as long as it's applied consistently and fairly. If your shit doesn't meet their criteria for civil discourse, simple, find another platform. These companies should be completely free to choose the kind of discourse on their platforms, if people don't like it, they'll move to another platform.
You say Alex Jones is a hypocrite but you're comparing pumpkins to peas.
Infowars is not the town square. It's a dirty dank tavern.
This is entirely a question of SCALE.
Morals transform as the venue grows.
Stop being so brainwashed. Twitter, YouTube, etc. ARE INDEED the town square. It doesn't really matter how this came to be when deciding how to proceed. Either they are regulated or there is civil war.
But look into it. Google and Twitter got where they are by governmental corruption.
That was the historical right that went after milo. Not the left,
Pro tip: integrity means you don't have to argue endlessly over the difference between a "lie" and something that "isn't factually true."
So maybe try that sometime, see how it goes.
The electoral college is itself illegitimate, an arcane abomination that was imposed centuries ago, when it ostensibly served some purpose (but never did) and which still fools people into thinking it protects smaller states or some other bullshit.
That's hilarious. I would argue that, given recent history, it's more important now than it's ever been before. Any system which keeps a handful of cities from dictating terms to the rest of the nation is a valuable one.
You tell 'em, Ivan!
For now, until one of us makes our own internet... with Blackjack and hookers.
Found the corporate shill PR operative!
You are not being censored. You are being ostracized. No one wants you around, and no one will miss you when you are gone. If you don't like this, you can change it. All you have to do is change.
I know, right? That's what Jim Crow was all about. Nobody was being censored or excluded, they were being ostracised. And all they had to do was change.
Nice of you "liberal" types to latch on to such tried-and-true methods. Really brings me back to the good ol' days!
Back in the '50s you would have been one of the people arguing it was a-okay for restaurants to refuse service to black folks folks. 'Cuz private prooperty!!!1!
Typical Democrat.
Yeah, I don't doubt that you could compile a huge list of lies for just about any politician, from Obama ("You can keep your doctor") all the way back to that time when George Washington promised his troops that there would be cake on the other side of the Delaware.
But the thing about Trump is, he lies by default. He lies reflexively. He lies about shit that doesn't matter. "Biggest inaugural crowd in history," that kind of thing. Trump would literally piss on your shoes and tell you it's raining.
That part is new and disturbing. It suggests that he's not only a typical lying politician, but some sort of psychopath.
Berne is a lot of things and I would have preferred him, but he is definitely not in the middle of Hilary and Trumps political points.
Trump is doing more damage to the US than Nixon and McCarthy together did. The US will weather this storm, but the Republican party has lost me as a member for at least the next twenty years.
The electoral college is defined in the governing document of our nation-state. That document is the supreme law from which all others are derived. There is no law more legitimate than any law written into that document.
Arguing otherwise is just dumb.
"Twitter Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When President Trump Sends Out Own Content"
aaaaaaa
"These platforms are as critical as other utilities like Electricity or Gas"
How is twitter or facebook as important as power or gas? Many people (myself included) don't use these sites and are probably better off for it. Power and water and gas and the like are important to staying alive - facebook, not so much.
The platforms should face a certain amount of regulation because the kind of discrimination common carrier status is designed to protect against should not happen. If you run a business or a media platform there are certain ways it should not be legal to discriminate, except in very limited cases. If you run twitter, you should not discriminate against someone based on whether they are Democrat or Republican, for example. But it's okay to discriminate against someone if, for example, they start doxxing people, or encouraging others to commit suicide. Harmful speech is a little harder because if you don't define it carefully it turns into censorship of content you don't like rather than merely insisting on minimum standards, but at some point (e.g. someone is using your platform to share demonstrably false conspiracy theories with millions of followers) you have a moral obligation to either block their access to the platform or to correct their blatant exploitative fearmongering.
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut.
Yep.
Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap?
No, pretty much anyone posting on Slashdot is capable of knowing that he is full of crap.
The problem is that we have guys like Edgar Maddison Welch who believed Alex Jones and went out and shot up a pizzeria that Alex Jones had claimed was a child sex slave dungeon.
The only consequence Jones faced was that he had to take down the videos making the claims.
Maybe censorship is the wrong approach and I certainly don't trust Facebook to make the call.
Personally I wouldn't bat an eye if Jones faced some prison time for for inciting violence.
Either way, what he says has consequences.
You simply do not get Trump - he would NEVER shut down the press since they are always guaranteed to overreact and make his point for him.
Trump accuses them of hiding the size of the crowds at his rallies, and the leftists in the press make a point of not showing the crowds, and then his followers plaster the pics over the internet and the press is outed as having been exactly as dishonest as Trump said they would be.
Trump accuses them of taking his words out of context, and then they get in a tizzy and in trying to make him look as bad as possible they quote him out of context and then his followers put the full context including unedited recordings on the net and the press gets outed as having been exactly as dishonest as Trump said they would be.
Trump paints the press as uniformly partisan and against him, and they go crazy and launch and publicize a nation-wide coordinated hate-fest against Trump in which even those who do not participate (like the LA Times) explain how much they hate Trump as part of explaining their supposed non-participation, and people rapidly see that Trump was right.
The "mainstream" press are such an excellent foil for Trump than he would NEVER shut them up. He WANTS them attacking him. He plays them like a fiddle. They're as blind with rage as an angry bull in the ring with a bull fighter. Any time they calm down, he puts out just the right tweet and they go insane again, lying and flinging hate, and simultaneously damaging their own reputations while energizing Trump's base. The best thing the press could do would be to calmly and honestly report the news - but that's something Trump can be certain they will never do; he watched them all perform analingus on Obama for eight years and Trump knows exactly how far in the tank they are for the Democrat party and how irresistibly hostile they are towards him.
He won according to the rules, but the rules themselves are unfair. The electoral college was established as a political compromise - it has the effect of ensuring that some votes are worth a lot more than others. The reasons for it have long passed, but reform is not politically feasible.
They're just taking action against the fake tweets. trump should like that, right?
Conservative tears are so enjoyable, even when it’s a pathetic sock puppet crying. Good times.
He just inserts "politically" every now and then when ranting about coming for "them" and how he'll kill them and destroy them, politically, while politically making gun shooting gestures and saying that they need to do something physically to remove these literal satanic monster child molesters and remove them from existence, politically.
If ISIS said that they wanted to behead the decadent west, politically, they'd all notice how the "politically" was BS.
And finally, nobody cared about what was LITERALLY said when Kathy Gifford held up a FAKE HEAD that looked like trump's decapitated head. Oh, no, it WAS a call to kill the president THEN and an abhorrent call to violence. Despite not even a word being said.
And if they don't WANT to lend you money for your Nazi fluffing site then why should they be forced to loan you that money?? Jones has plenty of cash. So does trump. Stick them for a loan.
I remember when everybody was allowed to have their piece, and it was up to the individual to decide what he/she believed. Now we want these places to curate what we hear.
Remember folks, it will eventually swing the other way- And they are not going to forget about how we all decided it was ok to silence them.
Obvious to whom?
No seriously. It's obvious to me and you and probably lots of Slashdot, but the world is full of ignorant masses that can't differentiate between legitimate news and this form of what can only be described as infotainment. Furthermore there world is full of non-ignorant people who none the less will latch on to anything they believe with the unstoppable force of confirmation bias.
To both of those very large groups, access to this kind of missinformation is outright dangerous. The problems arise when the missinformation has an obvious political alignment.
Yes, they were planning how to incite violence and shoot dead people, telling them how to pack their guns and get them to the protest.
One side punches you, you shoot guns at them, and suddenly it's all about "what about the punching?!?!?!?!?"
Fcking snowflake.
And it's the internet. Apart from China and a few other places that may firewall your location off, you reach everywhere with even your self hosted website.
So the big cities lose influence in favor of underrepresented rural areas? How's that unfair again? It seems the very definition of fair.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No, he refused to Decorate at cake for the Wedding. A wedding cake is a work of art and expression by the baker who makes it. He had no problems selling the long time customers who sued him any of his standard products, including sheet cakes. But he would not use his special talents and artistic expressions to celebrate a ceremony he found morally repugnant.
That's hilarious. I would argue that, given recent history, it's more important now than it's ever been before. Any system which keeps a handful of cities from dictating terms to the rest of the nation is a valuable one.
It does no such thing, you have just been foolish enough to claim it does.
That's one way it is illegitimate. You actually don't realize this, but will mindlessly claim it serves some purpose.
Trump says anyone wanting to promote views other than his should be shut down and excluded from the intertubes, but his abuse and rants should be glorified for he is the God of Covfefe!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Constitution is nothing more than a framework of governance, one which itself was constituted by entirely dubious means.
Blindly defending its most inadequate parts, especially as the electoral college's strongest apologists do, only shows your lack of perspective continues.
Once, Facebook was a second-rate MySpace. Once, Slashdot reached an audience greater than that of most national newspapers.
The web changes daily on reach.
In comparison, Comcast has been taken to court for deliberately bulldozing through the lines of rivals. The same Comcast that successfully lobbied the FCC for the power to run a protection racket and burn down websites that didn't pay up.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ah, another person screaming about the supposed precious rural voter.
If you check, the Electoral College as defined does not prevent say, a single city determining how a state awards its entire slate of electors by sheer overwhelming population. Afterall, the usual method is to blanket award all electors. And while states could conceivably come up with some other system, only two have implemented it, haven't they?
So the electoral college does no such thing, making even your purported reason nothing more than a flimsy excuse to ignore its deeply flawed nature.
Add in how it has become nothing more than a rubber stamp for an existing partisan setup, how the apportionment of the House is broken, and rampant partisan gerrymandering continues to deprive voters of representatives that serve them, and you are just furiously screaming your devotion to a false and illegitimate tenet without thinking about the real nature of it.
A person with actual moral sense would own up to it. Sadly, you are instead furiously committed to it.
Even if evidence of actual criminal actions (collusion isn't actually even a crime) is found he would never step inside a Prison. The moment a President is sent to jail, every President after him or her will follow. The Constitution only allows for removal from office. They can only impeach one President at a time. Pence would assume the Presidency, Pardon Trump and appoint a new VP. Should Pence then be impeached that new VP would take office and appoint a new one. In no way do you get a Democrat in office.
But Collusion is not a crime, assuming it even actually occurred. Nor has the President violated the Emoluments clause. He has divested direct control of his business empire. No more is expected of him. The founding fathers certainly didn't expect anyone elected to office to be forced to sell off all their businesses and properties to fill a short four or eight year term.
Keep dreaming, because that's all any of this is. Wet dreams of democrats who can't accept an election.
Now can we talk about the Clinton campaign colluding with foreign powers to produce the fiction filled Steele Dossier? Or how about her still needing to be dealt with criminal mishandling of classified information on her mail server. (An actual crime versus Collusion).
Wow logic, glad to see some of it on a Tech site, little of it about these days.
And yet, didn't Hillary win the popular vote?
I don't think you win the popular vote by being unpopular...
Yeah, the electoral collage is the legitimate deciding factor. The only one.
The electoral college is actually an illegitimate process, as it is merely an arcane system that serves not a single iota of the purpose its staunchest defenders insist it does.
Seriously, it does nothing to protect any supposed rural voters and the idea of any learned debate or discussion among electors was lost within the first decade when partisan slating began, and continues to this day.
Only the general chance of it mostly aligning with the popular vote keeps it around, a mouldering relic of the inadequacies of the Constitution which inertia and ennui lets linger.
You could try the Australian electoral system?
Particularly preferential voting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Call a federal election, after an unusually long election campaign of 11 weeks, we had a new government.
Fast, low cost, not difficult to understand. And pretty much every vote counts.
Nope. He said he would not sell any wedding cake. None.
Other products yes, for other purposes, but no wedding cakes, and you can read the decision to confirm it.
Something I've never understood about the USA, how can you have only one choice for ISP?
Sometimes govt regulation is a GOOD thing, ie requiring that the telecommunications no matter who built the wires, is available for ANYONE to use and that means businesses as well.
I have a choice of dozens of ISPs, here in the (alleged) most remote capital city on the planet.
It's obvious Trump is off his nut, but he still got elected Resident of the White House.
It was obvious there was only ever going to be less money for the NHS on leaving the EU, but a side of the bus slogan still swung the Brexit referendum.
It was obvious the Internet was originally Title 2, but many Americans still naively believe Obama created network neutrality by executive order.
It is obvious that the planet is warming faster than it has ever done in the past 250 million years, and that the isotopes show it's carbon put there by human activity, but still people blame volcanoes and sunspots or pretend it isn't happening at all.
There are still people who think that the modern Microsoft isn't their father's Microsoft, despite identical tactics, which they excuse on the grounds of slogan.
Based on various measures of knowledge and cognitive ability relative to what could be expected at a given age, Americans underperform on average by about 19%. The British by 18%. This matters, as suppressed cognitive function is linked to paranoia, a swing to the right and violent tendencies.
(I'd point out that this does not mean that there aren't highly intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people on the right. This is an impact of inability, you can't reverse the statement and assume it's true. See logical fallacies.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
To me, I'd rather have a platform like Twitter that never removed any content or posters unless legally required to.
That is great for you, but not for Twitter.
What if Twitter doesn't agree with posts, should a private entity be forced to spend resources distributing a message they don't support?
How far should such a rule go? Can I force my neighbor to hand out ISIS fliers? Would him refusing to do so be a violation of my free speech?
Asking if there another Facebook is like asking if there another MySpace or another Usenet.
I will allow you to determine the relationship.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Are not some right wing billionaires buying up leftist newspapers and websites, in order to shut them down? Wasn't it Gothamist that got closed this way? And the koch brothers shut down a news outlet promoting local buses? Amirite??
The question arises how much political censorship by an oligarchy are you willing to tolerate because once upon a time Myspace used to be a thing?
No sorry, it's your side that has all the pedophiles. Enjoy your next LGBTP rally!
What does the church have to do with anything?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The LGBT does have all the pedophiles.
Sorry, most of the pedos are hanging around in churches wearing dog collars.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut.
The thing with Trump is that it's clearly obvious that he's off his nut and he got elected as president so there you go.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
You orange faced, treasonous, sack of shit.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Isn't it strange how the Left are always the ones trying to silence the Right, and isn't it strange how the Left never want to debate the Right and prove them wrong (probably because they can't). This is how the Left have always operated, silencing dissent.
"The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."
Remember when, before the election, everyone thought Hillary would win the electoral college and Trump the popular vote, and we were all sharply warned that's the way the system is, and to accept the results no matter how unpleasant? Pepperige Farms remembers...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. You donâ(TM)t have time to hear and see everything. No-one does. So how do you spend your time wisely?
2. Itâ(TM)s obvious that while lots of people can see Alex Jones is not worth the time of day, others are much more credulous, and may act on that in ways that damage the country.
Remember when, before the election, everyone thought Hillary would win the electoral college and Trump the popular vote, and we were all sharply warned that's the way the system is, and to accept the results no matter how unpleasant? Pepperige Farms remembers...
Nope. This may shock and awe you (to the point where I don't expect you to even show your cognizance over how wrong you are), but that's bullshit, and if anybody did say it, they were full of shit, and I'd have told them (and probably did, because calling out the bullshit of the Electoral College is something I do.) how stupid they were.
But you know what I remember? I remember Trump tweeting that, back in 2012, he wanted a revolution:
"He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!
See all this? Easily documented. And all mysteriously backtracked upon...well, no, there's no mystery at all. Trump is rather easy to read.
That might be because, unlike you, I remember things that actually happened, not your imagined narrative when in reality, the ire over the sham that is the Electoral College is something people have genuinely held long before Trump, Bush, or even Perot.
Sorry, but some of us do consider the Electoral College illegitimate due to its very nature, and are committed to rejecting it, unlike you, who is not only an apologist for it that is completely wrong about the principles under which it operates (to wit, your still false claim regarding some service to rural voters), you are also fabricating an attack on others who are critical of it, while ignoring what is documented to have been said by who? Oh yes, your beloved Trump.
Of course, it doesn't help him that he completely made up his own unsubstantiated claims about the popular vote rather than accepting that he got fewer voters. That's the sort of boasting and bragging your silence over speaks volumes.
You'd do better to leave the side of lies and deceits, and if you are genuinely concerned about the supposed rural voter or whatever butters your toast, come up with some system that actually serves you purported needs. I'd respect that, you'd be showing the sense to realize the need for a legitimate system of some kind, but no, no, instead of making that effort, you dogmatically spout the false claim over what the Electoral College does.
Open your eyes fool!
Me? Liberal? That's a laugh. When's the last time you heard a liberal claiming someone should be ostracized? They're big on the ostracism-is-evil stuff: you know, the same principle you exploited when you ignored everyone at school telling you that you needed to grow? You gamed that system in exactly the way conservatives warned that it would be gamed. Nope. I am no liberal, saying we need to validate everyone's feelings: invalid feelings exist, and yours are the most invalid, and unlike a liberal I'll say it to your face. I don't claim all perspectives are equally true: there are false viewpoints, and yours is the most false.
What makes ostracism legitimate is that it's based on what you do, not on who you are. I question the idea that Jim Crow can be described as ostracism by any reasonable person, but even if it could be, it wouldn't be legitimate ostracism, because it was based on identity, not actions. Contrast this with your own ostracism, which is based on your continued material support for genocidal maniacs. I'm not going to say you could change this anytime you want -these things take time; I get that- but you could start the process anytime you want. And so the people who would be targeted by the genocidal maniacs -i.e. anyone but themselves- are right to defend themselves by casting you out.
I understand only too well that growing up is not a pleasant thing to do. You delayed your development as a person because you just didn't want to do what it took, but you are far from alone in that. Nevertheless, it has to be done. And if you will not do it willingly, society will compel it.
Cool story, InfoWars tard. BTW you failed to call me a sheeple to complete the trifecta if stupid insults that an Alex Jones follower uses.
So, what we have is the president outright admitting that neo-nazis, racists, victim harassers, and various hate groups are all part of his political right-wing. That THIS is his Republican Party. White supremacists are his base is what he is admitting here. Because that is the overwhelming majority of who is being ousted from these platforms. He is also trying to frame this as an attack on American "Christian" values, and that Christians are next, which means he is speaking to those extreme Christians who are also racists.
It also plays will to his Russian base, who are also likely taking a hit from this wave of platform scrubbing.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
"Very dangerous when companies like Twitter regulate their own content"
I agree, and enabling the FCC to allow ISP's regulate their own content is ok?
"The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. "
Swap "society" with "social network". Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If it's so arcane, why did the EU implement a very similar system for their elections in the 1970s?
Nothing but whataboutism. You neither addressed nor refuted the premise. Go look in media sources a week before the election. The sentiment was: "what happens when he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral?" as many expected. The answer was "they must accept it no matter how much they don't like it and our security forces must ruthlessly crush anyone who rejects the legitimate outcome. If they resist with violence it is traitorous and seditious." And what happened after it came out the other way? Resistance with violence. So quickly we forget what happened only 20 months ago. We have always been allied with Eurasia.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Look, I caught some chap using his twitter account to personally attack dozens of individuals, ethnicities, nations and demographic groups and then go on to tweet what appeared to be a credible threat to start a nuclear war.
I received a message thanking me for notifying them but that this "does not violate our community standards."
What community standards?
I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
But then what of the children who don't have mature enough minds to make up on their own without adult (i.e. corporate oligarchy) supervision?!?!
Too bad anti-trust enforcement can't break up oligarchical style collusions that work to squelch viewpoints. The broken-off pieces and parts would likely still collude. But, at least for appearances sake, anti-trust measures *should* be used on the biggest platform on the planet - Google.
You must realize the world has only three significant search engines - Google, Yandex, and Baidu. Yandex and Baidu are of a lower value for English speakers, so Google is really the single search engine for English speakers all over the world. All other major search engines take feed from Google, so don't count as alternatives (unless you like the interface better for some reason).
Is anti-trust enforcement needed? Like on steroids. But - nothing is ever heard from the gatekeepers. Is that interesting, or what? Since when is a single supplier not monopoly?
Typical search results are filtered by 2000x. How could the world *not* be mind controlled by this? Other platforms are not following Google's lead.
Your Comcast analogy is highly flawed. But then, you knew that.
True... but also highly ironic that Trump is complaining that private companies are filtering information when his administration dismantled Net Neutrality so that telco's like Comcast can discriminate what traffic they permit and at what speed.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Username checks out
;-)
You could try the Australian electoral system?
Particularly preferential voting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, Maine is trying something like that, but there's been a lot of hurdles.
There's also the various states with Jungle Primaries like California's top-two system or Louisiana's primary then run-off.
And pretty much every vote counts.
Oh, that'll never fly in America.
Remember, they're still die-hards who think voting should be difficult, a challenge, because some sorts are despicable if they can't jump through the right bureaucratic hoops.
Incidentally, these are the same people who lament safety and environmental regulations as useless hindering bureaucracy.
We do, because there is a very sizable portion of the population that does not have the basic critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate what he says and realize that he is, in fact, off his nut.
And this is a problem because you are correct. In an ideal world people should be able to get all the information and make up their own minds. Whenever I need to find out about current events, I look for multiple sources, and I prefer to go outside North America entirely to vet accuracy. But we don't live in that ideal world.
When people can't tell the difference between lies and truths, or worse, when they preferentially accept the lies over the truths because they like lies better (eg: Trumps hard core base), then those people create a control vacuum that other people/entities WILL exploit (eg: Info Wars, Russians, etc).
So it turns into a matter of trust, reputation, and track record. I despise Facebook with a passion, but I still would trust them more to filter news for accuracy than I would ever trust, say, Fox News or Info Wars. At least Facebook pays lip service to reducing "fake news". In comparison, multiple studies have demonstrated, for example, that Fox news viewers are overwhelmingly the least informed, and possibly even less so than people who don't watch news at all.
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
Here's the thing, the content on Facebook or any other platform reflects on that platform. Having too much content people dont like will drive away users and their precious eyeballs and succulent data... No eyeballs or data == no revenue.
Its a simple equation, ban Infowars and lose Y amount of users or not ban Infowars and lose X amount of users. X is far greater than Y, so Infowars gets banned.
However it's dangerous because its easy to boil a frog if you start with cold water, that's exactly how extremists operate. Infowars, ISIS, they all start with a non-offensive opinion such as "Israel is aggressively harming its neighbours" or "white males should stand up for themselves". Some of this many reasonable people may agree with as even though they're exaggerations, there is an element of truth. No died in the wool racist comes right out and says "I hate darkies, a-rabs and Jews, the Middle East needs to be bombed and turned into a Christian State" right off the bat because we'd all rightfully think they were barking mad.
However if they start with the small exaggerations, they can then ramp that up to larger ones. Eventually they have people believing that the entire world is out to murder the white race and those who believe absurdities also commit atrocities. Worse yet, people who dare to voice a different opinion will be harassed and even attacked by those who have bought the lies. Ordinary people end up being afraid that they'll be "come for next". That is how Fascism takes hold.
And yes, the "alt-right" is just a marketing term for neo-fascism, Nazism and white supremacists. Alex Jones is just as dangerous as ISIS, more so in fact given he can garner far more popular support and I don't hear the "Free Speech" zealots complaining that ISIS has already been banned from Facebook, Twitter, et al.
And I know from experience that speaking this risks a mod down but:
1. I don't really care.
2. The more this is modded down, the more you prove my point. You're not interested in the open discourse of unpopular ideas, you want to enforce your own groupthink.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
To a lot of people, Jones is NOT fairly obviously off his nut to many, they take him very seriously. Ordinarily not a huge issue, let wackos believe another wacko in peace, but Jones incites violence against people, so yes, perhaps protection is needed?
When most politicians lie, it frequently is an exaggeration. There's some basis in truth, but numbers or impact is built up larger than life. Also some lies are really a lack of skill or time; they promise to accomplish a task, and don't - mostly because they didn't have the ability to or priorities changed. A lie, perhaps, but all completely different than Trump type lies which is about almost literally everything, all the time, important or not, with pretty much zero basis in reality.
Not very smart using your real name....not very smart at all....
Why, are you and the rest of the tiki torch brigade going to hunt me down and lynch me?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So your argument is that Trump simply had better Russians than Hillary?
We have bank records that prove Hillary paid Russians for information against her opponent Trump, but thatâ(TM)s OK I guess, itâ(TM)s only a crime when Russians offer (but fail to produce) free information against Hillary - right?
Ken
Ajit Pai wants FTC to enforce net neutrality, not FCC - itâ(TM)s actually a decent proposal, but because it was yet another example of Trump tearing down another flimsy set of regulations based on nothing more than the the whim of the last Administration the left goes bonkers.
Ken
Media said Jones beat up a kid - ok, then I ask the SAME question he did: Where is your proof in video? Answer = it doesn't exist!
* There's your "FINE MAINSTREAM MEDIA" newscorp owned (there used to be TONS of major media outlets, now there is only a handful, mostly ALL OWNED by newscorp - your "fine editors" (editing away TRUTH & FACT for made up LIES for THEIR AGENDA to stir up & steer SHEEPLE like you...)).
APK
P.S.=> Amazing how you got a +5 for your bullshit Darinbob (not - how many sockpuppets do you keep here to game the "moderation system" that's easily gamed that way?)... apk
How is removing security credentials from an ex-employee in anyway the same thing as banning and censoring? No one has stopped Brennan from blathering on about how "Trump has committed treason", or whatever his current ramblings are about. If nothing else it just endeared him ever more with the anti-Trumpers.
Security clearances are requirements for a job he no longer has and from his well documented track record of lying under oath about his own violations of the constitution while holding his previous position they probably should have been revoked much sooner.
I'll never understand why so many ex-intelligence officers get to keep their clearances once retired. If they require them for a new job they can reapply and get them reinstated or if someone in their previous agency specifically requests they keep them for future dealings then they could have them extended for a bit, if not then they are just a title being used to help prop up their street cred with the media which is not a valid reason to retain them.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
What is the point of the first amendment if not to protect speech some find offensive?
Also, I find it interesting that his attackers complain that âoethey knowâ Trump wants to stifle free speech (but never has), and at the same time support outlets like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook that ACTUALLY stifle free speech! Kinda like saying Trump committed treasonous acts by being willing to accept free dirt on Hillary, but Hillary and the DNC actually paying Russians (through intermediaries like Fusion GPS and a law firm) is nothing more than straight-up opposition research.
Ken
Nothing but whataboutism. You neither addressed nor refuted the premise.
Nope, I know you want to avoid admitting it, hence your failure to reply to the substance of my post (notice how you still fail to address your faulty claims about supposed benefits for rural voters through the electoral college), but it's easy to see how I denied the premise, by pointing out that my objections to the electoral college as illegitimate are long-standing and beyond this mere election, and how I believe I would have called them out as bullshitters at the time.
Go look in media sources a week before the election.
You're the one who should do that, if you want me to believe they exist. Me? I don't recall it, and even if they did exist, I'd still call them full of bullshit if, like you, they were apologizing for the Electoral College instead of calling for its extirpation.
The sentiment was: "what happens when he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral?" as many expected. The answer was "they must accept it no matter how much they don't like it and our security forces must ruthlessly crush anyone who rejects the legitimate outcome. If they resist with violence it is traitorous and seditious."
I know you want to believe it does, but that doesn't make it exist, and more importantly, it doesn't behoove me to think differently about the Electoral College.
I know you are now obligated, of course, to defend the Electoral College with every lie and deceit you can produce, but that's your foolish partisan bias showing.
And what happened after it came out the other way? Resistance with violence.
Ah, yet another thing you want to believe. In reality, there was more damage after a football game than occurred after the election, and none of it was supported by any presidential candidates or major politicians, yet Donald Trump tried his best to convince us there were some serious riots and unrest, almost as if he was trying to fabricate an incident. But apparently you don't know history as well as you may think.
And again, there's the documented tweets by Donald Trump, which again, is something you ignore rather than address. I get it, I get it, you can't admit that the person on record as calling for a revolution is your own beloved Trump. Which again, did not at all mysteriously backtrack on, though he did try to bamboozle us over the popular votes.
It's not like there weren't protests over Obama throughout his presidency. Then there were these random truckers who were supposed to do something.
You probably forgot about that one, even though you were cackling madly over the thought at the time.
So quickly we forget what happened only 20 months ago. We have always been allied with Eurasia.
Seems to me, you're so desperate to forget what happened so badly that you can't even show awareness of what was actually said in the thread already.
Because I still oppose the Electoral College for the sham and fraud it is, and you should do, instead of espousing its phony virtues like a blind fool or trying to pretend a bunch of bullshitters (whose existence is still unproven), are somehow meaningful to me. They aren't.
I rejected the Electoral College before this election, and I reject it afterwards. And I call out your false and empty reasoning as the folly it is.
Open your eyes fool!
All those people who disagree with us are so stupid and wrong! We're so superior for pointing this out.
I'm not superior, I'm just not willfully inferior. And being proud to be ignorant, a hallmark of Trump supporters, is being willfully inferior. They're not inherently inferior, just poorly educated, but they revel in their inferiority.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Underrepresented? Don't you mean 'underpopulated?' Fairness requires all voters be equal.
If you set up a system which is designed to make sure that the votes of one demographic matter as much as the votes of another demographic of much larger population, that's not far. That's basically gerrymandering.
and the phrase "far left leaning" is kind of silly. You can't "Lean" far left, you either are or you aren't far left.
As for CA, they elected Arnold Schwarzenegger until he ran out of terms and have large swaths of rich, right wing areas. They couldn't even get single payer through. I'd hardly call them left wing let alone far left.
Mobile companies are phone companies. False dichotomy / common carrier. Twitter moderates their content. They lose common carrier and also gain responsibility for that content. If they know someone on their forum is a clear and present danger they have a legal responsibility to report them and remove them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh, I'm hardly a libtard. I just have enough going on to know when I'm being sold a bill of goods. I really believe Alex Jones exists to keep people who would look from looking at the things that really matter. Maybe you ought to put down the bong and learn how to think critically.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Admit it. You're just mad he didn't grab yours.
Maybe she didn't publicize it well enough, but she definitely had an agenda.
Indeed. Stuffing the Clinton foundation even more by various foreign donors while positioning Chelsea as the next senator and future president. She did in fact have an agenda.
Afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted. Did that suddenly become invalid overnight? WTF?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
What is the point of the first amendment if not to protect speech some find offensive?
Also, I find it interesting that his attackers complain that âoethey knowâ Trump wants to stifle free speech (but never has), and at the same time support outlets like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook that ACTUALLY stifle free speech! Kinda like saying Trump committed treasonous acts by being willing to accept free dirt on Hillary, but Hillary and the DNC actually paying Russians (through intermediaries like Fusion GPS and a law firm) is nothing more than straight-up opposition research.
Double standards are standard leftish practice. Trump brown shirts are a threat that is screamed about as if it were happening while Antifa thugs *actually* are happening but are given a nod and a wink because ... Trump. All groups other than Christians and white men are able to have clubs and scholarships yet somehow they preach that whites have extra privileges. Various minorities on the one hand complain that they are judged by the color of their skin and on the other hand demand preferences based on the color of their skin. Logic really isn't present on the left, only double standards and exceptions. The phrase have your cake and eat it too doesn't register with them.
I get your argument, and it's possible that if the dems had ran an honest campaign (without hillary) that they would have won.
The basic claim that the electoral college is bad, without any reasoning as to why you believe that is absurd.
States currently have little incentive to misreport their vote counts; if you eliminated the college system it would be awfully tempting for states to misreport total vote counts to the federal election. There's also the states that process voter registrations automatically for illegal immigrants, and estimates have shown that the popular vote count was largely explained by illegal voting.
Let's also not forget the goal of political campaigns, it's not to get the most votes, it's to win. Mitt Romney didn't understand this (shocking since he's been a political animal for what 30 years?), which is why he was recorded complaining that due to intentional demographic replacement he was unlikely to win since half the people don't pay taxes. Heck, there's a lot of felons who don't pay taxes, should we try to attract their support?
Ah, the shouting of random blather in the form of mindless slogans.
Don't worry, it is easy to know you are in denial of your abject derangement.
Don't even worry about that, the greatest joke is that the Electoral College does no such thing, yet so reliant on the idea, they mindlessly repeat the dogma without examination of the truth.
Go suck a box of dicks, you 70 IQ hillbilly.
Big Giant Orange Head "concerned" that his lies are identified as such, and pulled from social media! BGOH cannot conceive of any circumstance in which his gilded utterances are treated with anything but fawning praise, his head explodes, and the crowds go wild!!!
FOSTA-SESTA now holds site operators criminally liable for the posts of any users that "may be related to sex trafficking". How long until congress pushes through a bill that holds site operators liable for user posted content that incites acts of violence or spreads hate (or that Donald Trump just doesn't like)?
Why don't the Republicans start their own Twitter-like service catering to their needs.
They could call it Whtter (the diacritic is to denote that it should be pronounced as 'whiter', also so that it can be trademarked).
Trump is a one trick pony, all he knows how to do is to threaten or threaten to sue. I am so over him and his tactics/
Oooho the projection is still so strong after the rejection.
Your defining moment is the obstinate rejection of reality.
Go you!
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
"suggests" ???
PROVES.
FTFY
I'm glad you are coherent enough for that.
The mob isn't.
captcha: ascribed
If it's so arcane, why did the EU implement a very similar system for their elections in the 1970s?
If you think the EU's system is like the US's implementation of the Electoral College, you may want to review the reality.
But so what if they had? It'd be dumb there too. If they had done it. But they didn't.
It isn't a mental disorder. He isn't malicious or manipulative about it. He's just not all that smart and he says whatever comes to mind with no regard for being actually correct.
So, on average across the country, the farther away from your neighbours you live, the more your vote counts. And conversely the closer you live to your neighbours the less your vote counts.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
If the majority of the population in a country has chosen to live all together in big cities, why does that mean their vote should count for less?
You're a nazi for opposing it though
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
Who is the one that is attacted to Alex Jones. You mention you are not, but if he has a following, then what does he truly offer .
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
The GP is 100% correct that the electoral is anachronistic bullshit.
Cities aren't voters, and neither are states. People are, and they're the only granularity that should matter.
Popular vote can't be manipulated by gerrymandering.
I've yet to see a "state's rights" argument that wasn't thinly-veiled elitism designed to perpetuate the feudal system. The electoral college disenfranchises millions of voters. There is no legitimate argument that a 51:49 vote in a given state rationally translates to all of the electoral votes going to the 51 candidate.
Being a psychopath is pretty much required to run for political positions these days. How the hell else do you deal with all of the slander and libel from your opposition and the general media? Who, in their right minds, being not psychopaths, would want to endure what our candidates for office endure every re-election campaign? What family members would want to deal with that? Every little secret you and your friends and family ever had, dug up and brandished as a weapon, and if it's not juicy enough they twist it until they get a few drops.
It takes a different kind of person.
The world was created for white people snowflake. Get over it. White people aren't the ruling class anymore. Man up and move on.
LUL. More lies
https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2016/11/29/51283/gcn-alexjones-20140314-shooting
Great post, this is how you deal with trolls folks. Mod up.
What you repubtards don't understand is. Jim Crow was a CLASS of people. Twitter banned a couple nutjobs that are conservative.
There's a big fucking difference. Did they ban all repubtards and alt rights? Oh they didn't? Well I guess your straw man just got ripped up.
Good day to you sir.
No, everything you wrote is bullshit. Ajit Pai wants to eliminate net neutrality because it's an impediment to the predatory profit-seeking plans of the corporate monopolies that own him, body and soul.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm of the opinion that Alex Jones may not not "off his nut", as you put it. It's quite possible that he's a thoroughly rotten person who pretends to be crazy because his audience loves the crazy conspiracy stuff. Several people who have worked with him have said that Jones doesn't actually believe in anything that he's peddling and he lies constantly during his shows. He's claimed in the past that the federal government was coming to take his house because he's put every last penny he has into his show, when in he's taking a seven-figure salary, and has multiple houses.
It's entirely possible that Alex Jones is a phony who's taking advantage of the people stupid enough to believe in him, which, I suppose is why he supports Trump so ardently, that would make them kindred spirits.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yes it has nothing to do with rural voters, it's to do with states. It's designed so the likes of New York and California don't decide the election for everybody. It's about giving all 50 states a say.
Now you may not like that, and there are good reasons to change it. But weather something is legitimate or illegitimate is not a matter of what is the best policy.
The EC is what officially decides the election therefore it is the only legitimate process unless the people choose to change it, and there is only ever appetite for change on the side that loses. The country is never united in actual change. Then you need to decide on what change.
Some want the Presidential Election to be a nation wide first past the post, some what to move all states to proportional like Maine and Nebraska, some think a Westminster style system where local reps become an elector. There are many ways you can skin this cat.
But remember we are 50 states, a situation where California and New York holding all the power is ripe for secession and civil war in the other states which is why I oppose nation wide first past the post.
If it's going to change I personally am in favour of keeping the electoral college but move away from winner take all: make it proportional and make it preferential so you can select preferences like Australia. This could help 3rd parties get votes.
But unless the Constitution is changed, the current system is the only legitimate way of deciding a President.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Donald Trump said that it is "very dangerous" for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to regulate the content on their own platforms.
Said the man who banned followers from his Twitter account.
Um, yeah.
Compared to people like you, Nazis are fine people.
You do know that whole pizza parlor nonsense started before Jones even picked up the story, right? No, carry on, I'm sure you knew that and aren't just jumping on the "demonize Jones" bandwagon.
True, but chances are, he gets paid the same whether he wins the argument or not. Good-faith discourse, even in bitter political arguments, is a thing of the past.
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
Propaganda works. Tell something untrue long enough and someone will believe it. Repeat ad-infitum. The issue is that Alex is well backed and has harmed people (he literally hounded parents of shooting victims who are already dealing with massive grief and his followers sent them death threats).
Alex Jones should rightfully be thrown in jail for his actions, the least that FB/etc can do is to ban him from their PRIVATE platforms.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The world was created for white people snowflake. Get over it. White people aren't the ruling class anymore. Man up and move on.
Way to address my points about double standards. I have a legitimate point, you have name calling. I've manned up, being employed with no quotas and all, but I won't move on from double standards.
Yes it has nothing to do with rural voters, it's to do with states. It's designed so the likes of New York and California don't decide the election for everybody. It's about giving all 50 states a say.
It doesn't help with that either, sorry, but you have it wrong on that account too.
Now you may not like that, and there are good reasons to change it. But weather something is legitimate or illegitimate is not a matter of what is the best policy.
Yes, it is. Or even more broadly, the lack of legitimacy to the Electoral College extends far beyond what is "best" to simply being an unrepresentative hodgepodge of mechanisms that do nothing in general.
The EC is what officially decides the election therefore it is the only legitimate process unless the people choose to change it, and there is only ever appetite for change on the side that loses.
Nope. There is a general lack of appetite at all. But oddly people want some changes. This is bipartisan, btw.
The country is never united in actual change. Then you need to decide on what change.
Some want the Presidential Election to be a nation wide first past the post, some what to move all states to proportional like Maine and Nebraska, some think a Westminster style system where local reps become an elector. There are many ways you can skin this cat.
Yes, there are many options available.
But remember we are 50 states, a situation where California and New York holding all the power is ripe for secession and civil war in the other states which is why I oppose nation wide first past the post.
You forgot, we already had a Civil War with the whole electoral college business as it was (and back then there was also call for change), but your frenetic handwaving over New York and California does Not serve you well. It just makes you sound partisan when you invoke it.
If it's going to change I personally am in favour of keeping the electoral college but move away from winner take all: make it proportional and make it preferential so you can select preferences like Australia. This could help 3rd parties get votes.
But unless the Constitution is changed, the current system is the only legitimate way of deciding a President.
Nope, the current way is not legitimate, but besides that, there is no need to change the Constitution. Check out the various options available to state legislatures.
Including your suggestion.
There's also the states that process voter registrations automatically for illegal immigrants, and estimates have shown that the popular vote count was largely explained by illegal voting.
Nope, none of that is real. There is no registration of illegal immigrants and the complaints about illegal voters was so bogus that Trump's whole commission shut down rather than issue a report.
When's the last time you heard a liberal claiming someone should be ostracized?
5 minutes ago? Hell, ostracising is the least evil thing they call for; it's certainly a lot less harmful than calling for people to be fired, assaulted, harrased, etc.
I don't have any problems with preferential voting, nor am I claiming that the electoral college model is inherently the best system. Just pointing out that, were the US to get rid of the electoral college and make no other changes, things would be worse rather than better.
I would assume it has to do with Black Ops stuff. But that is just my thought on it all.
Really? I could have sworn Trump was still allowed to post messages there!
This is nonsensical.
Take this argument to the limit. Over time, society becomes more and more urban-based. Say at some point in the future: There are a billion people living in two coastal cities, and one person each in 48 other rural states. Is it a fair outcome for the whims of the 48 to outweigh the 1 billion? That's obviously ridiculous.
(Frankly, the argument is also crypto-racist. It's a dog-whistle about what kind of people live in cities. And this is consistent: The real reason the electoral college was instituted was to pacify rural slave-holding states that slavery would not be taken away from them.)
Jesus, too many personal attacks and a rant so fucking stupid I couldn't force myself to finish it.
This is what our schools are churning out these days, slanderous brainwashed garbage people.
California leftards voted for her like lemmings, too bad she insulted middle Americans, it costs her the election.
Aaah, I see, and I agree.
Just highlights how the Alex Jones ban i working for the left's media outlets. Now anytime someone talks about the very real problem of tech firms shutting down conservatives, it makes it look like you are defending Alex Jones and no one will care.
Utter bullshit. That same system led to the election of the first Republican president and the end of slavery. The rights of individual States swing both ways, my friend.
You think that piece of shit Clinton has a halo on her head? She would have sold America piece by piece, lied the whole time about it, and raised taxes. Whether you're in complete denial or not you can bet the economy would have sucked balls under her. I can remember when 99% of the media was stating that if Trump was elected the stock market would crash, end of the world, etc..., complete bullshit. Now every move he make is all about what kind of shit talking can be said. Under eight years of Obama in IT/Sciences there were very few jobs all contract. Due to this cluckle head everything skyrocketed including my insurance (keep your own doctor,yea if you can afford to pay him/her cash). The end game was to kill private insurance companies Blue Cross was bleeding losses of over two million a month. Trump has been great for my 401k and proved that the more the government regulates an economy the shitty it gets. The real shitty part about the whole thing is that punk bitch loser Clinton just will not go away.
> (collusion isn't actually even a crime)
Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.
-- What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?, POLITICO Magazine, July 12, 2017
Man who enjoys all of the benefits and protections of The Constitution says The Constitution is shit. News at 11.
Thankfully we have rich white elitist liberal assholes like you around to tell everyone else what to believe.
You have two options.
1. Companies can't censor, only governments.
2. Break up Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He lies about shit that doesn't matter. "Biggest inaugural crowd in history," that kind of thing.
According to Nielsen, Trump's inauguration ratings were the second highest in 36 years, and if you count online viewer, probably were the highest.
https://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/
You have fallen for fake news, my friend.
I have a third option: the 1st Amendment applies to the oligarchy of companies controlling the online public square.
Guffaw
When's the last time you heard a liberal claiming someone should be ostracized?
5 minutes ago?
It's funny; very few of the liberals I see calling for anything remotely related to ostracism are willing to admit that it's ostracism. Those kinds of mental gymnastics are one of the big reasons I'm not a liberal. But for now, my goals and theirs happen to align on this issue, and it would be foolish not to work with them on that.
Hell, ostracising is the least evil thing they call for; it's certainly a lot less harmful than calling for people to be fired, assaulted, harrased, etc.
Firing is a legitimate part of legitimate ostracism. Nobody wants you ariund, so they avoid you; when you muscle or swindle your way in anyway, they kick you out. As long as the ostracism itself is legitimate -i.e. based on what you do, not who you are- then so are the firings. Like the song goes, you don't lose your fucking job until you're spotted in the mob.
Assaults and harassment are not legitimate ostracism. This is true. Their legitimacy comes from something else entirely: you're in the early stages of trying to kill these people, and they do not have to wait for the punch to land. It's legitimate self-defense, plain and simple. I've got no objection to that.
Personally, I prefer to focus on the ostracism, because you've demonstrated that you're more afraid of being ostracized than you are of being hurt. Self-defense has its place, but it only affects a small number of people for a short time, so it can't be the only tactic in play. Fear, though, now that's effective over large groups and long times. The main thrust should be where it'll do the most good.
Congratulations on missing the point so completely that you'd need a telescope to find it.
You are exactly the kind of person my post is talking about.
Firing is a legitimate part of legitimate ostracism. Nobody wants you ariund, so they avoid you; when you muscle or swindle your way in anyway, they kick you out. As long as the ostracism itself is legitimate -i.e. based on what you do, not who you are- then so are the firings.
That's just dressing up bigotry to make it sound more appealing. It's like religious fundamentalists saying "it's not a sin to be gay, but it's a sin for a man to have sex with another man". See? They're not ostracising you for who you ARE, they're ostracising you for what you DO. You can be a homosexual all you like, just don't be doing none of that gay sex stuff!
It's a shitty differentiation on the face of it but, more importantly, it opens up the door to all kinds of discrimination which should not fly in any civilized society. By your logic it should be perfectly fine for a business to fire a woman who has an abortion, or a man who prays to the "wrong" god, or anyone who speaks favourably about socialism/anarchism/capitalism or any other topic whatsoever. In times past you would have successfully argued that it's perfectly fine to ostracize and fire any woman who speaks up in favour of women's suffrage.
We can certainly discuss whether or not such firings should be legal and, even though most societies have generally agreed that it shouldn't, you might be able to present a good argument for allowing it. But regardless of whether or not it should be legal there's very little doubt that in many cases it is wrong, and actively detrimental to the growth of an egalitarian society. Firing people for having or espousing unpopular opinions is only slightly less harmful than just outright criminalising the expression of those opinions.
That's all without even considering the phenomenon of demonizing people who espouse anything which even mildly questions the prevailing orthodoxy, assigning views and categories to them which they do not hold, and then ostracising and/or firing them for apparently being (or doing) the caricature which you've created. James Damore wasn't fired because he did anything actually objectionable; he was fired because the SJWs painted him as a horrible sexist Nazi who just wants to oppress women and is "creating a hostile environment" for women at google. All of which was utter bullshit, but since when has any witch hunt needed an actual witch?
Oh, now you try to turn liberal on me? I am not impressed. "Plotting to kill millions of people" is not a valid identity. The same people who first taught you this technique also would have taught you that very carefully, and I suppose it should come as no surprise that you failed both lessons.
Ancestry isn't a choice. Gender isn't a choice. I'd argue that even religion isn't really a choice: a faith either reflects your lived experience or it doesn't, and your lived experience isn't really something you can change. Something similar can be said of political affiliation.
Plotting to enslave or kill millions of people, though? That's a choice. The fact that your plot attempts (poorly) to disguise itself as a political affiliation is irrelevant. Everyone sees through it; you can't hide. Evil demands expression and deserves punishment, and that's exactly what's happening.
Censorship is still censorship.
Oh, now you try to turn liberal on me? I am not impressed.
It's hilarious to see a far-left jackass like you calling me a liberal.
I'd argue that even religion isn't really a choice: a faith either reflects your lived experience or it doesn't, and your lived experience isn't really something you can change. Something similar can be said of political affiliation.
Right. So having faith in the superiority of the white race is a reflection of your lived experience, ergo being a white supremacist isn't something you can change. I love your logic!
Plotting to enslave or kill millions of people, though?
You're the only retard talking about killing or enslaving anyone, which is why it's obvious that despite your protestations you are in fact a far-left SJW. Reasonable people do not go from "I won't make that cake" to "urhmaghurd you wants ta commit genocides!!!1!1".
Thanks for coming out, I think we're done here.
SCOTUS long ago agreed that commercial speech is not protected. So, no.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Your simplistic analysis ignores the "online public square" aspect.
It's hilarious to see a far-left jackass like you calling me a liberal.
It's even more hilarious watching you reduced to a screeching wreck who can't even keep his original line of argument going and has to pretend to switch teams. I wonder if your mommy heard you.
We've already established that I am not a liberal, or even centrist. Most liberals would frankly be horrified by my reasoning: I go against the underlying philosophies on which a lot of their platform depends just to make any semblance of sense. Just because I happen to agree with liberals on this particular issue doesn't make me one of them.
Right. So having faith in the superiority of the white race is a reflection of your lived experience, ergo being a white supremacist isn't something you can change. I love your logic!
No religion has preached this in over a hundred years. The thing about religion is that it can't be falsified: this is part of what makes it fundamentally different from science, but also punts it into the realm of identity rather than opinion. Contrast this with the superiority of any race over another, which is not only easy but nearly trivial to debunk. That's where its invalidity comes from.
You're the only retard talking about killing or enslaving anyone..
You started talking about it the moment you admitted to being a white supremacist. That's what it is; the whole platform is defined by this single obsession, according to your own thinkers.
which is why it's obvious that despite your protestations you are in fact a far-left SJW.
I don't have any problem with the idea of a just society, it's SJWs I can't stand. Their whole definition of justice is warped, inconsistent, and incomplete, and that poisons everything going forward from those definitions. If they actually started from some sound philosophy they'd be quite benign, though they'd also look quite different from the way they do today.
They'd still be ostracizing the hell out of you, though. Just like everyone else. You ruin things for everyone, SJW or otherwise, and this is why no one wants you around.
Reasonable people do not go from "I won't make that cake" to "urhmaghurd you wants ta commit genocides!!!1!1".
Reasonable people don't believe in racial supremacy. Reasonable people also don't get their current events mixed up like you just did; the cake shop case wasn't about race. I mean, we'd already established you're a troll, but seriously, can't you put at least some effort into it?
Thanks for coming out, I think we're done here.
You're the one who ragequit, dude. The win goes to me.
So, what's the alternative? Having government regulate all media, social and otherwise? The US government can't even regulate it's own spending much less the competence of politicians and public office holders.
What Trump and his followers don't seem to grasp is that when the press, or social media or blog writers are criticizing the government they are doing their job.
A government that cannot withstand criticism isn't much of a government.
I hate having had to waste modpoints on you, but take this as a warning. You are not welcome here. Your type is not welcome here. I know you will be the only one coming back to review your comments, so good luck.