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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
No need to be use bigoted imagery to describe a bigot.
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/
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.
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.
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...
Thank you for proving his or her point.
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
It would solve some of the problems. At the end of the day, any social media company is going to be caught between the rock and a hard place. Unless they go to a full-on subscription model (which I doubt would ever be able to sustain itself, or at least see anywhere near the membership of, say, Twitter), they're going to need advertising dollars. And when you're the CEO of your "no limits on speech" social networking site gets a call from the marketing department reporting Big Corps 1, 2 and 3, which make up 30% of your ad revenue, are pulling the plug if you don't shut down some accounts they view as posting egregious material, I think, regardless of your personal views on the platform being open to all views, you're going to probably start axing those accounts. Even worse, your board, who is pretty itchy that shares may tumble due to the whole issue, might start mumbling about changes in the leadership.
Even Fox News, which on occasion has gone full-Breitbart, has reigned in the likes of Hannity, because, at the end of the day, it's not really about the people reading the articles, it's about the people with the wallets paying for the advertising space and other services. Twitter has basically had a gun put to its head by shareholders, and seeing as it is a company owned by a bunch of shareholders, and its fiduciary duty is to maintain and grow the value those shareholders have put into it, well, they're the bosses.
I'd say any social media site of any size is going to eventually run up against the same issue, and will, like it or not, deal with it exactly the same way. There will never likely be the kind of competition that will still allow Alex Jones to easily access tens of millions of people for cheap. Sooner or later, his kind will get booted from all the major ones.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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 .
> But HE would like to regulate what they can say like in China.
Huh?
Caution: Contents under pressure
So you think it is okay for people to violate the Terms of Use by trying to incite violence? Doesn't matter who the person is. If they are inciting violence then they should be removed from Twitter. If Twitter can't stand by its own Terms of Use then that may become a legal matter. But if you violate the Terms of Use then you deserver to be kicked off their (private) platform. Twitter is, after all, a private company.
I am not a lawyer and have not read thru the entirety of the Terms of Use, but I wonder if there is a stipulation regarding forwarding or starting provably false statements (ie. conspiracy theories)? It is a fine line to walk though for Joe Schmoe with 10 followers to spout off on some moronic topic versus a public figure with thousands of followers to spout off on the same moronic lies. I know Snapchat ran into big trouble in India for being a platform that forwarded on conspiracy theories which has resulted in many deaths.
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.
This. Exactly this. Every time I'm presented with some HuffPost list-of-random-people's-tweets-masquerading-as-news my blood boils.
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
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.
Man you really need to get your priorities in order
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
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...
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.
Hate speech is a vague term that can mean anything, but it's definition is generally enforced by the one that screams the loudest until a corporation take control of it, then everything they don't like will be hate speech.
Bad mouth Comcast for delivering 1/100 of the advertised speed? hate speech. Complain about the apple device that blew your face up? hate speech.
They're just letting you build the tools they will use to fuck you later.
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/
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.
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
So what you're saying is the alt-right trolls are uncivilised, and civilised people want nothing to do with them?
Sounds about right.
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
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.
I guess what I'm saying is that in the harsh logic of economics, right wing extremists can't really be monetized. Left to their own devices, these groups either end up associated with Stormfront and private mailing lists or delivering their material in brown wrappers so the neighbors don't know who the Nazis in their neighborhood are.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
No, I am pretty sure hate speech is defined by 'hating' a protected class. Like gender, race or orientation. NOT saying something blew up in your face and the company that made it "is a god damn POS.".
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.
Seriously, goolag search "anti white racism on twitter".
The legal definition doesn't exist in this country, so you must be referencing a definition de facto vulgaris.
In which case there's a negative qualification: white people.
Did you miss that whole Sara Jeong thing?
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.
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.
Conservatism as a political philosophy isn't bigoted at all. It's skeptical.
However in the US things are confused by the Republicans using "conservative" as a brand for whatever the flavor of the month is.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Nobody cares about the accusations of racism any more. The idiot brigade burned the term out a few years ago by inappropriately throwing it around like confetti.
Nobody. Cares.
...It's even more dangerous when governments step in and regulate all content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyone who still has anything to fear from racism in America cares. They may not have the power on the electoral college, but they care.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
How about 2,300 examples and counting?
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/
Conservatism as a political philosophy isn't bigoted at all. It's skeptical.
If only that were the case... Judging by the number of conservatives believing in things that don't exist, it's not so hot.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's not defined anywhere and kept vague on purpose so it can be used to persecute anyone that go against the group.
And when it gets taken over, it will be kept just as vague.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Anyone who still has anything to fear from racism in America cares.
Right, that's what he said: nobody cares.
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.
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.
So what you appear to be implying is that Republicans love busines free to roam unfettered with only "light touch" regulation (that's what they claim after all) until that happens to affect them personally at which point, regulate the crap out of the businesses.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Twitter Says It is 'Very Dangerous' When President Trump Sends Out Own Content"
aaaaaaa
That works with the far-left too. The extremes tend to dominate public awareness and political debate because they shout the loudest, get the most coverage, and have the fanatical devotion it takes to seriously engage with political activism - but they don't actually have the numbers to be a lucrative market, and their presence easily drives away the more moderate and more profitable majority.
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.
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.
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!
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)
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)
And yet, didn't Hillary win the popular vote?
I don't think you win the popular vote by being unpopular...
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.
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)
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)
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
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.
Dear Mr Trump, If you don't want the Lefty Media deleting your Tweets and censoring your Alt-Right Media you should issue a Presidential Order mandating this thing called Network Neutrality. Network Neutrality means nobody shuts down your Nazi friends, ever. Maga!
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
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!
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.
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.
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.'"
"Philosophical conservative" is not the same as "Republican". The Republican party *brands* itself as conservative, but it's precisely what Edmund Burke hated: a pack of utopians. It's actually less conservative than the Democratic party.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
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
I wonder how many minorities in the US had the cops called on them while doing everyday things, received undue police attention for walking or driving while black, were shot by cops while running away, or were hate-crimed by white supremacist asshats while you wrote that. It's a shame you'll never be at risk of experiencing any of this.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
You might want to learn what hate speech is before proudly telling everyone you have no idea yet disapprove of it anyway. It's perplexing. Complaining about a company delivering poor service or products is not hate speech. I guess it would be great for your argument if it was, but that really isn't the case.
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.
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)?
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.
That's the problem, you can't actually learn what hate speech is because it's not clearly defined, specially where it matters, on the TOS.
Also they don't need to flag you specifically for the anti corporate post and could instead just dig something that could be twisted to fit into hate speech and "get you" with that.
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.
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!
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.
I wonder how many minorities in the US had the cops called on them while doing everyday things
3
It's a shame you'll never be at risk of experiencing any of this.
I had the cops called on me while sitting with a group of friends in a park. It's a shame you keep assuming ridiculous things which you have no way of knowing.
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!
Aaah, I see, and I agree.
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)
I have a third option: the 1st Amendment applies to the oligarchy of companies controlling the online public square.
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.
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.