It depends on having "more FCC intervention". In fact, the reason for the Net Neutrality repeal, as is for most Trump era policy changes, is "Reducing regulations and less intervention". Thus your imagined doomsday scenario is highly flawed. If your plan involves "more governement", it's probably fantasy and fiction for this administration.
If you wanted it to be a credible outcome, you needed to stick with "Corporate takeover", while steering clear of any blatant Sherman act violations (you guys remember this ? The law that prevents monopoly abuse ? I bet you didn't!). Good luck with coming up with a plausible scenario.
Ever watch the UN video ? "It's the daily grind of you suck, you're a liar". The liar bit is criticism that comes up often, since she in facts lies a lot in her videos.
Keep living in your bubble though and ignoring and warping facts. You're no better than anyone else who slandered gamers. The facts are the facts. Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu often used the harassement card to try to stifle any criticism of their very awful actions and to try to peddle their snake oil.
And with their shrieks, it made it hard to discuss any actual ethics conflicts in the gaming press, like the GamejournosPro list. Yes it was about ethics. You don't promote the game of someone you're sleeping with without disclosing said conflict of interest. Leave it to journalists to lie about people trying to reform journalism though. If you're smart, you know the actual truth, not this narrative you keep peddling.
So let's tie up the court system in dealing with judicial attacks between political opponents, while actual judicial matters pile up from the now lack of judges and court clerks to process actual requests for actual justice.
Sounds like a great plan even if both sides get to use it as a tool!
How bout this : The solution is never more governement. There already exists libel and slander laws. The bar is already high enough. Let's not give courts the power to censor the Internet.
It's the perpetual victim culture of the alt-right that is trying to redefine everything as harassment
Uh ?
Pretty sure that started from the likes of the "Literally whos" of Gamergate, and thus is an left/marxist/feminist thing. Anita Sarkeesian claiming anyone making a response video to her was harassement ring any bells to you ?
You're rewriting history. Or just attempting to deny the left is responsible for this clusterfuck of "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" and "anyone who says otherwise is harassing me!"
... of fan fiction. Seriously, how anyone can quote anything from that book with all the very obvious factual errors in it is beyond me. If he can't even get the Trump/Boehner when there are numerous tweets, public pictures, how can you take anything seriously in that thing ?
Have you noticed that just 1 or 2 slashdot users are responsible for 100% of the SJW posts?
They're easy to spot too. They actually use the Slashdot Friend/Foe system and so their posts have a little Yellow dot next to their names for me.
I dunno what was more surprising, seeing that thing being used, or the fact that people I had no idea even existed had found me important enough to flag.
And yet, posts on Facebook don't qualify for any Constitutional "freedom of speech" protections.
He said "Freedom of Speech", not "1st Amendment rights". You silly people are so quick to say "Private entities don't have to support Free Speech!" based only on the Constitution. It's almost like you hate actual free speech.
Freedom of Speech is an old concept, dates back to Ancient History. The question is, do we as consumers value it enough to force our service providers to adhere to it through our wallets, and should service providers recognize it and support it on their platforms as a selling point ?
Or would you rather live in a world with corporate controlled speech.
... taking the bait each time. Go on, write a dozen articles about this little innocuous detail. Blame Trump personally. Make it sound like the end of the world. Meanwhile, your media empires are crumbling as you spend all your remaining credibility feeding your Trump Derangement Syndrome and exposing your true biased selves to the people.
Follow the link to CNN and read the story. It includes that quote and others.
Both statements are true, it just took some time for the full facts to come out.
So why did you get it wrong? Didn't read the article before condemning it?
The story is plain wrong. There are no banned words, not even in budget submissions. You can literally use the words and no one will bat an eyelash. Nor did the White House ever say "These words are banned".
CNN and other leftist media are exagerating a story where some manager at CDC said : "If we want our funding approved for projets, make sure these projects are not about topics the administration doesn't feel the CDC should get involved with, because they are running the governement on lean right now".
It's much more nuanced than the coverage. What the heck does the CDC have to do with Diversity to begin with ? Yes, that would be a red alarm to the current administration that a proposal with the word "Diversity" is overspending and thus it wouldn't get approved. And thus the suggestion to people to not use that word. It's not banned. Think of it like someone telling the DOD to not use the words "Nation Building" in a budget report. It's not that it's banned, it's that the President made it clear in many speeches that the overall direction of the DOD is not to nation build.
They have no business being involved at all. If Facebook facilitated their actions then there is a good chance Facebook was complicit in attempted election rigging and quite possibly in violation of federal election laws.
Your link points to donations or contributions to campaigns. None of this involves ads on Facebook. AKA : you're a purveyor of Fake news now.
There are plenty of articles on this very topic.
WaPo. LmAo. No seriously, again, state the statutes, not a vague link to "Donations by foreign nationals are prohibited". None occurred here and thus those statutes are irrelevant to the discussion.
Russians buying ads is by definition an attempt to influence the election.
Sure, but you're missing the point (which of course I expected of a biased individual out to "get Drumpf!"). They influenced BOTH SIDES. The goal was not to get a particular candidate elected, it was simply to create chaos. And you're now colluding with them, as you bought into their divisive rethoric and are the source of the chaos.
I understand you desperately want the Trump presidency to be illegitimate. It's not. It's 100% legit. How about you start rooting for your country instead of trying to destroy its institutions from within ?
Of course that is what he would say. Otherwise he and his company are complicit in a crime.
The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ? Which statute does that break exactly ? The fact is : the "Facebook election manipulation" thing ended being a big nothing burger. Once the actual meat came out, we found out that again, MSM was pushing a fake news narrative of "Facebook exploitation" that just didn't happen in the way they needed to in order to make Trump look bad. He again ended being right about the MSM only being out to attack him.
If anything, the ads just served as confirmation bias to people on either side, and were used more to sow discord than to actually influence the election one way or another.
It's actually sad that people don't know the difference.
Fake news = Actual wrong facts, or omission of facts that changes the context of a story. Example : "President Trump decided to move the embassy to Jerusalem" is fake news. He's simply enforcing the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act.
Wrongful views = People with different opinions on subjective matters have "wrong" views. Example : "It's OK to be white" is a wrongful view because it somehow promotes White Supremacy and is part of the "Alt-right".
It's that easy, yet here you are, claiming both are the same for some reason.
3:45. "If you are fleeing war, wouldn't you do anything to protect your family". That whole line of questionning is entirely biased.
Which War in France is she talking about exactly ? It's just a poor attempt at making the illegals look like victims, when they are in fact just economic migrants, ready to do anything for "Benefit Shopping". The UK has better benefits than France, and thus they are trying to illegally get to the UK to get better benefits.
BBC reporter tries to paint it as poor victims fleeing the war torn suburbs of France or something.
That was a pretty damn good report, BTW, following the exact definition of "unbiased": presenting a very complex issue from both sides. I guess such a thing is not common in America these days.
Complex ? People trying to illegally cross borders by damaging private property is not complex. They are in France, not in some war torn country. Trying to get into the UK illegally through trespassing and vandalism of trucks is not "complex". Explain what complexity there is to the situation of people in Calais France trying to hitch illegally into the UK.
The BBC isn't biased ? Like that time one of their reporters was trying to convince a trucker that illegal immigrants ripping up his truck and trying to stow on board to illegally cross into England was "A good thing" ? That's unbiased to you ?
The BBC are definately left leaning and left-biased. Open borders, Diversity before Merit, Anti-conservatism. It's the same for Canada's CBC. The bias is apparent, and if you can't see it, you need to do yourself a favor and get some deprogramming.
.. he should simply tell his media fanboys/lackeys to actually report the news, instead of hiding in bushes, taking pictures of a man on Christmas break (https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/945787636756738051 - Manu Raju, Senior "Correspondent" AKA Gossiper in Chief)
Maybe then we'd know that :
- Tax bill is NOT a tax cut for the rich (the people who are facing taxe increases are 6 figure earners with homes in high tax states like New York and California, everyone else is seeing a cut) - Businesses are responding well to the tax cuts, with already announces for bonuses and salary increases to employees - That the job market is booming and businesses are responding well to the Trump administration cut on Regulations - The Dow record breaking performance in Trump's first year, each being fueled by the Administration's announcements of changes in policy - That no, you don't get to keep your doctor, and that Obamacare deductibles are a scam, and that fining people for not getting healthcare they can't afford was a big mistake - That yes, the Travel Ban is ACTUALLY LAW. - That moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a bi-partisan decision, voted 90% in favor by the house and congress, and not "Trump's idea". - That the Russian Dossier is considered a sham, and that this sham of a piece of fanfiction was used in a FISA court to obtain a warrant for the sitting administration in 2016 to spy on a political campaign. - That yes, the Mueller probe is Partisan to the core and that it should be scrutinized, especially since it's who foundation is previously mentionned sham dossier - That the FBI has been politicized under the previous administration.
And the list goes on and on and on. The media are simply not reporting the news anymore. They have a single purpose and that is to push the #Resist bullcrap and Democrat Party agenda, rather than report the actual facts.
On btw, yes, ISIS has been defeated. Took 11 months. Sure he promised 1. Still better than the previous administrations did on that front.
You can use the internet without Google. You cannot use the internet without your ISP. And 40% of the US has access to only one option for a broadband provider.
Pretty sure those same 40% of the US have access to fast Internet that's just not classified as broadband. Aka : 4G mobile.
Google is a virtual monopolity on video content distribution with Youtube, and quite clearly a monopoly on search. Again : you give pass to 1 type of entity, while requiring another to face governement control.
That's some censorsheep if the video of Ajit Pai doing the Harlem Shake with Pizzagate girl was unavailable for a whole three minutes.
Even with the article, you still can't use Facts. Typical TDS sufferer. It was 7 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Thoughts?
It depends on having "more FCC intervention". In fact, the reason for the Net Neutrality repeal, as is for most Trump era policy changes, is "Reducing regulations and less intervention". Thus your imagined doomsday scenario is highly flawed. If your plan involves "more governement", it's probably fantasy and fiction for this administration.
If you wanted it to be a credible outcome, you needed to stick with "Corporate takeover", while steering clear of any blatant Sherman act violations (you guys remember this ? The law that prevents monopoly abuse ? I bet you didn't!). Good luck with coming up with a plausible scenario.
Ever watch the UN video ? "It's the daily grind of you suck, you're a liar". The liar bit is criticism that comes up often, since she in facts lies a lot in her videos. Keep living in your bubble though and ignoring and warping facts. You're no better than anyone else who slandered gamers. The facts are the facts. Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu often used the harassement card to try to stifle any criticism of their very awful actions and to try to peddle their snake oil. And with their shrieks, it made it hard to discuss any actual ethics conflicts in the gaming press, like the GamejournosPro list. Yes it was about ethics. You don't promote the game of someone you're sleeping with without disclosing said conflict of interest. Leave it to journalists to lie about people trying to reform journalism though. If you're smart, you know the actual truth, not this narrative you keep peddling.
So let's tie up the court system in dealing with judicial attacks between political opponents, while actual judicial matters pile up from the now lack of judges and court clerks to process actual requests for actual justice.
Sounds like a great plan even if both sides get to use it as a tool!
How bout this : The solution is never more governement. There already exists libel and slander laws. The bar is already high enough. Let's not give courts the power to censor the Internet.
It's the perpetual victim culture of the alt-right that is trying to redefine everything as harassment
Uh ?
Pretty sure that started from the likes of the "Literally whos" of Gamergate, and thus is an left/marxist/feminist thing. Anita Sarkeesian claiming anyone making a response video to her was harassement ring any bells to you ?
You're rewriting history. Or just attempting to deny the left is responsible for this clusterfuck of "everything is sexist/racist/homophobic" and "anyone who says otherwise is harassing me!"
So with all the fake news he denounces, you're surprised he would denounce more fake news ?
*puzzled*.
Because if I made up stuff about you that was blatantly false, you wouldn't ask me to quit it ? Really ?
I mean, I guess Slander and libel are fine with you.
I know what fiction means. It is outright fabricated in some parts.
... of fan fiction. Seriously, how anyone can quote anything from that book with all the very obvious factual errors in it is beyond me. If he can't even get the Trump/Boehner when there are numerous tweets, public pictures, how can you take anything seriously in that thing ?
Have you noticed that just 1 or 2 slashdot users are responsible for 100% of the SJW posts?
They're easy to spot too. They actually use the Slashdot Friend/Foe system and so their posts have a little Yellow dot next to their names for me.
I dunno what was more surprising, seeing that thing being used, or the fact that people I had no idea even existed had found me important enough to flag.
And yet, posts on Facebook don't qualify for any Constitutional "freedom of speech" protections.
He said "Freedom of Speech", not "1st Amendment rights". You silly people are so quick to say "Private entities don't have to support Free Speech!" based only on the Constitution. It's almost like you hate actual free speech.
Freedom of Speech is an old concept, dates back to Ancient History. The question is, do we as consumers value it enough to force our service providers to adhere to it through our wallets, and should service providers recognize it and support it on their platforms as a selling point ?
Or would you rather live in a world with corporate controlled speech.
Hey! You're fit to work for governement with that mentality.
Sunny day, empty 6 lane highway... 45 mph. Sure. "Safety first" right ?
... speed limits.
Artificially low speed limits.
Next someone'll tell me that Mexico is paying for a wall.
You guys really haven't figured it out yet ?
US trade deficit with Mexico : 63.2b $ in 2016 (1 year : https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico)
Cost of wall : Est 70b $ (in left-wing media dollars : http://time.com/4745350/donald-trump-border-wall-cost-billions/).
Mexico are paying for the wall, just not with cold hard cash. I hope you finally understand the actual plan here.
... taking the bait each time. Go on, write a dozen articles about this little innocuous detail. Blame Trump personally. Make it sound like the end of the world. Meanwhile, your media empires are crumbling as you spend all your remaining credibility feeding your Trump Derangement Syndrome and exposing your true biased selves to the people.
Follow the link to CNN and read the story. It includes that quote and others.
Both statements are true, it just took some time for the full facts to come out.
So why did you get it wrong? Didn't read the article before condemning it?
The story is plain wrong. There are no banned words, not even in budget submissions. You can literally use the words and no one will bat an eyelash. Nor did the White House ever say "These words are banned".
CNN and other leftist media are exagerating a story where some manager at CDC said : "If we want our funding approved for projets, make sure these projects are not about topics the administration doesn't feel the CDC should get involved with, because they are running the governement on lean right now".
It's much more nuanced than the coverage. What the heck does the CDC have to do with Diversity to begin with ? Yes, that would be a red alarm to the current administration that a proposal with the word "Diversity" is overspending and thus it wouldn't get approved. And thus the suggestion to people to not use that word. It's not banned. Think of it like someone telling the DOD to not use the words "Nation Building" in a budget report. It's not that it's banned, it's that the President made it clear in many speeches that the overall direction of the DOD is not to nation build.
They have no business being involved at all. If Facebook facilitated their actions then there is a good chance Facebook was complicit in attempted election rigging and quite possibly in violation of federal election laws.
Your link points to donations or contributions to campaigns. None of this involves ads on Facebook. AKA : you're a purveyor of Fake news now.
There are plenty of articles on this very topic.
WaPo. LmAo. No seriously, again, state the statutes, not a vague link to "Donations by foreign nationals are prohibited". None occurred here and thus those statutes are irrelevant to the discussion.
Russians buying ads is by definition an attempt to influence the election.
Sure, but you're missing the point (which of course I expected of a biased individual out to "get Drumpf!"). They influenced BOTH SIDES. The goal was not to get a particular candidate elected, it was simply to create chaos. And you're now colluding with them, as you bought into their divisive rethoric and are the source of the chaos.
I understand you desperately want the Trump presidency to be illegitimate. It's not. It's 100% legit. How about you start rooting for your country instead of trying to destroy its institutions from within ?
Of course that is what he would say. Otherwise he and his company are complicit in a crime.
The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ? Which statute does that break exactly ? The fact is : the "Facebook election manipulation" thing ended being a big nothing burger. Once the actual meat came out, we found out that again, MSM was pushing a fake news narrative of "Facebook exploitation" that just didn't happen in the way they needed to in order to make Trump look bad. He again ended being right about the MSM only being out to attack him.
If anything, the ads just served as confirmation bias to people on either side, and were used more to sow discord than to actually influence the election one way or another.
Bout time this problem was fixed.
I recommend a reading comprehension course. Stat.
I will take that as an apology on your part and wish you a late Merry Christmas.
It's actually sad that people don't know the difference.
Fake news = Actual wrong facts, or omission of facts that changes the context of a story. Example : "President Trump decided to move the embassy to Jerusalem" is fake news. He's simply enforcing the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act.
Wrongful views = People with different opinions on subjective matters have "wrong" views. Example : "It's OK to be white" is a wrongful view because it somehow promotes White Supremacy and is part of the "Alt-right".
It's that easy, yet here you are, claiming both are the same for some reason.
"A good thing"? Where in that clip, exactly?!
3:45. "If you are fleeing war, wouldn't you do anything to protect your family". That whole line of questionning is entirely biased.
Which War in France is she talking about exactly ? It's just a poor attempt at making the illegals look like victims, when they are in fact just economic migrants, ready to do anything for "Benefit Shopping". The UK has better benefits than France, and thus they are trying to illegally get to the UK to get better benefits.
BBC reporter tries to paint it as poor victims fleeing the war torn suburbs of France or something.
That was a pretty damn good report, BTW, following the exact definition of "unbiased": presenting a very complex issue from both sides. I guess such a thing is not common in America these days.
Complex ? People trying to illegally cross borders by damaging private property is not complex. They are in France, not in some war torn country. Trying to get into the UK illegally through trespassing and vandalism of trucks is not "complex". Explain what complexity there is to the situation of people in Calais France trying to hitch illegally into the UK.
Is it ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I4Jsf9IwoQ-OkieDokeSoundsfunnyTweetsProvocative
Don't mistake what a well trained communication team puts out with what the actual man is capable of.
The BBC isn't biased ? Like that time one of their reporters was trying to convince a trucker that illegal immigrants ripping up his truck and trying to stow on board to illegally cross into England was "A good thing" ? That's unbiased to you ?
The whole report reeks of apologism : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FIsmquQqA
The BBC are definately left leaning and left-biased. Open borders, Diversity before Merit, Anti-conservatism. It's the same for Canada's CBC. The bias is apparent, and if you can't see it, you need to do yourself a favor and get some deprogramming.
.. he should simply tell his media fanboys/lackeys to actually report the news, instead of hiding in bushes, taking pictures of a man on Christmas break (https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/945787636756738051 - Manu Raju, Senior "Correspondent" AKA Gossiper in Chief)
Maybe then we'd know that :
- Tax bill is NOT a tax cut for the rich (the people who are facing taxe increases are 6 figure earners with homes in high tax states like New York and California, everyone else is seeing a cut)
- Businesses are responding well to the tax cuts, with already announces for bonuses and salary increases to employees
- That the job market is booming and businesses are responding well to the Trump administration cut on Regulations
- The Dow record breaking performance in Trump's first year, each being fueled by the Administration's announcements of changes in policy
- That no, you don't get to keep your doctor, and that Obamacare deductibles are a scam, and that fining people for not getting healthcare they can't afford was a big mistake
- That yes, the Travel Ban is ACTUALLY LAW.
- That moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a bi-partisan decision, voted 90% in favor by the house and congress, and not "Trump's idea".
- That the Russian Dossier is considered a sham, and that this sham of a piece of fanfiction was used in a FISA court to obtain a warrant for the sitting administration in 2016 to spy on a political campaign.
- That yes, the Mueller probe is Partisan to the core and that it should be scrutinized, especially since it's who foundation is previously mentionned sham dossier
- That the FBI has been politicized under the previous administration.
And the list goes on and on and on. The media are simply not reporting the news anymore. They have a single purpose and that is to push the #Resist bullcrap and Democrat Party agenda, rather than report the actual facts.
On btw, yes, ISIS has been defeated. Took 11 months. Sure he promised 1. Still better than the previous administrations did on that front.
You can use the internet without Google. You cannot use the internet without your ISP. And 40% of the US has access to only one option for a broadband provider.
Pretty sure those same 40% of the US have access to fast Internet that's just not classified as broadband. Aka : 4G mobile.
Google is a virtual monopolity on video content distribution with Youtube, and quite clearly a monopoly on search. Again : you give pass to 1 type of entity, while requiring another to face governement control.
That's some censorsheep if the video of Ajit Pai doing the Harlem Shake with Pizzagate girl was unavailable for a whole three minutes.
Even with the article, you still can't use Facts. Typical TDS sufferer. It was 7 hours.