Politics The Biden thread

[Telmar]

The GAFA have essentially became the CCP in NorCal, Parler and Gab have also been removed from the Play store and Apple store.

In the end, it is time to rejoice folks: the only things we could share under JoeBi Presidency and the GAFA moguls on the internet will be dogs and cats videos and memes.

Let’s roll 2021!

Good post Jake.

Do remember though these are privately owned outlets, they are free to have who they want. Twitter is kind of an enormous bar where everyone can have a drink and engage in a conservation. As in any bar, the owner can throw out the people he thinks are rowdy.

Issue being that these bar owners bought all the bars in the town and drive out of business anyone wanting to open a new one.

They should be dismantled for being "trusts" and having too much power. Their monopoly makes them unavoidable, over powered, and terribly influential. Competition can´t grow. The USA used to champion dismantling companies who grew too big and who abused their power. Though in the later years, it became "communist" to mention it should be done to preserve competition and freedom.

I am against any kind of regulation against private owners, as long as newcomers can come and do better.

 

[BeNder]

der

 

[Fluff]

Good post Jake.

Do remember though these are privately owned outlets, they are free to have who they want. Twitter is kind of an enormous bar where everyone can have a drink and engage in a conservation. As in any bar, the owner can throw out the people he thinks are rowdy.

Issue being that these bar owners bought all the bars in the town and drive out of business anyone wanting to open a new one.

They should be dismantled for being "trusts" and having too much power. Their monopoly makes them unavoidable, over powered, and terribly influential. Competition can´t grow. The USA used to champion dismantling companies who grew too big and who abused their power. Though in the later years, it became "communist" to mention it should be done to preserve competition and freedom.

I am against any kind of regulation against private owners, as long as newcomers can come and do better.

Thats true, but if they put up a sign saying [no black, no irish] that would be illegal, both in your bar, and on your chatroom.....instead they are playing at politics, in the short term that looks easy, dont like trump, ban him from my service. Eventually he will find another route, and things will change.

The points about not banning Iranian leader, who calls for the destruction of Israel is well made.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Do remember though these are privately owned outlets, they are free to have who they want. Twitter is kind of an enormous bar where everyone can have a drink and engage in a conservation. As in any bar, the owner can throw out the people he thinks are rowdy.

Wrong.

When some or all big-tech firms get together to get one person mass-deplatformed at the same time it is called "collusion".
It is an antitrust activity.
It is illegal under current US law.

"It's a private company they can do what they want".

No. Their actions are unlawful.

In the case of Trump it is slightly worse, since there a Federal court decision mandating him not to block people so they can interact as a public square.

The acknowledgement that you really need to make while you still can is to understand that the communication platforms and social media are the public square.
The mere idea of saying they are not would be like equating "current electronic tools" to the "printing press" and thus coming to the conclusion that "current electronic platforms" are not covered by the Right of the Press.
Radios? Not covered either, since the Founders didn't have radios.
The right of the accused? Well, there are a lot of laws now that they didn't have in the 1700. Therefore why should the accused have the right to cross-examination, the preponderance of evidence of the charges.
Privacy? Well, back in the 1700 they didn't have email, therefore it does not apply.


Disagree all you want, it is the law and these actions against Trump and others are illegal.



Meanwhile, Khomeini is still on, CCP's spoke person is still on, etc...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nicememe]

Wrong.

When some or all big-tech firms get together to get one person mass-deplatformed at the same time it is called "collusion".
It is an antitrust activity.
It is illegal under current US law.

"It's a private company they can do what they want".

No. Their actions are unlawful.

In the case of Trump it is slightly worse, since there a Federal court decision mandating him not to block people so they can interact as a public square.

The acknowledgement that you really need to make while you still can is to understand that the communication platforms and social media are the public square.
The mere idea of saying they are not would be like equating "current electronic tools" to the "printing press" and thus coming to the conclusion that "current electronic platforms" are not covered by the Right of the Press.
Radios? Not covered either, since the Founders didn't have radios.
The right of the accused? Well, there are a lot of laws now that they didn't have in the 1700. Therefore why should the accused have the right to cross-examination, the preponderance of evidence of the charges.
Privacy? Well, back in the 1700 they didn't have email, therefore it does not apply.

Ah yes, the good old "It's a private company they can do what they want" fallacy. I love that one.

By that logic, the country should revoke its democratic ambitions, and call itself a corporatocracy. Since being private gives you governing powers apparently, or at the very least, the freedom to control the public political narrative.
Social media has more control over politics today than any political institution. That's why platforms like twitter, for example, are extremely important in waging wars abroad.

 

[Telmar]

Thats true, but if they put up a sign saying [no black, no irish] that would be illegal, both in your bar, and on your chatroom.....instead they are playing at politics, in the short term that looks easy, dont like trump, ban him from my service. Eventually he will find another route, and things will change.

The points about not banning Iranian leader, who calls for the destruction of Israel is well made.

The law says you can´t discriminate on race. OK. But it´s your place still.

Imagine a bar owner who would have to accept meetings of loud former IRA members (even not planning anything) in his bar because banning Irish people is illegal. The bar owner does´nt have to accept that.

After having Donald Trump for years on Twitter, after having accepted his tweet to his followers to come to Washington for a "wild" protest, I suppose Twitter decided that they did´nt want to be eventually used as a medium for other messages. And it is their right.

Twitter is full of hate messages, is full of temporary bannings and non bannings of people for the right and wrong reasons, and sometimes only because an interest group focused their attacks on one poster. I use Twitter a lot, I see a lot of sh1t. I doubt they can regulate it all. But the most visible accounts will always be watched.

...

Disagree all you want, it is the law and these actions against Trump and others are illegal.

...

The only collusion there is is the removal of "Parlor" form the Apple and Google store. This is collusion, this abuse of power. It is unacceptable and there is no reason to limit "Parlor" access to users. These big firms need to be broken up.

This forum is moderated itself, you can be removed. Even if dozens of millions of people came.

 

[Telmar]

Ah yes, the good old "It's a private company they can do what they want" fallacy. I love that one.

By that logic, the country should revoke its democratic ambitions, and call itself a corporatocracy. Since being private gives you governing powers apparently, or at the very least, the freedom to control the public political narrative.
Social media has more control over politics today than any political institution. That's why platforms like twitter, for example, are extremely important in waging wars abroad.

By that logic, go commie and nationalize them and make them public interest enterprises run by civil servants. No thank you I like capitalism and freedom.

There are issues of them being too big but that´s about all.

 

[nicememe]

By that logic, go commie and nationalize them and make them public interest enterprises run by civil servants. No thank you I like capitalism and freedom.

That's funny. I guess taking away political voices of thousands of people because they engage in "wrong-think" is equivalent to freedom now.
I'm kind of new to this freedom concept, but I'll be sure to fall in line now, thanks for educating me.

There are issues of them being too big but that´s about all.

I don't think you understand the issue well enough.

"Power" is not a concept that is isolated and unique to government institutions. Power can and is exercised by anyone who has the resources and the numbers to do so. Some corporations today have more money than the GDP of entire countries. Some corporations have bigger audiences than the populations of entire countries. They, at least hypothetically, hold more power than entire countries. This is not a "but that's all" problem. This is a "huge f***ing" problem.

You're giving country-sized corporations a blank cheque to control the entire political narrative of multiple countries.
Is your brain so high on capitalism pills, that you're willing to swallow totalitarianism?

Then again, why am I even here asking these questions. They're pretty much rhetorical at this point. Don't bother answering.

 

[BCNTM]

Meanwhile, Khomeini is still on, CCP's spoke person is still on, etc...

I thought they had 'left' and come on here?

 

[Telmar]

That's funny. I guess taking away political voices of thousands of people because they engage in "wrong-think" is equivalent to freedom now.
I'm kind of new to this freedom concept, but I'll be sure to fall in line now, thanks for educating me.



I don't think you understand the issue well enough.

"Power" is not a concept that is isolated and unique to government institutions. Power can and is exercised by anyone who has the resources and the numbers to do so. Some corporations today have more money than the GDP of entire countries. Some corporations have bigger audiences than the populations of entire countries. They, at least hypothetically, hold more power than entire countries. This is not a "but that's all" problem. This is a "huge f***ing" problem.

You're giving country-sized corporations a blank cheque to control the entire political narrative of multiple countries.
Is your brain so high on capitalism pills, that you're willing to swallow totalitarianism?

Then again, why am I even here asking these questions. They're pretty much rhetorical at this point. Don't bother answering.

You problem is posting without reading or understanding what is written. Try it.

I advocate the break up of these companies...It´s clearly written. So lose less time replying and more thinking.

 

[Fluff]

I took a look at the Democratic plan: My highlights:

President Trump’s words and actions have given safe harbor and encouragement to racists, anti-Semites, anti-Muslim bigots, and white supremacists. It’s time to root out domestic terrorism in all its forms. We will use federal law enforcement tools and resources to address domestic terrorism, and if necessary work with Congress to pass a domestic terrorism law that is consistent with the Constitutional right to free speech and civil liberties.

So white supremacist's are a no-go, but black ones are all good?

We will take a comprehensive approach to embed racial justice in every element of our governing agenda, including in jobs and job creation, workforce and economic development, small business and entrepreneurship, eliminating poverty and closing the racial wealth gap, promoting asset building and homeownership, education, health care, criminal justice reform, environmental justice, and voting rights. Democrats will ensure federal data collection and analysis is adequately funded and designed to allow for disaggregation by race and ethnicity, among other important factors, to better design policies to address the needs of the most vulnerable communities and make informed policy choices.

So everytime you use a library, you will be racially profiled? Contracts will be given to Black run, or black owned companies? Because they are black run? Even if its more expensive?

We believe Black lives matter, and will establish a national commission to examine the lasting economic effects of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and racially discriminatory federal policies on income, wealth, educational, health, and employment outcomes; to pursue truth and promote racial healing; and to study reparations.

One in four American adults live with a disability. Holly sh*t how did these guys win 2 world wars?

Supporting Press Freedom
The free press is essential to our free democracy. Democrats roundly reject President Trump’s denigration of the free and independent press, which has endangered reporters’ lives, helped fuel conspiracy theories, and deepened distrust between Americans and their government. Democrats will appoint an independent media professional to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media, to ensure that the news and information projected around the world by the federal government meets the highest standards of fact-based and unbiased journalism. Democrats are concerned about the potentially harmful effects of corporate consolidation in the media industry, including in television, radio, and newspapers, and will reinstate and strengthen media ownership rules and direct federal antitrust agencies to investigate the economic impacts of mergers in the media industry.

Anyone spot the clue in this one?

After this I got bored, they are going to be nice to everyone, pacific islanders especially, and black lesbian pacific islanders, are getting a palace- each.

 

[nicememe]

I advocate the break up of these companies...It´s clearly written.

By that logic, go commie and nationalize them and make them public interest enterprises run by civil servants. No thank you I like capitalism and freedom.

There are issues of them being too big but that´s about all.

It´s clearly written.

?

By that logic, go commie and nationalize

Nowhere did I mention anything in my post about going commie and nationalizing them...

You problem is posting without reading or understanding what is written. Try it.
So lose less time replying and more thinking.

... so that's really rich ?

 

[Ivan le Fou]

*snip*

Basically identity politics and victim-olympics at work.

The "supporting press freedom" is especially hilarious.

Trump may have been the ONLY president in existence to be so pro-freedom of the press.
Have you seen any other country in which most, if not the vast majority, of the media constantly criticize, belittle and insult the President, his cabinet, his family and his base? Spreading lies? While suffering absolutely no repercussion aside from viewers deciding, all by themselves, to follow other networks?

Democrats are concerned about the potentially harmful effects of corporate consolidation in the media industry

They pretty much used and abused it during the past 4 years though. What's the matter now? Are they afraid these corporations will eventually turn around and bite them in the ass when they finally realize they got fooled?

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I thought they had 'left' and come on here?

Oh?

Oh.

Oh!

Oooooooooh! I see what you did there!

 

[Ivan le Fou]

The only collusion there is is the removal of "Parlor" form the Apple and Google store.

No, this is having multiple groups and corporations enacting the same sanction, against targeted individuals, at the same time.

Removing parler is another example of collusion.


Both are illegal, unlawful and antitrust.

 

[primer]

Ross Pero is still right, the constitution doesn't have contingency for modern tech and the big gurgling noise to the south was all the jobs that went to Mexico.

Just watched a BBC progressive three way. Started off sounding like they would address zero growth in democratic countries last three decades, instead they fantasized about impeaching Trump so he could never hold a federal office.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I wonder if Joe will dismantle the cages Obama had built for illegal immigrants.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

State-run internet?

We need more than deplatforming | The Mozilla Blog

There is no question that social media played a role in the siege and take-over of the US Capitol on January 6. Since then there has been significant focus

blog.mozilla.org

Remember when they said "Trump is going to kill the internet and freedom"?

 

[muck]

Many months ago, regarding starting a Biden thread.

Let's just call it the "Joe Biden Dementia-Meme Appreciation Thread Extraordinaire" and be done with it.

Truth be told, given the political climate right now I kind of expect him to be assassinated long before he loses his ability of speech.

 

[NebrHogger]

He might not get assassinated - there are rumors of a much bigger 'survive the virus' payout that might heal
a lot of the collective butt-hurt. Actually, if an assassination does happen, I'm in for a fiver that Nancy would
be the target before Sleepy Joe.