Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

That’s because of some now censored idiot who wanted to show he pulled out of that country before the inauguration to say he did it. Solely due to optics.

No other post on this thread better highlights what is wrong with politics today. This type of response and thought process is exactly why our nation will continue to drift farther and farther apart.  People would rather be intellectually dishonest than give an ounce of credit where credit is due.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



No I'm aware. I'm a vocal supporter of net neutrality, but I'm surprised how many people here who advocate net neutrality and then think this is ok. I'm speaking more so about the removal of parler from app stores. 
"Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on usercontentwebsiteplatformapplication, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.[4][5]"
 

 
 


Twitter isn't an ISP...

Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T blocking or prioritizing packets of data based on where they come from or are going to would violate the net neutrality concept. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from cutting deals to favor certain businesses or ideals/opinions. And this is necessary because they are common carriers for information: ISPs are *infrastructure*.

Apple and Google both are well within their rights to remove any app they believe violates their terms of service (or for any reason): it's their walled garden, and the blocking of an app on an app store has no bearing on the transmission of data. This is just the free market. People can still get unapproved or blocked apps, but have to do it via a third party (side loading). This is not a violation of net neutrality principles. Sure, it's harder to get a blocked app because you don't have the benefit of using the default app store, but the app developer can still publish and distribute their app through other means, and net neutrality allows the same priority of the data packets regardless of the source, whether it's Apple's app store server or a private, third party server.

Twitter, Facebook, app stores, websites, etc aren't common carriers or infrastructure. Being blocked on Twitter does not limit your free speech. You can switch to another service, or build/host your own website/discussion forum to get your message out in the internet. And with net neutrality, packets of data moving to/from your website have the same priority as packets of data from Twitter, and prevents the ISP from blocking out your small service in favor of business interests (like faster connections to business partners).

Net neutrality has zero to do with content or opinions, or ensuring "balanced" viewpoints are represented online, and everything to do with ensuring infrastructure is shared equally and no one gets priority access to the infrastructure.

Separately, section 230 protects online *platforms* (such as twitter or Facebook) from being considered a *publisher*. This distinction prevents twitter/Facebook/discussion boards/etc from having to moderate all content before it is published on their platform. Essentially, without section 230, it breaks how we conduct discussions on the internet. Imagine if the mods on BaseOps had to approve ("publish") every post, because the forum owner was legally liable for any content that appeared on the forum instead of the individual poster. Removing section 230 would completely stifle any discussion, slows down the internet, and would break the fundamental model of social media. But that's not to say that moderation or enforcement of rules can't happen, just that someone can't sue the platform based on a opinion posted by an individual on that platform. It's just like phone companies (infrastructure) not being liable for the text messages you send, but for internet communication.

Section 230 is good, it protects internet businesses from frivolous lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than an individual. For example, it prevents Democrats from suing Twitter for allowing Trump to tweet anything they disagree with. Got an issue with what is said on the platform by an individual? Take it up with the individual.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

No other post on this thread better highlights what is wrong with politics today. This type of response and thought process is exactly why our nation will continue to drift farther and farther apart.  People would rather be intellectually dishonest than give an ounce of credit where credit is due.  

Credit for what? Not listening to his advisors, which even drew a rebuke from McConnell, to make a rash foreign policy decision right before the inauguration? Especially as a lame duck president and not just leaving it to your successor. Where was this decision one to four years ago? The only thing I’ll give him credit for is acting in bad faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Prozac said:

It’s one thing to use something like Twitter to spout your agenda, bullshit ridden as it may be. It’s quite another to use it to incite riots, violence, and insurrection. From a business/market standpoint, I can absolutely understand why Twitter wants nothing to do with it. From a free speech standpoint, what the president did was literally analogous to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Sorry. He doesn’t get a pass on either count. 

Oh, I have zero problem with them banning Trump.  I just think it's disingenuous to pretend they're trying to "prevent violence" when they don't kick terrorists off the platform for actively planning attacks.

Maybe there isn't as much to be gained from the liberal media for kicking radical Islamists...sorry, austere religious scholars...off the site.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pcola said:


Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

It’s a pretty well known fact that sites like Parler and BitChute have become repositories for people and groups that have been kicked off more mainstream social media. 
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/right-wing-social-media-finalizes-its-divorce-reality/617177/


From the article: 

“A different type of influencer, however, was active on Parler: accounts that had been kicked off mainstream social communities because of assorted forms of bad behavior and terms-of-service violations. These included Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and leading QAnon acolytes.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Credit for what? Not listening to his advisors, which even drew a rebuke from McConnell, to make a rash foreign policy decision right before the inauguration? Especially as a lame duck president and not just leaving it to your successor. Where was this decision one to four years ago? The only thing I’ll give him credit for is acting in bad faith.

Still doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision for the country. Seriously, you can hate Trump for a lot of things. Please do not hate him for getting us out of all the quagmires Bush and Obama entangled us into. It was the one thing I strongly supported about his Presidency. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


Twitter isn't an ISP...

Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T blocking or prioritizing packets of data based on where they come from or are going to would violate the net neutrality concept. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from cutting deals to favor certain businesses or ideals/opinions. And this is necessary because they are common carriers for information: ISPs are *infrastructure*.

Apple and Google both are well within their rights to remove any app they believe violates their terms of service (or for any reason): it's their walled garden, and the blocking of an app on an app store has no bearing on the transmission of data. This is just the free market. People can still get unapproved or blocked apps, but have to do it via a third party (side loading). This is not a violation of net neutrality principles. Sure, it's harder to get a blocked app because you don't have the benefit of using the default app store, but the app developer can still publish and distribute their app through other means, and net neutrality allows the same priority of the data packets regardless of the source, whether it's Apple's app store server or a private, third party server.

Twitter, Facebook, app stores, websites, etc aren't common carriers or infrastructure. Being blocked on Twitter does not limit your free speech. You can switch to another service, or build/host your own website/discussion forum to get your message out in the internet. And with net neutrality, packets of data moving to/from your website have the same priority as packets of data from Twitter, and prevents the ISP from blocking out your small service in favor of business interests (like faster connections to business partners).

Net neutrality has zero to do with content or opinions, or ensuring "balanced" viewpoints are represented online, and everything to do with ensuring infrastructure is shared equally and no one gets priority access to the infrastructure.

Separately, section 230 protects online *platforms* (such as twitter or Facebook) from being considered a *publisher*. This distinction prevents twitter/Facebook/discussion boards/etc from having to moderate all content before it is published on their platform. Essentially, without section 230, it breaks how we conduct discussions on the internet. Imagine if the mods on BaseOps had to approve ("publish") every post, because the forum owner was legally liable for any content that appeared on the forum instead of the individual poster. Removing section 230 would completely stifle any discussion, slows down the internet, and would break the fundamental model of social media. But that's not to say that moderation or enforcement of rules can't happen, just that someone can't sue the platform based on a opinion posted by an individual on that platform. It's just like phone companies (infrastructure) not being liable for the text messages you send, but for internet communication.

Section 230 is good, it protects internet businesses from frivolous lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than an individual. For example, it prevents Democrats from suing Twitter for allowing Trump to tweet anything they disagree with. Got an issue with what is said on the platform by an individual? Take it up with the individual.

If the Terms of Service and Community Standards were applied evenly and equally yes.. but as we see now in our Brave New World it is some rules for thee and little or different rules for me

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/10/watch-high-profile-leftists-incite-violence-social-media-accounts-still-intact-n307606

Trump and other wealthy Nationalists, Populists, Patriots, etc... need to put their money where their mouth is and form a constellation of alternative technology, finance, retail, entertainment, telecommunications, services etc... to concentrate and strengthen the other side of the political divide to answer back as they are all coalescing to silence, bully and marginalize their political opponents.  

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites



If the Terms of Service and Community Standards were applied evenly and equally yes.. but as we see now in our Brave New World it is some rules for thee and little or different rules for me
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/10/watch-high-profile-leftists-incite-violence-social-media-accounts-still-intact-n307606
Trump and other wealthy Nationalists, Populists, Patriots, etc... need to put their money where their mouth is and form a constellation of alternative technology, finance, retail, entertainment, telecommunications, services etc... to concentrate and strengthen the other side of the political divide to answer back as they are all coalescing to silence, bully and marginalize their political opponents.  


As unfair as it seems or is in practice, it's still their sandbox to play in. Part of the challenge is just the sheer volume of posts to moderate, so most moderation is retroactive after something has been posted, subsequently reported, and adjudicated. Automatic takedowns create other problems (like DCMA takedowns on YouTube against original content or fair use content).

So yes, if one political leaning doesn't like a platform, make your own.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a pretty well known fact that sites like Parler and BitChute have become repositories for people and groups that have been kicked off more mainstream social media. 
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/right-wing-social-media-finalizes-its-divorce-reality/617177/

From the article: 
“A different type of influencer, however, was active on Parler: accounts that had been kicked off mainstream social communities because of assorted forms of bad behavior and terms-of-service violations. These included Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and leading QAnon acolytes.”


I see that article and pile on:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/trump-rioters-wanted-more-violence-worse/617614/

The alternative social media sites are being used to coordinate these activities.

How does one explain the videos of capitol police letting people in to the capitol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Still doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision for the country. Seriously, you can hate Trump for a lot of things. Please do not hate him for getting us out of all the quagmires Bush and Obama entangled us into. It was the one thing I strongly supported about his Presidency. 

Flea and I don't often agree.  Who cares about the reason, I don't even care if he did it to literally say he fulfilled a promise that he doesn't care about.  It is over a decade past the time we should have left that hole.  Blatant politicking on his part, but still good for our country.  We've wasted way too many lives and national treasure on a lost cause. Leave, and don't look back. Drop some pointee talkees on the way out saying we won't come back except with some JDAMs if they allow their territories to be used for training terrorists again.  

I've lost too many friends over there to care about the right vs wrong reason to leave a place we should have left forever ago.  

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

If the Terms of Service and Community Standards were applied evenly and equally yes.. but as we see now in our Brave New World it is some rules for thee and little or different rules for me

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/10/watch-high-profile-leftists-incite-violence-social-media-accounts-still-intact-n307606

Trump and other wealthy Nationalists, Populists, Patriots, etc... need to put their money where their mouth is and form a constellation of alternative technology, finance, retail, entertainment, telecommunications, services etc... to concentrate and strengthen the other side of the political divide to answer back as they are all coalescing to silence, bully and marginalize their political opponents.  

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites






As unfair as it seems or is in practice, it's still their sandbox to play in. Part of the challenge is just the sheer volume of posts to moderate, so most moderation is retroactive after something has been posted, subsequently reported, and adjudicated. Automatic takedowns create other problems (like DCMA takedowns on YouTube against original content or fair use content).

So yes, if one political leaning doesn't like a platform, make your own.

All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT. 

No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT. 


If that's what they want to do... Then yeah, it's fine. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others have to listen to you, nor do you have to listen to others.

Is it a good plan to live in an echo chamber you build around yourself? I don't think so. It reinforces blindspots, and prevents growth of critical analysis of what's going on in and around your life. But if you wanted to do so, it's a free country, so long as you're not breaking any laws.

There's no way to force people to listen to other points of view, at least not in a free country.

But this does put our nation in a precarious situation. People are free to say what they want, and to organize, no matter how vile others may view their ideas. And generally, our government can't limit that, or at least not until there's clear intent to conduct harm or violate the rights of others. So the price we pay for the our freedom is the potential for violence, with justice coming after violence has already occurred. It's built on the assumption of mutual trust and respect for fellow citizens to prevent things from getting violent. Unfortunately for an individual affected, the damage done by others can't always be undone, but as a society/country, it's an acceptable consequence of our system. So there's always going to be a trade-off between liberty/freedom and security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I get your sentiment. And I think generally, social media tries to be careful and walk a fine line. Because again, there's a business case to be made for having as wide of a user base as possible to increase their revenue.

But Jan 6 crossed a line for many companies who felt that the violent actions were organized using their services, so they blocked people they believe we're inciting that violence to prevent future acts using their services. The president's speech isn't limited by being blocked by twitter; he literally has a press room for official communications, and his campaign to get out political messages.

Plus the argument that 1st amendment principles doesn't apply to modern communications isn't a strong one. Government can't restrict an individual's speech, but businesses can control what they publish. For publishers, they don't have to publish opinion columns that they don't like. For platforms, they generally aren't held responsible for the opinions of those speaking on their platform (a theater isn't liable for the opinions expressed by a performer or speaker who performs on the stage). Those concepts can be directly applied to new communications technology since the underlying principles remain true, and have been codified in section 230.

Which is why Trump and the Republicans have been adamant about repealing section 230, and tied increasing Covid stimulus payments to repealing section 230. Repealing it allows people or organizations to sue a platform such as twitter for perceived unfairness. Which sounds good at a surface level, but opens the door for continuous frivolous lawsuits, especially from political agents, against the platform, rendering the business model unviable for social media platforms. So then everyone loses that platform due to political views of a few well connected and wealthy individuals.
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:


No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your fellow Americans are your enemy? Because they espouse a different viewpoint? Isn’t this this the same position that you criticize radical leftists for taking? Is the answer to the radical left an even more radical tack from the right? That seems to be the position of a lot of my countrymen at the moment and it’s what concerns me most for the future of our republic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term.

It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters.

Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term.

It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters.

Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:


No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact that we view people with a different political opinion as "enemies" is a big part of the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:


All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If this isn't a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what would be🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pooter said:

The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC.

This is perfect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?
The GOP didn't want to let go of them in the name of keeping a solid voting block against the Democrats, and gave in to a lot of what the tea party wanted.

But in return, the GOP started selling out it's ideals out to their fringe, and probably led to Trump becoming the GOP nominee in 2016.

Hopefully the GOP learned it's lesson about catering to the fringe and cuts the "patriots" loose before they lose what remaining credibility they have left.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

True that. It’s not going to do jack.

Moderate dems still have to vote with full up communists. Just like moderate reps will still have to vote with full up Nazis.

Ranked choice voting and a transition towards a parliamentary system is the solution. But that would require the nation to admit that the two party system (which is great for those currently in power) isn’t working.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

Edited by pbar
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...