Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Overblown...thanks for proving my point...there is no longer civil discussion.  Free speech is free only when you agree with it.  I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie?  You have completely walked past the fact that Twitter locked the account of the NY Post because they deemed the story to be false information when in fact it has proven to be 100% true...the laptop is Hunter's.  Facebook then attempted to purge the story as well.  That should be frightening to everyone...this has nothing to do with Trump.  Two of the major controllers of information to the American public stepped in to silence negative information that proved to be true about the Biden family and used the cloak of 230 as protection.  Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

Not at all. I don't agree with a lot of free speech, but I still want it protected. But there is a different between an opinion I don't agree with and an actual mistruth. Have any opinion in the world, that's fine. But I don't think lying about facts deserves a pass.

And brother, what do you mean the 100% truth about the laptop? What was hidden precisely? A last minute hail mary to smear Joe Biden based off of circumstantial evidence presented by Rudy Giuliani? What you actually have to prove is that a 50 year old drug addict's dealings directly are tied to his father's finances. There has never been even an iota of proof that Joe Biden has been involved with anything related to Hunter Biden's tax problems or foreign business. Yes, there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. No, there is no substance into investigating Joe Biden, like OANN and Tucker Carlson try to insinuate.

You do realize that in late October 2020, FOX news even decided not to run the story based on the extreme lack of evidence. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-passed-on-chance-to-break-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns-report

This one's not a giant conspiracy against conservative voices, give me a break. Every news outlet from Antifa to Fox agreed that running a circumstantial story with no substance was not real press.

Also, because we're all about maxims, how about "innocent until proven guilty?" You defending the ability for anyone to throw any political attacks they want, regardless of veracity/evidence and without accountability, is not something that I think I'm going to agree with you about.

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Not at all. I don't agree with a lot of free speech, but I still want it protected. But there is a different between an opinion I don't agree with and an actual mistruth. Have any opinion in the world, that's fine. But I don't think lying about facts deserves a pass.

And brother, what do you mean the 100% truth about the laptop? What was hidden precisely? A last minute hail mary to smear Joe Biden based off of circumstantial evidence presented by Rudy Giuliani? What you actually have to prove is that a 50 year old drug addict's dealings directly are tied to his father's finances. There has never been even an iota of proof that Joe Biden has been involved with anything related to Hunter Biden's tax problems or foreign business. Yes, there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. No, there is no substance into investigating Joe Biden, like OANN and Tucker Carlson try to insinuate.

You do realize that in late October 2020, FOX news even decided not to run the story based on the extreme lack of evidence. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-passed-on-chance-to-break-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns-report

This one's not a giant conspiracy against conservative voices, give me a break. Every news outlet from Antifa to Fox agreed that running a circumstantial story with no substance was not real press.

Also, because we're all about maxims, how about "innocent until proven guilty?" You defending the ability for anyone to throw any political attacks they want, regardless of veracity/evidence and without accountability, is not something that I think I'm going to agree with you about.

Again, who determines the truth....a Facebook fact checker...Snopes...gimmie a break.  Again, i don't support Trump but I never saw him call for violence as opposed to Madonna, BLM, Antifa, the leader of Iran who have all called for violence yet their accounts remain active.

Is 100% of the laptop story true, that remains to be seen, but there are frightening portions that appear to be valid and MUST be investigated.   What is true and proven so far:

1.  It was Hunter's laptop - he asked for it back.

2.  The Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski has gone on record and validated the shady dealings...yet the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

3.  The counter email accounts have been validated...the sent emails are real.  There should be great concern that there is mention of "10% for the big guy."  Now is that just Hunter talking...no idea but certainly worth an real investigation.

4.  The suggested business dealings are not just shady, they impact national security.  Assisting the Chinese government is acquiring interest in companies that have a direct impact on U.S. National security...again MUST be investigated.

if you investigate over what has been proven to be a fake dossier that was paid for by Hillary why don't you investigate this???  COMPLETE BIAS....what was your comment about innocent until proven guilty? Come on man.

Interestingly the laptop repair shop owner is now suing Twitter and others...he has a strong case and will likely win big like Nick Sandmann who was similarly smeared by a host of new organizations like CNN that are now paying big bucks to settle.

I have a small amount of faith that a small group of dedicated Justice Department and FBI folks are following the rats nest...sadly the result would be to install the most radical former member of the Senate in the Oval office.

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

17 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Again, who determines the truth....a Facebook fact checker...Snopes...gimmie a break.  Again, i don't support Trump but I never saw him call for violence as opposed to Madonna, BLM, Antifa, the leader of Iran who have all called for violence yet their accounts remain active.

Is 100% of the laptop story true, that remains to be seen, but there are frightening portions that appear to be valid and MUST be investigated.   What is true and proven so far:

1.  It was Hunter's laptop - he asked for it back.

2.  The Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski has gone on record and validated the shady dealings...yet the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

3.  The counter email accounts have been validated...the sent emails are real.  There should be great concern that there is mention of "10% for the big guy."  Now is that just Hunter talking...no idea but certainly worth an real investigation.

4.  The suggested business dealings are not just shady, they impact national security.  Assisting the Chinese government is acquiring interest in companies that have a direct impact on U.S. National security...again MUST be investigated.

if you investigate over what has been proven to be a fake dossier that was paid for by Hillary why don't you investigate this???  COMPLETE BIAS....what was your comment about innocent until proven guilty? Come on man.

Interestingly the laptop repair shop owner is now suing Twitter and others...he has a strong case and will likely win big like Nick Sandmann who was similarly smeared by a host of new organizations like CNN that are now paying big bucks to settle.

I have a small amount of faith that a small group of dedicated Justice Department and FBI folks are following the rats nest...sadly the result would be to install the most radical former member of the Senate in the Oval office.

Say nothing to the fact that tech companies did nothing to censor the 3 years of lies politicians told about Russia-gate and the Trump dossier. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats.

It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind.

And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

I agree with most of what you said.  The initial incident that brought Weinstein to awareness was a classic example of liberal college ridiculousness.  Overall, I enjoy listening to folks like Rogan, Harris, Weinsteins, and Peterson.  The long-form discussion on the IDW has transformed media and shows that the average citizen is capable of in-depth, nuanced thought.  The simpleminded Fox News and MSNBC 30-sec soundbites are frankly insulting to all of us.  However, I do think that once some of the supposed moderates and liberals get a taste of IDW attention, they maintain their iconoclast image by railing against the left and NEVER criticizing the right.  The IDW audience skews right and hey, there are books to sell and podcasts listenerships to grow.  However, you'd think they'd have at least something to criticize.... The left is not always wrong and the right is not always right. 

I disagree that the left doesn't want to engage in terms of considering the other side's arguments.  For example, Sam Harris is much more willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint.  Ben Shapiro just goes on the attack in order to win the argument.  There's a difference between defending your position at all costs vs. listening to understand and arrive at the best possible solution.  The former is for war and court cases.  The latter helps shape the best mutual results in a shared society. 

On a separate note, I now have a child at one of those "elite northeast liberal colleges". While that initially made me groan and gave me agita, I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites




I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie? 


Who do you propose should be the arbiter of truth? Should a private entity be compelled to host opinions they disagree with by the government?


Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

Those examples have government exerting direct control on information.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all somewhat ironic, because fairness issues up until very recently were primarily based around the extremely conservative talk radio bias that has existed for decades.

Rules that would force private entities to protect political speech existed before under the fairness doctrine, which was repealed during the Reagan presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Opposition

Many have attempted to revive it, but attempts have almost been unilaterally opposed by conservatives up until this point because it was politically in their favor to maintain a monopoly on things like radio messaging. Now that one private entity is showing an obvious anti-far-right bias, conservatives cry foul and say "not fair!" The hypocrisy is glaring.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Yes, there was a lot of coverage about those events and organizations, thanks for pointing that out...and they all still have active social media accounts...even the leader of Iran has an active Twitter account which he uses to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States...how is that possible using the logic employed against Trump?

The "go start your own company" argument is trash, the monopolies given by 230 serve to block any real competition and when a company (Parler), does try to offer an alternative the tech monopolies immediately shut them down (Amazon and Apple), using the they don't police content argument...a double standard that says we get 230 protections but they don't.

Interesting you bring up Fox and Newsmax...the cancel culture is so strong that other outlets like CNN are ACTIVELY calling for both of these networks to be shutdown.

So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks.   But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes.  Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either.  What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?  

Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry.  In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla.  Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well).  Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks.   But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes.  Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either.  What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?  
Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry.  In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla.  Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well).  Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies. 


Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.

 

True.  Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.  

Real life will do that to you. It truly is remarkable that some liberals are able to live their entire lives as liberals. It take some real dedication. Of course, a lot of times it's a case of "liberalism for thee, but not for me." I mean, Bernie is keeping the millions from his book I assume and not giving it to the government to distribute.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.  Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.  
Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.

In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think a company has a double standard? Stop doing business with that company. That will encourage them to apply an even/fair standard.

Twitter doesn't care that the leaders in Iran are tweeting what they are- it allows them access to the Iranian market, so they tolerate it for the money. If a significant portion of their user base was offended by that and leave twitter, then twitter might take action. All they are required to do is to comply with the laws of the country they are operating in, and that standard changes based on the country you access twitter from.

Remember with social media that you, the user, are not the consumer, you and your information are the product. Sure they provide a service, but it's not really free, and the sale of your information and advertising is what keeps them in business.

I will agree, though, that we are moving in a direction where maybe some aspects of social media are becoming important. (Remember not too long ago people were ridiculed for posting their lives on a blog, which isn't too far removed from what people do on Facebook?) It's why government and industry should encourage using open standards, and support data portability (to make it easier for even possible to pull your info off a platform and move to a different platform).

But to ClearedHot's point, those large companies (and not just social media companies) can exert a lot of influence, so yes, we need to figure out how to get to what we as a country believe is right.

People have been fighting against several large tech companies and throwing up warning flags for over a decade now, but largely that debate has fallen on deaf ears, both from politicians and the general public (who generally don't care as long as it doesn't affect them directly, like it is now for a small group of people).

EFF had been a leading voice in that regard. Here's their short analysis of the whole Trump/Twitter debate:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts
Essentially, they support social media's right to censor and exercise their first amendment and section 230 rights, but very concerned about the transparency and fairness of the actions, and purpose a framework to ensure fairness that the platforms should self impose voluntarily as a best practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.

In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.

Reminds me of Ricky Gervais comments during the Golden Globes where he lambasted Tim Cook @ Apple and the other electronic media folk.  Something to the effect of 'you say you're woke, but if ISIS started a streaming service you'd call your agent.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TheLaughingCow said:

There are certain companies which are impossible, or extremely difficult, to stop supporting.

Facebook, Google, and Amazon all fall into that category since Facebook and Google track you across the internet to steal and sell your data.  Any time you use the internet you are supporting Amazon's cloud services.

I mean, I literally, actually, very well probably couldnt survive without Amazon right now, living overseas in lockdown. I have ZERO other ways to receive products. Stores havent been open here for months and Amazon is the only delivery service for consumer goods I know of in this country. Pretty much ANYTHING I can't get at a grocery store, I've been buying off Amazon for the last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Those examples have government exerting direct control on information.

Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC.  It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election.  Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.

While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate.  Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news.  When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster.  Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump.  The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

I mean, I literally, actually, very well probably couldnt survive without Amazon right now, living overseas in lockdown. I have ZERO other ways to receive products. Stores havent been open here for months and Amazon is the only delivery service for consumer goods I know of in this country. Pretty much ANYTHING I can't get at a grocery store, I've been buying off Amazon for the last year. 

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

I think you'd have a hard time getting anyone that they used a contrived rationale.  I'll give you the double standard, and readily admit social media is garbage, poisoning our ability to critically think, but nothing was contrived.  Ignoring the double standard, clear violations of ToS were present, warnings were given, and now they finally did what they should have been doing across the globe to left and right a long time ago.  Now they need to step up and apply this standard evenhandedly.  Here's me holding my breath...

I don't use any social media for this reason.  I agree, it's virtually impossible to not use Google or Amazon, but Facebook?  Nope, have none of it.  People value their social media more than they value their real lives, so good luck convincing people to jump ship en masse.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC.  It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election.  Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.

While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate.  Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news.  When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster.  Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump.  The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.

I agree Twitter has bias.  Facebook much less so.  Regardless....

The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right.  Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news.   You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC.  You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments.  Or go to 4chan if you want.  

If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about.  Plenty of other outlets.  Try BBC (sts) for example. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, slackline said:

I think you'd have a hard time getting anyone that they used a contrived rationale.  I'll give you the double standard, and readily admit social media is garbage, poisoning our ability to critically think, but nothing was contrived.  Ignoring the double standard, clear violations of ToS were present, warnings were given, and now they finally did what they should have been doing across the globe to left and right a long time ago.  Now they need to step up and apply this standard evenhandedly.  Here's me holding my breath...

I don't use any social media for this reason.  I agree, it's virtually impossible to not use Google or Amazon, but Facebook?  Nope, have none of it.  People value their social media more than they value their real lives, so good luck convincing people to jump ship en masse.  

Please read contrived as double standard in my example.  They host other organizations that are doing the exact same thing so they reverted to ToS as part of the cancel culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer.  In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million.  While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale.  Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.

Ah yes, tax advantages for big companies.  Who supports those? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I agree Twitter has bias.  Facebook much less so.  Regardless....

The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right.  Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news.   You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC.  You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments.  Or go to 4chan if you want.  

If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about.  Plenty of other outlets.  Try BBC (sts) for example. 

 

Facebook has a subtle bias that in someways is more dangerous.  The content they have elected to remove or suppress is often not reported.  Go look at political donation totals by Facebook and their leadership to political parties.

Foxnews certainly expresses the opinions of the RNC and lately Newsmax has jumped on the same bandwagon, but that absolutely pales in comparison to the major networks while ALL parrot the DNC.  Aside from hiring all the former DNC operatives they have openly called for Foxnews to be shut down...CNN in particular has completely jumped the shark and become unwatchable.  I sued to rotate between Fox, BBC, and CNN...MSNBC being a complete farce.  These days I watch a little Fox but mostly BBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certain companies which are impossible, or extremely difficult, to stop supporting.
Facebook, Google, and Amazon all fall into that category since Facebook and Google track you across the internet to steal and sell your data.  Any time you use the internet you are supporting Amazon's cloud services.


True, and is a separate but somewhat related issue concerning what is private information and what is public information. Used to have a degree of privacy because it was hard to collect and correlate public personal data, allowing for privacy because it was time and labor intensive to invade someone's privacy, but technology has drastically lowered that bar. So Facebook or Google tracking your public movements across the internet is a privacy problem, but it's arguably "public" information. It's the same as credit card companies, they track and sell your info to this parties as well. Non digital example would be a private detective following someone around and watching what you do and buy in public.

Related, ask those people who signed the Capitol are about to find out the hard way just how much information about who they are and where they go is created just by physically having their cellphone on them even if they didn't use it.

Saying anytime you use internet you are using Amazon is hyperbole. They do have a good share of the market, but it's by no means a monopoly, with strong competition. Amazon just had the benefit of being one of the earlier entrants into cloud services.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-top-cloud-providers-of-2021-aws-microsoft-azure-google-cloud-hybrid-saas/
Sure, you may not be able to cut all ties with Amazon, any more than cutting ties with Qualcomm. Both are providers to businesses, and don't have to sell to the general public (though AWS does). It's difficult as a consumer to boycott subcontractors, but if it's something you truly believe in, you'll find a way.

Unlike ISPs, I don't think servers are quite to the point of needing to be regulated as common infrastructure. This is mainly because as long as you can connect to the physically connect to the internet, you still have your choice (as a website or data owner) of what service you use to host your content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Facebook has a subtle bias that in someways is more dangerous.  The content they have elected to remove or suppress is often not reported.  Go look at political donation totals by Facebook and their leadership to political parties.

Foxnews certainly expresses the opinions of the RNC and lately Newsmax has jumped on the same bandwagon, but that absolutely pales in comparison to the major networks while ALL parrot the DNC.  Aside from hiring all the former DNC operatives they have openly called for Foxnews to be shut down...CNN in particular has completely jumped the shark and become unwatchable.  I sued to rotate between Fox, BBC, and CNN...MSNBC being a complete farce.  These days I watch a little Fox but mostly BBC.

Fox and MSNBC are just mirror images of each other.  Same level of partisan BS except one is an acid and the other a base (dim recollection of HS chem)  Although I find it interesting that when Fox momentarily pointed out a lack of evidence for election fraud they were immediately branded as unworthy "fake news!" by Trump and many of his supporters.  

Network news is becoming irrelevant. 

I also browse BBC frequently. 

In terms of #consumers, Fox+Newsmax+OAN+talk radio = CNN+MSNBC+networks. The difference is demographics.  Conservative viewers tend to be older, liberal younger.  

My biggest pet peeve is that the mainstream outlets like Fox and MSNBC reduce everything to 30 sec soundbites.  They're taking us for ADHD simpletons.  

The wildcard is the podcast world, which is becoming more and more popular. Decent mix of left and right viewpoints. 

 

 

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...