Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

Yeah, cause tech companies give a what the Feds want all the time. It’s also not censoring when you’re free to go to another platform and say whatever you want. You know, for the six minutes you guys were on Parler and learned that the tech giants also own all the major cloud hosting services.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/fbi-and-apple-are-poised-for-another-privacy-disagreement.html

So your voice in the town square getting silenced at government order isn’t restriction of speech, got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Apparently you are this stupid.

You take a quote from one of the most batshit crazy people in the Senate who’s trying to rile up her base. It’s never going to be allow for the government to directly control through a private company freedom of speech. That’s SCOTUS case someone posted above held that in the opinion.

How crazy a senator might be (and she's hardly near the top of that list) is irrelevant.

 

If you can't see how that statement, from one of the highest levels of government possible, is demonstrative of the government threatening a private entity to do their bidding, then you're even drunker than I thought.

 

The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide. 

So, are they flagging them when they’re working or in their off time? Political officials can block critics, who are their constituents, on their personal social media, and it’s not a First Amendment violation.

https://apnews.com/article/d314927f2b131fa285df4221448fd4ff
 

If it’s a public platform, that’s paid for by tax dollars, I agree. If it’s a private platform, they can do what they want. Despite what you want to believe, Big Tech is fully within their right to tell the Feds to fuck off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Of course you’re not talking about or defending the legal team, because you know what they did was wrong….now. The general consensus here was a different tune a few months ago. 
 

You can’t get past the fact it’s not a First Amendment violation because the government isn’t directly doing the censoring. And yes, big tech tells the government to fuck off because they have the money and legal resources to do so.  Guess what? Don’t like it? Fucking leave the platform, that’s your at will right.

 

I haven’t defended a single Trump election fraud claim on here, but thanks for painting with your broad brush.

You can keep repeating over and over that the government being involved in the censorship of speech isn’t a violation of the first amendment, it doesn’t make you correct.  
 

Not only is this a giant over reach of government power, the alignment of a corporate entity and the government, followed by that entity executing the will of the government, sure sounds a lot like Fascism. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kaputt said:

 

I haven’t defended a single Trump election fraud claim on here, but thanks for painting with your broad brush.

You can keep repeating over and over that the government being involved in the censorship of speech isn’t a violation of the first amendment, it doesn’t make you correct.  
 

Not only is this a giant over reach of government power, the alignment of a corporate entity and the government, followed by that entity executing the will of the government, sure sounds a lot like Fascism. 
 

 

Sweet, I await to read your brief on the lawsuit you’re going to file against the Feds for this atrocious overreach and First Amendment violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

So, are they flagging them when they’re working or in their off time? Political officials can block critics, who are their constituents, on their personal social media, and it’s not a First Amendment violation.

https://apnews.com/article/d314927f2b131fa285df4221448fd4ff
 

If it’s a public platform, that’s paid for by tax dollars, I agree. If it’s a private platform, they can do what they want. Despite what you want to believe, Big Tech is fully within their right to tell the Feds to fuck off. 

From Sullivan v Rhode Island:

 

"It is true that appellants' books have not *67 been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions—the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation—the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable" and succeeded in its aim.[7] We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.[8]"

 

Additionally:

 

"It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was "free" to ignore the Commission's notices, in the sense that his refusal to "cooperate" would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact—and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us— that Silverstein's compliance with the Commission's directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein's reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule."

 

But you just get off on being the contrarian here it seems, so I don't expect you to see the parallels. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet, I await to read your brief on the lawsuit you’re going to file against the Feds for this atrocious overreach and First Amendment violation.

Since you’re so laissez faire, what do you consider first amendment overreach?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 “People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.”

Has the government threatened Big Tech with criminal proceedings if they don’t comply with their flagging? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:


Since you’re so laissez faire, what do you consider first amendment overreach?

Me on the Internet - “I wonder if Lindsey “Lady G” Graham wears his girl wig when he’s being bottomed?”

Me - “What happened to my Internet?”

Random Dude - “Oh, the DOJ threatened your Internet provider with criminal indictments if they didn’t stop your Internet access because of what you said about a member of Congress.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 10:28 AM, Negatory said:

This illustrates my point even more. If middle class people won’t do it, why would people who actually have no money?

In my experience, unless you’re getting significantly better quality for the higher cost, people dgaf where things are produced. They’ll bitch and moan about China, but it is definitely not in the vast majority of American’s minds or capabilities to actually give a damn.

I know the thread has moved on but yes. If you are all for Capitalism and the free market, well than the free market has decided that they were better off tapping the person in China who will assemble your iphone for half the wage (right or wrong) as an any American would be willing to, and you need to stop complaining about how China "stole our jobs" (both sides do this and use it as a political "rile up the masses" and get some votes talking point). They didn't steal it, we served it up on a silver platter the day we walked into harbor freight and started buying socket sets for half what the USA made craftsman set cost. Self-inflicted wound, the American consumer is responsible and needs to own it, both left and right. We torpedoed our fellow manufacturing Americans because a lot of us are assholes and saw "more for less!", nobody put a gun to anyone's head and said "you must buy this discounted Chinese wrench". 

As to giving a damn, yes you are correct, most Americans probably don't care at all. I don't think there should be people working 60 hour weeks and barely scraping by and have to buy the "cheapest". But there are loads of people who just want the biggest TV they can get for the ball game, their new phone every other year with whatever current gimmick, and don't care how it happens just so long as it does. Oppression in Hong Kong? What's Hong Kong? Let me google it on my iphone....

But American consumption and forced obsolescence is a whole nother tangent.. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, cause tech companies give a fuck what the Feds want all the time. It’s also not censoring when you’re free to go to another platform and say whatever you want. You know, for the six minutes you guys were on Parler and learned that the tech giants also own all the major cloud hosting services.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/fbi-and-apple-are-poised-for-another-privacy-disagreement.html

Precisely. Because what tech companies give a fuck about absolves the government from adhering to their constitutionally mandated restrictions. /S

And just because you can "go to a different platform" doesn't mean you're not being censored. There is a difference between censorship and silencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

You can’t get past the fact it’s not a First Amendment violation because the government isn’t directly doing the censoring.

You are declaring this as if it were fact, in the face of actual legal jurisprudence that has been quoted for you in separate posts in this thread. You aren't arguing in good faith, and in fact, you're just plain wrong, from a legal standpoint. You're side-stepping the fact that our government - through the court system - has determined that governmental "persuasion" of private entities to enact policy or act on their behalf to accomplish "things" that the government couldn't do on its own otherwise (because constitution), makes that action governmental (not private).

Read: When the government pressures a company to do something, it is government action - directly.

Let's get to your question.

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Where did the government say they were going to levy legal action against the tech giants if they didn’t “censor” free speech?

It was Cedric Richmond and Jerry Nadler in April 2019. Another poster quoted Diane Feinstein for you.

Here's the source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105).

In any case, here's another quote for you to ignore, or call an echo chamber or whatever. Not expecting actual engagement: 

"In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”

Hopefully you can let this one rest.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The underlying issue is while the internet has allowed man-kind unprecedented access to information with a few clicks, it has also allowed the rapid manufacture of information. To “make something up” 60 years ago, you’d have to what, spend money printing a book and then try to convince people to buy it? Or convince someone to risk their reputation and publish you in a newspaper or magazine? Those are pretty good deterrents to going out of your way to fabricate some BS.

Now anybody can just click and write whatever. We’ve given ignorant people the same megaphone as our most highly informed/experienced professionals. Anybody who can critically think isn’t going to be affected, they will filter out the BS, deduce their own logical insights with whatever credible facts they source (i.e let me ask a scientist about the vaccine, not Bob down at the Donut shop).

Then there’s the half that doesn’t have that capability. Just like how some of the population just ends up being really short, some people don’t get the horsepower in the dome up top, and it’s not their fault. They’ll believe anything. The half that thinks the earth is flat, that thinks they’ve been chipped by the feds, the half that is willing to shove a couple Tide pods down the hatch for dinner.  Does the government have an obligation to protect these people? I say no. Humans have interrupted evolution to much as it is, you used to have to be either smart or strong or both to survive, now you can be bottom of the barrel and procreate as much as you want. Lysol injections? Inject away….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

I don’t really read your echo chamber comments. I’m honestly surprised you don’t just post a meme without any rebuttal.

I shall try to get through my day knowing this is your opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Standard

Is someone refusing to bake a cake because they’re being discriminatory over a protected class or someone or is someone just refusing to bake a cake due to it violating their own protected class? The SCOTUS didn’t take a broad interpretation in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission for good reason.

Well, your arguments are usually weak, so I wasn’t expecting this one to be much different.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

She can say, and try, to pass as much legislation as she wants and it’ll be legally challenged in the SCOTUS.

You mean like gun laws?!?

C'mon, be smarter than that!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

That's a good counter. But at the end of the day we still let people buy cigarettes, do we not? We just force the company to say "this can cause cancer". What happens when the product isn't cigarettes, but the information itself? The US population would probably be better off with smoking abolished, but you have to draw the line at "people are allowed to hurt themselves so long as that action does not hurt others". Second hand smoking laws are a good line. Same deal with speed limits. Nobody has the right to give me lung cancer just because they want to give it to themselves. But I still cannot restrict them from making that choice for themselves, anymore than I want people restricting me from getting a Bigmac every Saturday. If I want to know if Bigmacs are bad for me, I'll go find an independent study and make my decision. Me dying from clogged arteries only impacts me. I wear my seatbelt everyday because I'm not an idiot, but would argue mandated seatbelt laws are an overreach, especially since you can legally ride motorcycles which certainly don't have them.

Let's just use global warming as an example. And whether you believe in it or not does not matter for this arguments sake. Coal Company Suchnsuch sells a product. They FUND and publish a study that says global warming is insignificant with the use of their product. If the American citizen chooses to trust that report instead of an independent one, just like some chose to trust Tobaccos doctors, isn't that on them? It gets messier when the issue is something that affects everyone, but at the end of the day we go by "majority rules". If we send Florida under water in 100 years because we melted the ice caps, well, that's what the majority wanted. It's up to the American consumer to say "yea if I start a fire in a room in my house, gee the temperature seems to go up. I don't want to buy your product anymore, I'm going to have solar panels installed".

image.png.33a5cb4bd9a0de7bae7c20cde6717d4d.png

Now it may be inefficient when the government doesn't mandate certain things. We are inherently inefficient compared to a country where the state makes swift decisions, for better or worse. But that is the cost of freedom. It makes us vulnerable to being outpaced by a country where the state has considerable power and makes good decisions quickly and decisively, but said country will be vulnerable to eventually ending up with a government that makes poor decisions. 

Edited by hockeydork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are all smart people. Many of you even have security clearances and access to more detailed reports on weaponized misinformation and it’s effects on the U-S-of-A. You know that there are concerted attacks on the Information sector of America designed to cause turmoil, polarize folks, or get people elected who are in the best interests of our adversaries. From that standpoint, I’d hope you wouldn’t take such a black and white view on how to combat this adversarial disinformation, because it’s not helpful in making our nation strong or unified.

From a grand strategy DIME perspective, many will even argue that the I (information) is becoming the most impactful way to fight the US for many adversaries. This is because many in the US will, ironically, fight to freely allow and maintain misinformation under the guise of liberty. It’s a tough problem, because it really is a Liberty vs security discussion.

Maybe we should bring back the feel good official government propaganda machine that made people in the fifties to 2000 hate things like the concept of socialism so much?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency

You think it’s a coincidence that the US disbanded its official information propaganda around the same time that those ideals started picking up more (1998)?

The pragmatic truth is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you embrace free information - regardless of veracity - you open up a giant attack vector. And for almost no benefit other than the dumbing of society. People just don’t have the time or effort to trudge through misinformation, so we’re left with it having a profound impact on us at a national scale. This includes those from every spectrum: those that blindly call things socialism, q-anon folks, people who think it’s racist to require a voter ID just cause they’ve heard it is, people who think that Trump won the election, folks that think there is significant evidence of surface transmission of COVID, people who think that COVID isn’t real, people who think it is extremely deadly, etc.

Disinformation is bad in our society and for our nations national security. If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

Ridiculous comparison. Tobacco restrictions are specifically related to advertising and advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Companies can be held liable for knowingly selling an unsafe product.
 

Individual speech on social media is not advertising and does not fall under any government regulatory guidelines. The government in today’s case is involving itself in policing individual speech. That is an overstep and likely violation of the 1st amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Now it may be inefficient when the government doesn't mandate certain things. We are inherently inefficient compared to a country where the state makes swift decisions, for better or worse. But that is the cost of freedom. It makes us vulnerable to being outpaced by a country where the state has considerable power and makes good decisions quickly and decisively, but said country will be vulnerable to eventually ending up with a government that makes poor decisions. 

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting.

 

The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming.

 

That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting.

 

The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming.

 

That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

This is called resting on your laurels. We had significant government propaganda and government persecution of socialists/communists/Nazis/black rights (MLK??) for the whole time period that actually made us a superpower (essentially the whole 20th century). Literally, free citizens were regularly jailed, fired, fined, or alienated for ideas. This was a government backed campaign.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Lets not pretend that government controlling the information narrative isn’t a real facet of our recent history and rise to power.

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...