Twitter Public Policy account, today:

We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet.

Access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter, is never more important than during democratic processes, particularly elections.

lolz.

(01-12-2021 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 01:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Dude -- I am attorney. I am paid to be binary in that sense. Get off your high hat.


Yes some did. Absolutely. But that brings up three points. And a small aside.

Small aside first: did you mean 'riot' instead of 'riots'? Or are there others that happened while I was asleep or blowing up gopher holes?

a) did not facebook and/or twitter allow people in its doors to plan on the BLM side? I would hazard a yes there as well. Given that, for the same transgression, why didn't FB/Twitter get de-platformed?

b) I would agree with your insinuation a little more, if a large proportion of the Parler crowd 'plan[ned] the riots'. But we are talking about a user base of 2.8 million. I dont buy in to having an extremely small subset who 'plan[ned] the riots'.

c) And in 'plan[ned] the riots', I dont mean 'planned the protest[s]'.


Amazing, something that we both agree on. Or my solution is put them under the regime of a 'common carrier' --- if they truly are a common carrier then allow them the protection of 230 as they currently do.

But, if they exercise anywhere near the power of editing that they currently do, then --- let them deal with the ancillary lawsuits that any publisher has and that they have shielded themselves with for the last 20 years. Kind of common sense -- if one is doesnt control what is on their 'pipe', then the full brunt of responsibility devolves to the poster themself. When you decide to be an editor in chief -- then you are responsible.


There is no way a Biden administration moves against FB, Google, or Twitter. Criminy, they drug him over the finish line with their heel firmly on anything that made him look bad.

That doesnt preclude the Parler lawsuit that absolutely will be touched off. But there wont be government intervention or a US government DOJ led action.


The idea is not 'forced speech', the idea of making the mega-Tech companies a de facto 'public space for ideas'. That is precisely what they have built. As an example: airports are required to provide for allowing 'public space for ideas' on the theory that while many are public/private efforts, they have become de facto areas of the social commons.

mega-Tech, imo, should be considered as such an entity that must provide a common public speaking space. I would draw the distinction at size ---- obviously CSNBBS is a pipsqueak in the arena of public communication; who really cares what restrictions are placed at that level by private ownership.

In the case of Twitter and FB, they are so large that they have become de facto public spaces.

But the promotion of free speech (even by common carrier designation) doesnt even come anywhere close to being compared to CCP. Free speech is entirely anathema to that system, mind you.


I think the CCP isnt in the business of 'allowing', they tell. And to be honest, in terms of free speech, that concept is about as devoid in that system as water exists on the surface of Mars. China would force its social networks (as it does now) to restrict speech to what the government mandates is allowable.

The question if trying to tie that into this discussion would not be 'provide a platform for the regime's supporters', but to 'provide a platform for their critics'.

That line at the end is just a duck and weave from my question.

because its a stupid as **** question, lad.

Quote:The alternative to allowing a media platform to decide who it provides its serves to is forcing said platform to provide its serves to someone. You're taking away one non-governmental organization's freedom to give the other non-governmental organization freedom.

You all do that all the time to the bakers in Colorado. Or the Christian wedding planners. Funny that. You all yelp and scream and force the common carrier principle on masterpiece bakery, but, oh no, how dare they do that to FB...... oh no....

Quote:It's why it isn't cut and dry, and why I don't think it's really a partisan issue. For example, Hawley screaming about his first amendment rights being infringed when he lost a book deal, is inherently arguing that a company be forced by the government to print his book.

Hawley is incorrect when he says his 1st amendment rights are being infringed. Hawley is spot on in the inference that his book is being scrubbed at the last minute for political content, which directly implicates the ideals of the First Amendment.

But, your point is really off-point. Simon and Schuster isnt 95% of the traffic in publishing. You dont get picked up there, hop to Halcourt. Or simply self-publish.

That option isnt really available for FB and Twitter. And the entire function of FB and Twitter is simply *direct* communication. Funny that. Hopefully you have your Josh Hawley fit done for the day with that as an upside.

Quote:As to the anti-trust suits, they are coming.

From whom? Congress cant sue, it has to the be the DOJ or a private party. A Biden DOJ suing the tech boys who body licked him and carried his water like no Gunga Din could ever match..... I just dont see that happening. Especially not for the deplatforming issue, which is a major problem. Maybe for buying their way into a monopoly and squelching competition, but that isnt the topic here, is it?

Quote:and many are already being charged with anti-competitive behavior.

Again, by whom? They are being sued by private companies they have fked over. And the only lawsuit against FB now isnt Sherman 1, it is a Sherman 2 action + a Clayton Act -- there is a big difference in the form of the suits. And in the merits of what you are talking about and what is filed.

Let's reconvene at the end of the year and see if there has been any movement on the antitrust issue.

You seem to be forgetting that Dems are far more likely to leverage government to regulate industries, and Reps are also itching to tackle the tech giants. There is clearly common ground.

The current DOJ has already filed lawsuits against Google for anticompetitive tactics (so, a wee bit more than just the private companies you're wrong about, again), and from what I've taken in, it would be highly unlikely for the Biden DOJ to turn suit.

From the NYTimes:

Quote:A Biden administration is expected to pursue the antitrust lawsuit filed against Google last month, people with knowledge of his campaign said. It may also introduce more antitrust cases against Facebook and possibly Amazon and Apple, which the Trump administration has investigated for more than a year...

Current and former tech executives and lobbyists, as well as former regulators, said that while the industry expected a Biden administration to be tough on the companies, particularly in antitrust areas, it would welcome a change from the unpredictable Trump administration.

But maybe we won't see any movement by the DOJ - my hypothesis is that we will.

Fair enough, we shall see.

The current Google one really only touches on a small aspect of its business -- i.e. the user base of search engines.

And the current FB one, as I said, is one that is the 'buying to be a monopolist' action, not a 'you did bad things as a monopolist' action. Not all anti-trust suits come in the same flavor.

A Sherman sec. 1 is much worse than a Sherman sec. 2, and a Clayton Act is really one on price fixing.

Is that a small portion of Google’s business? Alphabet, yes. But Google? That is the bread and butter, and then being the #1 search engine is going to drive advertising revenues.

And i think the FB lawsuit by the FTC is also arguing anticompetitive actions through their acquisitions.

Regardless, I think these are harbingers of things to come for the tech giants. Like I said, there is an appetite on both sides to flex regulatory muscle and take the tech giants down a few notches.

Yep, the Ugandan government ordering social media to shut down is EXACTLY like Twitter kicking DJT off. Exactly.

(01-13-2021 12:45 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  Yep, the Ugandan government ordering social media to shut down is EXACTLY like Twitter kicking DJT off. Exactly.

I didnt say the issues were exact, did I? I was noting how utterly hypocritical the statement is in light of both. Funny that.

One who sings paeans in one sense should always wonder how those hosannas sound when applied as full statements in other arenas they engage in.

I am sorry that you are upset that Twitter did not do that.

Hypocritical?

That's how you define hypocritical?

Oooooookay then.

(01-13-2021 01:45 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  Hypocritical?

That's how you define hypocritical?

Oooooookay then.

Glllaaaadddddd yooouuuuu aaaaarrrrrrreeeee ssssaaaattttttiiiisssssfffiiieeeddd.

If this is what it takes to wake up republicans, then maybe it is not the worst that can happen. We've spent 30 years with democrats pursuing a socialist/communist agenda and republicans being content simply letting things drift that way by spending less money on them than the democrats wanted.

But the republican response needs to be what Newt did in 1994--come up with viable alternates, have everybody buy in, and keep everyone on the same sheet of music--use the political process, not lawless thuggishness. You can't oppose the looting, pillaging, and burning of Antifa/BLM without also condemning the assault on the capitol (aside, and vice versa). And when you get back in power, do what Newt didn't and actually follow through. Newt is a great idea guy, but he can't be trusted actually to lead anything. Democrat ideas are so bad that it's not hard to have better ideas, but first you have to have ideas.

Take health care. Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats using ethically questionable political games. Republicans rightfully ran against it for 8 years. Then when they had the power to change it, they had noting. That is inexcusable, particularly since Heritage pointed them in the right direction in the 1990s. Republicans, you can't be brain dead any more. I'm counting on you to protect me from the democrats' socialist/communist vision, and so far you are doing a piss-poor job.

The importance of doing it through the political process is that if we weaken the USA through our divisions, that just makes it easier for China to impose their own socialist/communist/fascist regime on us. Either way, we lose.

Will be interesting to see if the NYT article about McConnell being "pleased" with the impeachment efforts is accurate. I think the Republicans losing the Senate majority combined with the riots was the straw that broke the camel's back for him. Trumpism has now taken the Republicans from the White House and House/Senate majorities in 2016 to none of them in 2020 and McConnell will gladly throw anyone under the bus that takes away his power as Senate Majority leader

(01-13-2021 10:25 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Will be interesting to see if the NYT article about McConnell being "pleased" with the impeachment efforts is accurate. I think the Republicans losing the Senate majority combined with the riots was the straw that broke the camel's back for him. Trumpism has now taken the Republicans from the White House and House/Senate majorities in 2016 to none of them in 2020 and McConnell will gladly throw anyone under the bus that takes away his power as Senate Majority leader

I also think he wants to make a compelling argument that the Republican party is NOT the party of Trump, since Trump torpedoed 2020, like you said.

Trump has more often than not become a liability since his win in 2016. The snake oil isn't working on the country as a whole, and I think McConnell sees ridding the party of Trump as the only way they can get back on track.

(01-13-2021 10:25 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Will be interesting to see if the NYT article about McConnell being "pleased" with the impeachment efforts is accurate. I think the Republicans losing the Senate majority combined with the riots was the straw that broke the camel's back for him. Trumpism has now taken the Republicans from the White House and House/Senate majorities in 2016 to none of them in 2020 and McConnell will gladly throw anyone under the bus that takes away his power as Senate Majority leader

NYT possibly NOT accurate? How can that be?

(01-13-2021 08:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If this is what it takes to wake up republicans, then maybe it is not the worst that can happen. We've spent 30 years with democrats pursuing a socialist/communist agenda and republicans being content simply letting things drift that way by spending less money on them than the democrats wanted.

But the republican response needs to be what Newt did in 1994--come up with viable alternates, have everybody buy in, and keep everyone on the same sheet of music--use the political process, not lawless thuggishness. You can't oppose the looting, pillaging, and burning of Antifa/BLM without also condemning the assault on the capitol (aside, and vice versa). And when you get back in power, do what Newt didn't and actually follow through. Newt is a great idea guy, but he can't be trusted actually to lead anything. Democrat ideas are so bad that it's not hard to have better ideas, but first you have to have ideas.

Take health care. Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats using ethically questionable political games. Republicans rightfully ran against it for 8 years. Then when they had the power to change it, they had noting. That is inexcusable, particularly since Heritage pointed them in the right direction in the 1990s. Republicans, you can't be brain dead any more. I'm counting on you to protect me from the democrats' socialist/communist vision, and so far you are doing a piss-poor job.

The importance of doing it through the political process is that if we weaken the USA through our divisions, that just makes it easier for China to impose their own socialist/communist/fascist regime on us. Either way, we lose.

Unfortunately, I think the handful (more? less?) of governmental nihilists in the Republican caucus suck up all the oxygen in the room. So, rather than having a substantive debate about Obamacare v. Bismarck, for instance, we end up arguing about death panels and hyperbolically comparing Obamacare with actual communism. Then, when the health care problem continues to fester, regardless of whether it's because Obamacare is inherently flawed or whether because certain politicians keep trying to undermine it, the people invested in the issue call for more extreme solutions.

In other words, Republicans probably could have stifled the growing support for Medicare for All by either (1) actually facilitating Obamacare, or (2) replacing Obamacare with some other system and facilitating that. Instead, they did neither. Given this background, it doesn't surprise me in the least that health care remains a major concern for a huge block of voters and Medicare for All is butting its way into the debate.

(01-13-2021 12:46 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 08:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If this is what it takes to wake up republicans, then maybe it is not the worst that can happen. We've spent 30 years with democrats pursuing a socialist/communist agenda and republicans being content simply letting things drift that way by spending less money on them than the democrats wanted.

But the republican response needs to be what Newt did in 1994--come up with viable alternates, have everybody buy in, and keep everyone on the same sheet of music--use the political process, not lawless thuggishness. You can't oppose the looting, pillaging, and burning of Antifa/BLM without also condemning the assault on the capitol (aside, and vice versa). And when you get back in power, do what Newt didn't and actually follow through. Newt is a great idea guy, but he can't be trusted actually to lead anything. Democrat ideas are so bad that it's not hard to have better ideas, but first you have to have ideas.

Take health care. Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats using ethically questionable political games. Republicans rightfully ran against it for 8 years. Then when they had the power to change it, they had noting. That is inexcusable, particularly since Heritage pointed them in the right direction in the 1990s. Republicans, you can't be brain dead any more. I'm counting on you to protect me from the democrats' socialist/communist vision, and so far you are doing a piss-poor job.

The importance of doing it through the political process is that if we weaken the USA through our divisions, that just makes it easier for China to impose their own socialist/communist/fascist regime on us. Either way, we lose.

Unfortunately, I think the governmental nihilists in the Republican caucus suck up all the oxygen in the room. So, rather than having a substantive debate about Obamacare v. Bismarck, for instance, we end up arguing about death panels and hyperbolically comparing Obamacare with actual communism. Then, when the health care problem continues to fester, regardless of whether it's because Obamacare is inherently flawed or whether because certain politicians keep trying to undermine it, the people invested in the issue call for more extreme solutions.

In other words, Republicans probably could have stifled the growing support for Medicare for All by either (1) actually facilitating Obamacare, or (2) replacing Obamacare with some other system and facilitating that. Instead, they did neither. Given this background, it doesn't surprise me in the least that health care remains a major concern for a huge block of voters and Medicare for All is butting its way into the debate.

That is a a great description for this issue within the Republican party.

(01-13-2021 12:46 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 08:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If this is what it takes to wake up republicans, then maybe it is not the worst that can happen. We've spent 30 years with democrats pursuing a socialist/communist agenda and republicans being content simply letting things drift that way by spending less money on them than the democrats wanted.

But the republican response needs to be what Newt did in 1994--come up with viable alternates, have everybody buy in, and keep everyone on the same sheet of music--use the political process, not lawless thuggishness. You can't oppose the looting, pillaging, and burning of Antifa/BLM without also condemning the assault on the capitol (aside, and vice versa). And when you get back in power, do what Newt didn't and actually follow through. Newt is a great idea guy, but he can't be trusted actually to lead anything. Democrat ideas are so bad that it's not hard to have better ideas, but first you have to have ideas.

Take health care. Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats using ethically questionable political games. Republicans rightfully ran against it for 8 years. Then when they had the power to change it, they had noting. That is inexcusable, particularly since Heritage pointed them in the right direction in the 1990s. Republicans, you can't be brain dead any more. I'm counting on you to protect me from the democrats' socialist/communist vision, and so far you are doing a piss-poor job.

The importance of doing it through the political process is that if we weaken the USA through our divisions, that just makes it easier for China to impose their own socialist/communist/fascist regime on us. Either way, we lose.

Unfortunately, I think the handful (more? less?) of governmental nihilists in the Republican caucus suck up all the oxygen in the room. So, rather than having a substantive debate about Obamacare v. Bismarck, for instance, we end up arguing about death panels and hyperbolically comparing Obamacare with actual communism. Then, when the health care problem continues to fester, regardless of whether it's because Obamacare is inherently flawed or whether because certain politicians keep trying to undermine it, the people invested in the issue call for more extreme solutions.

In other words, Republicans probably could have stifled the growing support for Medicare for All by either (1) actually facilitating Obamacare, or (2) replacing Obamacare with some other system and facilitating that. Instead, they did neither. Given this background, it doesn't surprise me in the least that health care remains a major concern for a huge block of voters and Medicare for All is butting its way into the debate.

I find the the adverse reaction to 'death panels' strangely exhilarating when the corresponding Democratic nihilism on 'they will put you back into chains' (among many many others) is strangely left out in the sun.

(01-13-2021 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 12:46 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 08:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If this is what it takes to wake up republicans, then maybe it is not the worst that can happen. We've spent 30 years with democrats pursuing a socialist/communist agenda and republicans being content simply letting things drift that way by spending less money on them than the democrats wanted.

But the republican response needs to be what Newt did in 1994--come up with viable alternates, have everybody buy in, and keep everyone on the same sheet of music--use the political process, not lawless thuggishness. You can't oppose the looting, pillaging, and burning of Antifa/BLM without also condemning the assault on the capitol (aside, and vice versa). And when you get back in power, do what Newt didn't and actually follow through. Newt is a great idea guy, but he can't be trusted actually to lead anything. Democrat ideas are so bad that it's not hard to have better ideas, but first you have to have ideas.

Take health care. Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats using ethically questionable political games. Republicans rightfully ran against it for 8 years. Then when they had the power to change it, they had noting. That is inexcusable, particularly since Heritage pointed them in the right direction in the 1990s. Republicans, you can't be brain dead any more. I'm counting on you to protect me from the democrats' socialist/communist vision, and so far you are doing a piss-poor job.

The importance of doing it through the political process is that if we weaken the USA through our divisions, that just makes it easier for China to impose their own socialist/communist/fascist regime on us. Either way, we lose.

Unfortunately, I think the handful (more? less?) of governmental nihilists in the Republican caucus suck up all the oxygen in the room. So, rather than having a substantive debate about Obamacare v. Bismarck, for instance, we end up arguing about death panels and hyperbolically comparing Obamacare with actual communism. Then, when the health care problem continues to fester, regardless of whether it's because Obamacare is inherently flawed or whether because certain politicians keep trying to undermine it, the people invested in the issue call for more extreme solutions.

In other words, Republicans probably could have stifled the growing support for Medicare for All by either (1) actually facilitating Obamacare, or (2) replacing Obamacare with some other system and facilitating that. Instead, they did neither. Given this background, it doesn't surprise me in the least that health care remains a major concern for a huge block of voters and Medicare for All is butting its way into the debate.

I find the the adverse reaction to 'death panels' strangely exhilarating when the corresponding Democratic nihilism on 'they will put you back into chains' (among many many others) is strangely left out in the sun.

I'm going to have to make a Rule 401 objection to this one.