|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 19, 2022 15:58:49 GMT
Dear, free-speech only applies to the government acting on individuals who are indulging in First Amendment activities. It does not apply to private businesses who set terms of service upon individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 19, 2022 16:52:39 GMT
Dear, free-speech only applies to the government acting on individuals who are indulging in First Amendment activities. It does not apply to private businesses who set terms of service upon individuals. Once upon a time, in the days of yore, when CNN was owned and directed by Ted Turner, the vision of one man - who valued free speech, and the airing of diverse viewpoints - meant that all kinds of interesting ideas were fielded and discussed. Then NBC bought CNN, and AOL bought NBC - and then Disney bought ABC - and then Fox News appeared on the scene, and then the news started to become shit. Because massive corporate concerns took the media over as part of their information-providing portfolio to a public who, theretofore, had assumed a certain degree of integrity in their journalists. I guess my question to you, is that, given that state censorship is not an issue in the USA - and, Jesus, if you ever have the misfortune to live under a dictatorship then you will realize the value of that basic fact - why is it somehow morally defensible for corporate entities with colossal power to so constrict their reportage, and can you not understand how corrosive this is to society? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 20, 2022 1:03:52 GMT
Well let me ask you this. If I or you or anyone shit-post on Enworld, start cursing and posting things that are wildly inappropriate, I'd be banned forth-with. Same thing with any other forum or site like Twitter or Facebook. They have their TOS. If you fuck with them, then you get banned.
It's not rocket science and Trump was indulged to the limit before he went way too far and they finally pulled the plug. Hell, he should have been deplatformed way before he started a fucking riot.
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 20, 2022 3:43:09 GMT
Well let me ask you this. If I or you or anyone shit-post on Enworld, start cursing and posting things that are wildly inappropriate, I'd be banned forth-with. Same thing with any other forum or site like Twitter or Facebook. They have their TOS. If you fuck with them, then you get banned.
It's not rocket science and Trump was indulged to the limit before he went way too far and they finally pulled the plug. Hell, he should have been deplatformed way before he started a fucking riot.
Trump was in violation of Twitter's TOS long before the events of Jan 6 2021. But he was their #1 star, and he was also in a position to do them serious harm if they let him go. Their choice to retain him was entirely out of self-interest. Trump was finally dropped by Twitter because he represented the outgoing administration, and was no longer in a position to do them serious harm; moreover, they needed to ingratiate themselves with the incoming administration, which might impose unwelcome controls if they continued to platform him. Their choice to bar him was also entirely out of self-interest. Didn't the fact that they suddenly found a moral compass strike you as a bit odd? What do you think they'll do if he wins in 2024? CNN aired all of Trump's tedious, deranged rallies in full in the lead up to the 2016 election. They then spent the next 4 years tearing down the monster which they helped to create. All of this was good for ratings. Like currency speculators, driving the price down, buying at rock bottom, and profiting in both directions. Media conglomerates do not admit or restrict the flow of information out of principle. They do it in order to increase their reach and generate revenue, while offering a political posture designed to capture a certain demographic. So I'll ask the question again: can you not understand how corrosive this is to society? |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 20, 2022 3:52:25 GMT
Dear, free-speech only applies to the government acting on individuals who are indulging in First Amendment activities. False. The First Amendment only applies to limiting the US government's ability to restrict your 1st Amendment Rights. The principles of free speech apply to all, if you actually care about free speech, which you do not. But yes, keep parroting ye olde canard "censorship is only when governments do it", it certainly helps people to understand how simple you are. That's a separate ball of wax. Those companies are protected from from being treated as publishers and curators under the umbrella of being "distributors of the free market of ideas". Unfortunately they're still allowed to act as curators and publishers. Thankfully there is a movement to revoke that protection. Which ultimately I think will be good for social media. It'll be stiflingly censorious for awhile, but I suspect the change will be "either be a publisher/curator and mediate conversations on your platform, or be a distributor and do not". Which means some socmed companies will switch back to more "pure bastions" of free speech, while others become even more draconian. We've discussed this before, or rather I've tried to discuss it and you stick your fingers in your ears and make ignorant noises to drown out any chance of learning something. Once upon a time, in the days of yore, when CNN was owned and directed by Ted Turner, the vision of one man - who valued free speech, and the airing of diverse viewpoints - meant that all kinds of interesting ideas were fielded and discussed. And back then I respected CNN and watched it on occasions (okay, daily). It took a little bit longer than that. CNN was still a hold out, a strongly left slanted holdout, but they were still purveyors of information and news, not HOT BUTTON OPINIONS 24/7/365. And then they started losing market share to FOX during the end of the Bush/start of the Obama years and all that changed fast. I remember the moment I realized MSNBC and CNN had gone to shit (I'd long tuned out FAUX News).... remember Malaysia Airlines Flight 370? Yeah, that was when I realized the non-FUAX news sites had finally "gone to shit"... they'd been shit awhile, MSNBC the longest after FAUX, but that was when I woke up to how they'd all slipped into slinging propagandist opinions instead of news and how long I'd been contrasting stories to find any real information. Because she's an idiot who sees Trump get banned and nods her head that that's right and proper because it's someone she doesn't like (but only after he was no longer President and thus drove less clicks, let that sink in kirinke - had he won again, he never would have been banned from social media†). † Also note, it hasn't even slowed him down at all. Because he's rich, banning someone from society only hurts the middle class and the poor. Just wait until there's another leftist uprising and twitter stomps it hard. How will you feel about it then? Oh wait, you've been silent the last year as Twitter has banned actual lefties and independent journalists in broad swathes. Well let me ask you this. If I or you or anyone shit-post on Enworld, start cursing and posting things that are wildly inappropriate, I'd be banned forth-with. There is a vast difference between ENWorld and Twitter, not even mentioning Facebook which is the largest social media company int he world. That you don't understand the reach of Twitter versus ENW is really telling. Just to give you an idea, if Facebook bans CNN and every member of CNN staff from their platform, and bans any links to CNN news stories, it will cut CNN's reach by around 75-90%. Through Facebook, CNN reaches 1,000 times the amount of it's cable audience.Stop and think about that a moment before you start parroting that stupid lie of "it's not censorship". Facebook is the most used communications platform on the earth by a vast margin. And to you it's okay that they control the news that is allowed to be reported on their platform. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 20, 2022 10:45:59 GMT
Well let me ask you this. If I or you or anyone shit-post on Enworld, start cursing and posting things that are wildly inappropriate, I'd be banned forth-with. Same thing with any other forum or site like Twitter or Facebook. They have their TOS. If you fuck with them, then you get banned.
It's not rocket science and Trump was indulged to the limit before he went way too far and they finally pulled the plug. Hell, he should have been deplatformed way before he started a fucking riot.
As a partial aside, I think it's also important to emphasize just how bound up media entities are in larger power dynamics. I'm not oblivious to the fact that Trump is a loathsome human being who eroded many of the systems and safeguards present in the US, and was unarguably disastrous to the rule of law. But this necessarily prompts the question whose law, and whom does it serve? And the calculation made by those who voted for Trump in full consciousness - I'm not just talking about the teeming masses who blindly followed his populist rhetoric - was that the system was so broken, so corrupt, that the only way to fix it was to take a sledgehammer to it. When you consider the human cost outside of the US, we are told by the legacy media that Trump somehow gave the "green light" to authoritarians like Orban and Erdogan, but this is nonsense - populist movements come and go regardless of American sanction or approval. The one thing that Trump was not, however, was hawkish; now, you might argue that given different circumstances, if he sensed political opportunity, then Trump would have been hawkish, and maybe you'd be right - but the fact of the matter is that Trump largely stayed out of foreign conflicts, and there were fewer dead people on the ground - American or otherwise. When we consider his many failures and failings - and God knows, there are many - shouldn't we, from a purely human perspective, acknowledge that minimizing death and suffering in unwinnable foreign wars is a laudable accomplishment? Further, if we don't, again from a purely human perspective, acknowledge that this is a most importantcriterion for measuring success, then exactly what metric are we using? As I mentioned previously, CNN and MSNBC are currently banging the war-drum in an unholy alliance with the - now hawkish again - Pentagon, and in cahoots with the perennial purveyors of death - Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and their abhorrent ilk. The "Left" - and I use that term reluctantly - is largely on board with this position, as arms dealers are publicly announcing how happy they are with the value of their rising stocks. Dissent is being quashed, and you won't find a single voice advocating for de-escalation or compromise with Russia on the legacy media. Fox - where voices which stress conflict avoidance are allowed to be aired - are being branded as colluders and Russian apologists. As Goering said in his interview at Nuremburg: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country" When Eisenhower warned against the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex - and notice how we have conveniently dropped the "Congressional" component in an act of collective amnesia - I don't think that even he could have anticipated the collusion of a "free" press in this nightmare scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 21, 2022 0:24:02 GMT
I'm not oblivious to the fact that Trump is a loathsome human being who eroded many of the systems and safeguards present in the US, and was unarguably disastrous to the rule of law. What exactly did Trump do that wasn't done before him and isn't being done right now, except do it brazenly? It is. But Trump was not the solution. He just talked like he'd be. Once he was elected I hoped maybe he'd be beyond corruption and bribery and his hubris would drive the train rather than petty strongman/businessman corruption (the hubris of being hailed a greater president than Bush Obama, and Clinton were). But I'm not broken up over his failings, I didn't vote for him. We can, and history should, but since that's not a CNN talking point kirinke will not accept it as reality. There is a reason I capitalize it. I'm referring to the (now) monstrous Democratic Party machine run under the thumb of the WEF. I could say "DNC", but that's not actually quite the same thing. To be fair, there is an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire. I suspect that in ten years we'll have decided that Putin was prepped to invade, but that the US and Europe's apparently easy willingness to get into another forever war caused him to reconsider his position. I mean Putan can just wait another couple of years for the regime to change in America and Germany to feel the bite of their growing dependence on Russian oil. Frex, if Gabbard or Yang somehow get into office in 2024 (won't happen) they so extremely anti-war, Putin might just have free run all across the old Slavic satellites. Eisenhower was a naive romantic compared to how reality has turned out. And still, I bet kirnke thinks it's okay for the global social media companies that control 75% of our communications to to be free to decide what is fact and what is "misinformation". Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 21, 2022 2:47:56 GMT
In a nutshell? Thwarted any kind of Congressional oversight at every opportunity, by demonstrating that a President with a sufficiently litigious disposition could successfully evade accountability.
Everyone has known for a long time that too much power has been concentrated in the Executive, but Trump blazed a trail in terms of his willingness to pillory members of his own party who disagree with him, and to leverage that to silence dissenting voices - again with media complicity. But whereas Trump represented an existential threat - the crazy man with nuclear weapons - it is those who now come after him who will really break the system. A young, charismatic populist who is actually a competent authoritarian - and, yes, they are as equally likely to emerge from the Blues as the Reds; maybe more likely, at this point. And it's not like the holes in the system are going to be patched anytime soon.
Oh, there's a fire, all right. But the media are fanning it, and there is the danger that Biden - who is now officially as unpopular as Trump - will misstep in his efforts to leverage the crisis to his political benefit. Or just misstep, and fall over.
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 21, 2022 9:07:45 GMT
Looks like Uncle Joe and Wicked Uncle Vlad are going to sit down for a little chit-chat next week, provided that Vlad doesn't invade Ukraine between now and then: www.cnbc.com/2022/02/20/ukraine-russia-biden-agrees-to-meet-putin-in-principle-if-no-invasion.htmlIf Joe thinks he can out-brinksman Vlad, he's liable to be disappointed. It's one of those weird situations which now depends on the chemistry between the two leaders. Let's hope they get along like Ronnie and Gorby - although I'm not holding my breath. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 21, 2022 15:37:13 GMT
It's one of those weird situations which now depends on the chemistry between the two leaders. More likely that Biden's handlers offer Putin enough to back down and keep the secret that they're playing "Weekend at Biden's" up in the White House... |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 21, 2022 21:30:20 GMT
So to sum up. You're angry that Trump and some of his boot-lickers got deplatformed by Facebook and Twitter, yet it doesn't seem to be infringing upon his or their free-speech at all. They can still yabber all they like to news stations that will show them and Trump can still hold his stupid rallies. Not to mention, he has his own "media empire". You're also angry that Biden is doing his best to not go to war with Russia, yet at the same time, you're mad that he hasn't... Makes perfect sense.
Facebook and Twitter will eventually implode on themselves and go the way of the Dodo, only to be replaced by something else. The only consequence of Trump and some of his ass-hats being de-platformed from them is they'll have to figure out another way to get their messages to their base. Which they're already doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 21, 2022 22:32:38 GMT
So to sum up. You're angry that Trump and some of his boot-lickers got deplatformed by Facebook and Twitter, yet it doesn't seem to be infringing upon his or their free-speech at all. They can still yabber all they like to news stations that will show them and Trump can still hold his stupid rallies. Not to mention, he has his own "media empire". You're also angry that Biden is doing his best to not go to war with Russia, yet at the same time, you're mad that he hasn't... Makes perfect sense.
Facebook and Twitter will eventually implode on themselves and go the way of the Dodo, only to be replaced by something else. The only consequence of Trump and some of his ass-hats being de-platformed from them is they'll have to figure out another way to get their messages to their base. Which they're already doing.
Look, I've made my opinion of Trump pretty clear, and I'm no fan. But you've got some serious issues. Like a pathological obsession with this guy. The universe does not revolve around Trump. All is not Trump. Trump is not the be-all and end-all of all political and philosophical discourse. Can you try and step out of your box for a minute? What's going to happen in 20 years, when Trump is dead? Do you think your head will explode? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 21, 2022 23:19:11 GMT
The same thing when Facebook and Twitter goes or the same when Hillary Clinton goes. Life continues and I and everyone else will find another outrage to bitch about.
And right now, the outrage against Trump is totally justifiable.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 22, 2022 17:31:26 GMT
I have no idea whom you're lashing back at, but I'll assume in your ignorance it's everyone. So to sum up. You're angry... "Angry" is a stronger word than I'd use. Annoyed and indignant that the "liberals' are all about being as illiberal as possible right now and this was but one symptom. Oh, it is. Even you can't be that stupid as to think it hasn't slowed or inconvenienced him, however due to his personal fortune and connections, he can still platform himself. But you can't. If twitter, Facebook, Circvs Maximus, etc were to all decided to unperson you, one of the little people (and they do do this daily), you have neither the money nor the connections to platform yourself. This is what I keep trying to point out to you, but you keep saying "but I don't need a voice, if I get trampled by the corporate machine it would be okay", because you're an idiot. Cheeseless crisp, it's true. You've invented someone's position in your head and confused it for reality. Listen to what people are actually saying and stop pulling that old bullshit move of deciding what they said instead. No one here is angry that the Biden Admin hasn't gone to war with Russia yet, unless Hillary Clinton is behind one of our keyboards wearing our face for a mask. Some here are concerned (outraged, depressed, maybe even rustled) by the military-industrial-political machine that has come to roost in the White House, why yes absolutely, but no one is rooting for them (again baring the Hillary wearing one of us as a skin suit horror thought). Facebook and Twitter will eventually implode on themselves and go the way of the Dodo, only to be replaced by something else. Oh no, his reach has been reduced a bit, and now it costs him money (that he can easily afford and make back by charging money to his rallies) to continue reaching his supporters, but that's not the point. A universal right isn't universal or a right if it you allow it to be taken away from anyone. Then it's a privilege that the powerful dole out as a reward to their slaves. You kirinke are the perfect sheep. The master cracks the whip on the back of another and you cry out that it's righteous for the other has offended the master that you so love. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Feb 22, 2022 21:07:27 GMT
|
|
