Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on May 25, 2021, 05:10:40 PM
-
Twitter, Facebook and other social forums that have attained more than mainstream media would dream should realize they have huge responsibility to promote and foster free speech - in almost it's form.
If it's inciteful - it's really gov job to deal with hate speech.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435
-
A private entity cannot violate free speech in the US. When you sign up, you agree to their terms and that includes their right to ban you for any reason. This is going to be successfully thrown out by a legal challenge.
-
I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.
A private entity cannot violate free speech in the US. When you sign up, you agree to their terms and that includes their right to ban you for any reason. This is going to be successfully thrown out by a legal challenge.
-
I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.
A private entity cannot violate free speech in the US. When you sign up, you agree to their terms and that includes their right to ban you for any reason. This is going to be successfully thrown out by a legal challenge.
They both are. They are not government entities. They get to choose who can use their platform. In fact, the real attack on free speech is the bill itself. There are very few exceptions to that rule and they all apply to protected groups; Donald Trump does not fit into any of them.
-
The US is not N. Korea. These are private enterprises and can decide who is allowed to share his views on their plattform. If Trump is dissatisfied with the enterprises, he is free to form his own.
Trump is not the only person banned from FB and Twitter. Who is he to be given special treatment?
I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.
-
Surely Media Houses cannot behave like private home. Even the duka near your hapo Germany cannot decide to discriminate against people it's doesn't like..otherwise Kadudu you'll have few places that would welcome your black behind in the Nazi country.
Media who get privileged license to broadcast have a civic duty to be fair and balanced. The same with Twitter and Facebook. They cannot behave like a private club.They need to be somehow regulated. Gov can decide they are media house - and they fall under say Communication Authority and Media council - so whatever measure they put - should be fair and objective- for they have a civic duty to fairness.
Private home or club - private - totally.
Shop or pub or supermarket - private but somewhat regulated by public rules - so people don't put dogs or irish or blacks not allowed...at least you need a license to operate.
Media - almost totally public with private ownership - should be heavily regulated - more power - more responsibility- more regulation.
The US is not N. Korea. These are private enterprises and can decide who is allowed to share his views on their plattform. If Trump is dissatisfied with the enterprises, he is free to form his own.
Trump is not the only person banned from FB and Twitter. Who is he to be given special treatment?
I don't think facebook is a private entity anymore than is CNN.
-
Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance... Right now they are behaving like appendage of W/House seeing Trump ghosts everywhere. They must be regulated.
Right now the shoe is on the anti-Trump foot. Once Biden gets out of office FaceBook, Twitter will use the same excuses to suppress black consciousness, voices of the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.... Who knows where it will end?
-
Absolutely. Succinct. I may not like Trump but we have to defend his right to say whatever he wants. If it's criminal - let him be charged with inciting hate. Otherwise shutting a whole opposition candidate - who won million of votes - is the most horrendous assault on freedom of free speech the US has seen in recent history. This is why some of his supporters resort to violence and guns. If both mainstream and social media shut you down - what avenue do you have. Start you own media house? How feasible is that? Everytime you disagree - you start you own facebook?
Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance... Right now they are behaving like appendage of W/House seeing Trump ghosts everywhere. They must be regulated.
Right now the shoe is on the anti-Trump foot. Once Biden gets out of office FaceBook, Twitter will use the same excuses to suppress black consciousness, voices of the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.... Who knows where it will end?
-
Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance... Right now they are behaving like appendage of W/House seeing Trump ghosts everywhere. They must be regulated.
Right now the shoe is on the anti-Trump foot. Once Biden gets out of office FaceBook, Twitter will use the same excuses to suppress black consciousness, voices of the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.... Who knows where it will end?
The First Amendment only relates to government entities abridging the right to free speech. Facebook/Twitter do not owe Trump(or anybody) a platform. The same thing with New York Times, Washing Post etc. They ultimately get to decide what is acceptable on their platform. There is things you agree to before you join, and I am sure the orange turd did agree to them. Jack Dorsey can shut down twitter in a fit of rage and he would not be in violation of anybody's rights to speech.
At the end of the day, twitter is no different than nipate.net, merely having a wider reach. They are just websites. Veritas has the right to kick out anybody on this forum for any reason contained in the agreement that you accept before you register.
-
Absolutely. Succinct. I may not like Trump but we have to defend his right to say whatever he wants. If it's criminal - let him be charged with inciting hate. Otherwise shutting a whole opposition candidate - who won million of votes - is the most horrendous assault on freedom of free speech the US has seen in recent history. This is why some of his supporters resort to violence and guns. If both mainstream and social media shut you down - what avenue do you have. Start you own media house? How feasible is that? Everytime you disagree - you start you own facebook?
You---and surprisingly quite a few (ignorant) Americans too---have a serious misunderstanding of freedom-of-speech laws in the USA (and other countries with similar laws), despite numerous legal rulings that ought to have made things clear by now.
Such laws are largely about constraining government, and that has been made clear over, and over again, that they are not about constraining private entities.
Trump is certainly free to say whatever he wants; nobody is trying to stop him there. But he is not free to say it wherever he likes, and nothing entitles him to a right to say whatever he wants on media owned by others.
You disagree? Try getting getting to publish whatever you like in a newspaper or saying whatever you like on some TV or radio station, and if they don't allow you, sue them for violating your right to free speech. The fact that you cannot start your own newspaper, TV, or radio station in no way imposes an obligation on others to allow you to use their platforms in whatever manner you might wish.
If his rights are being violated, as you seem to suggest, why do you think Trump himself, a litigious fellow by any account, is not in court over it? Do you think it is because he and all the legal talent his money can buy ---not to mention his supporters, some of whom are serious and seriously-financed people---can't see the terrible violations of law that Nipate experts can obviously see?
If you let Google be your friend, you can easily find a lot of material to clarify the matter. In the meantime, here is a random short article for you:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-first-amendment-where-it-is-3482126/
-
Very sound reasoning by Pundit on this one. Media are public good and are subject to public regulations by that virtue even if in private hands. Certain concessions come to media business - cost of transmission, use of public airwaves etc, to provide public good (news, information, advertisement, entertainment). FaceBook are entering a shaky world by making themselves media houses rather than mere instruments of communication. If they behave like media houses then they must be subject to media laws of freedom of speech, fairness, independence, balance...
What are the so-called "media laws of freedom of speech" in the USA? Please point us to the specific laws that you have in mind---e.g., cite the specific laws and legal rulings---so that we may then have a properly informed decision.
"must be subject to ... fairness, independence, balance". Ha ha ha! That one really is funny. Try telling it to the owners of Fox News, the National Enquirer, etc.
-
A homework starting point for the Nipate experts:
Just a couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled, contrary to what some had expected, that even when a private entity has been hired, by a government entity to to provide a public media service, it is not constrained by freedom-of-speech laws.
The first part of the ruling should, hopefully clarify some basic matters (and similar statements can be found in many legal rulings at all levels of the judicial system):
(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only
governmental, not private, abridgment of speech. See, e.g., Denver
Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727,
737. This Court’s state-action doctrine distinguishes the government
from individuals and private entities. Pp. 5–14.
You can read the rest here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
-
You do not need to know US constitution or laws to know that banning Trump by powerful mass media (social media inclusive) smells bad. You need common sense. It's time that social media is regulated. When US constitution was enacted two hundred years ago - I doubt there was mass media - maybe there were a few newspapers - but certainly the TVs or cathode tube had not been invented - and distributed in mass - neither had the radio. And yet those sectors are now regulated.
It upon the US states and congress to come up with regulations to control what Facebook and Twitter can and cannot do. They are now too powerful to be left alone - to be run by idiots like Maina Kia :) MOONKI. This is what Florida State has started to do.
I see the communication act of US was enacted in 1930s to deal with new mass media of Radio/Telephone and later TV was added - and now it's time to add social media - with certain reach!
Now it's need new regulation to deal with powerful social media like Twitter/Facebook - they are no nipate - these are incredibly powerful mass media - and Zuckerberg cannot run it like a private club. Not anymore. You cannot muzzle divergent opinions and claim to be a free democratic nation. Who can replicate facebook or twitter in a few days? Just like we expect TVS to give fair or almost equal coverage to democrats and republicans - and so should facebook.
This common sense 101. If it smells. It smell.
-
US Mass Media are regulated - it's time to include some of the big social media - and control what Mr. Zuckerberg and Maina Kias! cannot do - like muzzling opposing views.
The Communications Act of 1934 created a powerful entity to monitor the airwaves—a seven-member Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee both radio and telephone communication. The FCC, which now has only five members, requires radio stations to apply for licenses, granted only if stations follow rules about political advertising, providing a public forum for discussion, and serving local and minority communities. With the advent of television, the FCC was given the same authority to license and monitor television stations. The FCC now also enforces ownership limits to avoid monopolies and censors materials deemed inappropriate. It has no jurisdiction over print media, mainly because print media are purchased and not broadcast.
To maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election. Should WBNS in Columbus, Ohio, agree to sell Senator Marco Rubio thirty seconds of airtime for a presidential campaign commercial, the station must also sell all other candidates in that race thirty seconds of airtime at the same price. This rate cannot be more than the station charges favored commercial advertisers that run ads of the same class and during the same time p
-
Absolutely. Succinct. I may not like Trump but we have to defend his right to say whatever he wants. If it's criminal - let him be charged with inciting hate. Otherwise shutting a whole opposition candidate - who won million of votes - is the most horrendous assault on freedom of free speech the US has seen in recent history. This is why some of his supporters resort to violence and guns. If both mainstream and social media shut you down - what avenue do you have. Start you own media house? How feasible is that? Everytime you disagree - you start you own facebook?
You---and surprisingly quite a few (ignorant) Americans too---have a serious misunderstanding of freedom-of-speech laws in the USA (and other countries with similar laws), despite numerous legal rulings that ought to have made things clear by now.
Such laws are largely about constraining government, and that has been made clear over, and over again, that they are not about constraining private entities.
Trump is certainly free to say whatever he wants; nobody is trying to stop him there. But he is not free to say it wherever he likes, and nothing entitles him to a right to say whatever he wants on media owned by others.
You disagree? Try getting getting to publish whatever you like in a newspaper or saying whatever you like on some TV or radio station, and if they don't allow you, sue them for violating your right to free speech. The fact that you cannot start your own newspaper, TV, or radio station in no way imposes an obligation on others to allow you to use their platforms in whatever manner you might wish.
If his rights are being violated, as you seem to suggest, why do you think Trump himself, a litigious fellow by any account, is not in court over it? Do you think it is because he and all the legal talent his money can buy ---not to mention his supporters, some of whom are serious and seriously-financed people---can't see the terrible violations of law that Nipate experts can obviously see?
If you let Google be your friend, you can easily find a lot of material to clarify the matter. In the meantime, here is a random short article for you:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-first-amendment-where-it-is-3482126/
FaceBook and Twitter are not "some newspaper". They operate as telecommunications instruments, mere tools. If they want to operate like newspapers then they must subject themselves to uphold freedom of speech. Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.
That's what the Florida governor is saying. FarceBooks own oversight board knows the company made a grave error but instead of reversing it, they slapped Suckerbag on the wrist and told him to review in six months. If they were so right, they should have upheld permanent ban.
-
It upon the US states and congress to come up with regulations to control what Facebook and Twitter can and cannot do.
Feel free to take up the matter with your local legislators. In the meantime, the law allows them to ban the fellow.
Now it's need new regulation to deal with powerful social media like Twitter/Facebook - they are no nipate - these are incredibly powerful mass media - and Zuckerberg cannot run it like a private club. Not anymore.
Not only can he do it---and legally too---he is actually doing it!
You cannot muzzle divergent opinions and claim to be a free democratic nation.
He is not being muzzled; he is free to speak elsewhere.
-
Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.
Really? In that case Mr. Trump and his supporters too should get into court real quick. Perhaps the Nipate experts can give them the legal advice they need to win their cases.
Here, I await your answer to this one (above):
What are the so-called "media laws of freedom of speech" in the USA? Please point us to the specific laws that you have in mind---e.g., cite the specific laws and legal rulings---so that we may then have a properly informed decision.
Please go ahead and enlighten us. Asante sana!
-
It has started in Florida. The mighty is not right - anytime. We need to defend Trump's right even if whatever he says is disagreeable or inciteful. Zuckerberg should realize that Facebook is now too big - a monster - he cannot control - and gov will step in - starting from the US - right to Kenya.
Permanently banning Trump - a former US POTUS -and Key Republican leader - is a frontal attack on US and global democracy and free speech.
It upon the US states and congress to come up with regulations to control what Facebook and Twitter can and cannot do.
Feel free to take up the matter with your local legislators. In the meantime, the law allows them to ban the fellow.
Now it's need new regulation to deal with powerful social media like Twitter/Facebook - they are no nipate - these are incredibly powerful mass media - and Zuckerberg cannot run it like a private club. Not anymore.
Not only can he do it---and legally too---he is actually doing it!
You cannot muzzle divergent opinions and claim to be a free democratic nation.
He is not being muzzled; he is free to speak elsewhere.
-
Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.
Really? In that case Mr. Trump and his supporters too should get into court real quick. Perhaps the Nipate experts can give them the legal advice they need to win their cases.
Here, I await your answer to this one (above):
What are the so-called "media laws of freedom of speech" in the USA? Please point us to the specific laws that you have in mind---e.g., cite the specific laws and legal rulings---so that we may then have a properly informed decision.
Please go ahead and enlighten us. Asante sana!
We cannot do homework for FarceBook Oversight bored. Let them earn their money. I'm sure you've heard of "net neutrality". The internet is a tool or instrument for communication. FarceBook, Twitter, Verizon are mere tool and should be content-neutral like a KPLC pole. It does not matter whether it is transmitting excess power or outage, just a mere pole. When it takes another role it becomes a publisher and must be subject to regulation like newspapers which are publishers. If Twitter or FarceBook gets away with anti-Trump bias then we have started slippery slope. Now anybody even FCC can start banning content. When Trump with 35m followers on Twitter/FarceBook was doing his thing in White House he was a good brand bringing millions to the companies. Now he makes a blunder which remains unproven in court and FarceBook are judge, jury and executioner? What has changed? Makes no sense.
FarceBook/Twitter Oversight bored should consider the implications on democracy and free speech: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf
-
Just ask yourself if this governor would make such a law if FB or Twitter had banned NYC Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
This will be a court case and the internet giants have money and can hire the best lawyers in town. Be ready for a long fight.
FaceBook and Twitter are not "some newspaper". They operate as telecommunications instruments, mere tools. If they want to operate like newspapers then they must subject themselves to uphold freedom of speech. Trump has that right. That's the reason why restaurant owners and bakers who block blacks or gay orders for cakes are sued for discrimination. Twitter and FarceBok are discriminating against Trump and they can't get away with it.
That's what the Florida governor is saying. FarceBooks own oversight board knows the company made a grave error but instead of reversing it, they slapped Suckerbag on the wrist and told him to review in six months. If they were so right, they should have upheld permanent ban.
-
Might is not right. Period.
-
Might is not right. Period.
And yet this law is predicated on that idea. That Trump is too important to be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
-
Pundit conflates his ideals (shoulds) with reality. US law was really meant to give private business and capitalism as much freedom as possible to attract investment.
The other thing: social and mainstream are overwhelmingly liberal/left-leaning - so regulation is ideologically split left vs right same as the the 2nd amendment on gun control.
Now dogmatic liberals like bitmask and MOON Ki will happily recite the rigid law to you. Completely dismissing any need for regulation with false equivalencies ati Facebook vs Nipate. In truth, this is just open bias: you see the overwhelming mass of (social) media channels are leftist and this is really their motivation not any sound objections to freedom. Particularly because their dear fringe groups such as minorities, LGBT, etc are already selectively protected, so "who" needs freedom of speech? Do such a thing in Kenya against their preferred political faction and you will not hear the end of it. Liberals are rather hypocritical.
Of course in Europe, Australia, - these entitled Facebook, Google, etc have been straightened by heavy penalties for spreading their bad manners there. Anti-trust, anti-competitive, whatnot. The right to be forgotten started in the EU.
-
Yes, Trump is ex-POTUS and a leader of rethugs - he represent rethugs - and for democracy to work - he need to be allowed to speak on behalf of the rethugs. I really don't care if you ban me - I will open another account - but there are people too important to be ban - without assaulting multiparty democracy.
That Trump is too important to be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
-
I'm with Pundit on this one. Bernie Sanders also said in February in n interview that he, too, was very uncomfortable with the idea of the then POTUS being banned, as did Merkel and several other leaders in the democracy-believing EU. In 2021, social media big boys like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are not just someone's private website: they are the new public square. Being banned there is effectively being shut out of public discourse. If we look beyond Trump, we will realize there needs to be some regulation. I'm not sure what it would/should look like but it needs to at least appear fair in its results.
-
It's shocking that they banned Trump from their 14 character platform while he had access to nuclear codes. Democracy is about symbolism. You ban Trump - you're banning the millions of people who voted and believed in him. You are almost banning half the country. When Brits wanted to end the Nandi resistance - they killed Koitatelel -and it was effective.
It appears Facebook and the likes are leftist media trying to muzzle the ultra-right-wing.
Nobody is right - far-right/ultra-right like Trump - even if they are closet racist and name it - deserve a platform to share their ideas.
I'm with Pundit on this one. Bernie Sanders also said in February in n interview that he, too, was very uncomfortable with the idea of the then POTUS being banned, as did Merkel and several other leaders in the democracy-believing EU. In 2021, social media big boys like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are not just someone's private website: they are the new public square. Being banned there is effectively being shut out of public discourse. If we look beyond Trump, we will realize there needs to be some regulation. I'm not sure what it would/should look like but it needs to at least appear fair in its results.
-
Yes, Trump is ex-POTUS and a leader of rethugs - he represent rethugs - and for democracy to work - he need to be allowed to speak on behalf of the rethugs. I really don't care if you ban me - I will open another account - but there are people too important to be ban - without assaulting multiparty democracy.
That Trump is too important to be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
I see where we part ways, given that Trump, as President already had the bully pulpit of the Oval Office where he could convene media events at the snap of a finger. Part of twitter's and other social media platforms' appeal is their quasi-egalitarian nature. A nondescript character can get into a scrap with Trump and vice-versa. When you start giving special treatment to Trump(which they did for years), you diminish that appeal.
-
Pundit conflates his ideals (shoulds) with reality. US law was really meant to give private business and capitalism as much freedom as possible to attract investment.
The other thing: social and mainstream are overwhelmingly liberal/left-leaning - so regulation is ideologically split left vs right same as the the 2nd amendment on gun control.
Now dogmatic liberals like bitmask and MOON Ki will happily recite the rigid law to you. Completely dismissing any need for regulation with false equivalencies ati Facebook vs Nipate. In truth, this is just open bias: you see the overwhelming mass of (social) media channels are leftist and this is really their motivation not any sound objections to freedom. Particularly because their dear fringe groups such as minorities, LGBT, etc are already selectively protected, so "who" needs freedom of speech? Do such a thing in Kenya against their preferred political faction and you will not hear the end of it. Liberals are rather hypocritical.
Of course in Europe, Australia, - these entitled Facebook, Google, etc have been straightened by heavy penalties for spreading their bad manners there. Anti-trust, anti-competitive, whatnot. The right to be forgotten started in the EU.
While not a dogmatic liberal I will happily recite the law where I can. There is nothing rigid about the First Amendment. In fact it is possibly the most permissive free speech law on the planet.
-
Twitter exports their bad manners to Africa
Nigeria Bans Twitter After President’s Tweet Is Deleted
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html
-
Nigeria did nice! Some cheek!
Twitter exports their bad manners to Africa
Nigeria Bans Twitter After President’s Tweet Is Deleted
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html
-
FarceBook is the newest facilitator of dictatorship worldwide. When netters line MoonKi justify and defend dictatorship online, they should realize that people like Museveni and Buhari are watching very keenly. The only difference between FarceBook/Twitter dictatorship and Museveni dictatorship is bullets and gigabytes.
-
Twitter exports their bad manners to Africa
Nigeria Bans Twitter After President’s Tweet Is Deleted
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html)
There has been some RTLM level shade directed at Igbos recently. I wonder if that is what was deleted.
-
FarceBook is the newest facilitator of dictatorship worldwide. When netters line MoonKi justify and defend dictatorship online, they should realize that people like Museveni and Buhari are watching very keenly. The only difference between FarceBook/Twitter dictatorship and Museveni dictatorship is bullets and gigabytes.
Yup. Perfect analogy. Twitter and Facebook "principles" are textbook liberalism which they attempt to impose on everyone. Those may work in America but nowhere else. The bans, hard regulations and heavy fines may eventually push these bullies out of business.
-
Twitter exports their bad manners to Africa
Nigeria Bans Twitter After President’s Tweet Is Deleted
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html)
There has been some RTLM level shade directed at Igbos recently. I wonder if that is what was deleted.
I imagine it was some vitriol, but that should be dependent on local laws not their policies. It should be rather obvious this wouldn't be tolerated in Africa.
-
Without Civility, there is no Democracy.
Chose one.
-
FarceBook and its twitterated cousins think democracy is only when people line up and vote.
-
FarceBook is the newest facilitator of dictatorship worldwide. When netters line MoonKi justify and defend dictatorship online, they should realize that people like Museveni and Buhari are watching very keenly. The only difference between FarceBook/Twitter dictatorship and Museveni dictatorship is bullets and gigabytes.
Yup. Perfect analogy. Twitter and Facebook "principles" are textbook liberalism which they attempt to impose on everyone. Those may work in America but nowhere else. The bans, hard regulations and heavy fines may eventually push these bullies out of business.
Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats :(
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!
-
Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats :(
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!
Na so broda! :D
It astonishes me the kind of loyalty this oaf commands among some folks. What can social science tell us about it? I understand deplorables in the rust belt acutely aware of white demographic trends latching on to his America white first platform but what is in it for a confused coal black miscreant? It is inexplicable.
-
FarceBook is the newest facilitator of dictatorship worldwide. When netters line MoonKi justify and defend dictatorship online, they should realize that people like Museveni and Buhari are watching very keenly. The only difference between FarceBook/Twitter dictatorship and Museveni dictatorship is bullets and gigabytes.
Yup. Perfect analogy. Twitter and Facebook "principles" are textbook liberalism which they attempt to impose on everyone. Those may work in America but nowhere else. The bans, hard regulations and heavy fines may eventually push these bullies out of business.
Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats :(
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!
I doubt that Twitter liberal nutcase Jack Dorsey has any **CK big or little. That is why he thinks his bully pulpit is the sole preserve of "progressives" - whatever that means. Yes Buhari signed a dotted line to join Twitter -- but so did Twitter to operate in Nigeria. Both parties enforced their rules. Honestly that nonsense of banning or deleting a president's tweets can only work in the US - not even in Canada, UK. These buggers been banned or heavily fined all over - EU, Australia, India, Brazil, Russia, Africa, name it. Is it the world or Dorsey that is crazy? - or Robina :) -- sorry am unsure.
-
Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats :(
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!
Na so broda! :D
It astonishes me the kind of loyalty this oaf commands among some folks. What can social science tell us about it? I understand deplorables in the rust belt acutely aware of white demographic trends latching on to his America white first platform but what is in it for a confused coal black miscreant? It is inexplicable.
Arcadian Sucker - I would call you pea-brained but that would be unfair to the pea. I always watch the extreme intolerance of liberals like you here - or in many Silicon Valley companies - or in US colleges - such a bunch of haters. I wonder where you get the audacity to point fingers at others? I have also always heard that the Rethugs will soon go stale, senile and extinct... ha! I loathe intolerance - which is what banning a (ex-) POTUS or President Buhari is.
-
Arcadian is one of those people when make me resent right-wingers for calling wokerism "left." :D It's right-wingism on stilts. Genuine Left politics abhors control/dictatorship by Capital/big business even more than it resents dictatorship by govt. Why? At least the vote gives some small semblance of accountability when it's the govt. These other folks are accountable to no one but themselves. We have a situation in which one, 36 year old, Zuckerberg is deciding which speech should be heard by millions (or a small board of about 4 heads of similar companies), and we think it's alright now, but one day, it maybe a Donald Trump Jr deciding things like that. Indeed, if the culture shifts like this, that's EXACTLY what the Zuckerbergs will do: shift and do dictatorship for whichever trend holds in that culture.
And it's not true that they are solely targetting right wingers. They treated "Bernie Bros" the exact same way back when Sanders was still a pest and have been killing independent Leftist media with unfair algorithms for about 2 years now. At least the right wingers have Fox to get their word out. True Leftists (i.e. who care about economics that caters for everyone) have no actual "big" platform apart from independent media so they feeling the heat even more than right-wingers. They are equally loathed by CNN/MSNBC and Fox.
-
Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.
If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.
I know democrats forced Facebooks and likes to take the heat for Russian alleged social media engeneering - but surely banning pORK is going over the top.
Ban BOTS, Sex pest, and other such morally repugnantly repressive folks - but banning a whole POTUS or Nigeria President - that got to be some cheek.
-
Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.
If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.
I know democrats forced Facebooks and likes to take the heat for Russian alleged social media engeneering - but surely banning pORK is going over the top.
Ban BOTS, Sex pest, and other such morally repugnantly repressive folks - but banning a whole POTUS or Nigeria President - that got to be some cheek.
So inciting people against each other is Politics??
You guys either live in wonderland or are CRAZY!! Apply the latter.
Trump wanted civil war and then declare martial law to hold on to power. Is this the crap you want???
-
Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats :(
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!
Na so broda! :D
It astonishes me the kind of loyalty this oaf commands among some folks. What can social science tell us about it? I understand deplorables in the rust belt acutely aware of white demographic trends latching on to his America white first platform but what is in it for a confused coal black miscreant? It is inexplicable.
Arcadian Sucker - I would call you pea-brained but that would be unfair to the pea. I always watch the extreme intolerance of liberals like you here - or in many Silicon Valley companies - or in US colleges - such a bunch of haters. I wonder where you get the audacity to point fingers at others? I have also always heard that the Rethugs will soon go stale, senile and extinct... ha! I loathe intolerance - which is what banning a (ex-) POTUS or President Buhari is.
Robina. You are taking this personal. Please take a break. No reason to turn on to insults. This is what Trump did to anyone who disagreed with him. Nothing in this world is permanent.
-
If Americans can easily be incited by 14 characters tweet; then surely!
You clearly have a dim view of Americans and their institutions.
So inciting people against each other is Politics??
You guys either live in wonderland or are CRAZY!! Apply the latter.
Trump wanted civil war and then declare martial law to hold on to power. Is this the crap you want???
-
If Americans can easily be incited by 14 characters tweet; then surely!
You clearly have a dim view of Americans and their institutions.
So inciting people against each other is Politics??
You guys either live in wonderland or are CRAZY!! Apply the latter.
Trump wanted civil war and then declare martial law to hold on to power. Is this the crap you want???
SCARY, right???
Risk of civil war is higher than when Martin Luther was murdered. Problem now is almost everyone armed. And they blame China.
-
Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.
If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.
Russiagate was not propagated by the actual Left but by "Liberals" who couldn't accept that giving people a bad candidate (Killery) under the religion of wokeism (vote for the woman no matter what!) resulted in the loss of the election. Russiagate was what confirmed for me that Liberals were genuinely nuts :D all the while pretending nuttery was the privilege of right-wingers alone. They propagated that crap from MSNBC, via especially Rachel Maddow, nonstop 247, till Muller's reports came to nil. It was an ACTUAL leftist journalist (Aaron Mate) who debunked Rachel Maddow for her Russia conspiracies video by video, claim by claim, on Twitter. And yes, it is THESE independent voices on the Left that have been getting gutted by big tech in the past two years. They're hated by Fox but just as much by CNN/MSNBC, so unlike the Right, they don't have any "ally" in big media when google's algorithms come for them. At least Right-wingers have Fox which is still the biggest news network in the USA in terms of viewership/ratings.
Your mistake, pundit, is thinking liberals are the same thing as Left. It's the Right that lumps them together but they are VERY different. The Left has been wanting Facebook and their friends regulated/nationalized loooong before Trump. They like control by Capital (like Big tech) even less than they like control by govt, because Capital has ZERO accountability to the public good. They'll do whatver they want or whatver gives them a profit even if it's very bad for everybody. At least a govt is somewhat accountable to the electorate, however imperfectly. This was Angela Merkel's point: She said, essentially, that parliaments/govts should determine what free-speech rules are/should be on these platforms via regular law-making procedures, not the CEOs or boards of these companies. That way, there'd be fairness. I agree with her.
-
We are agreed that Facebook and these big media - require regulations - just like any other mass media is regulated - radio, tv, name it. Gov has to regulate them -somehow despite it's democratization of the content creators.
Unless he was posting child pornography or something that moral offensive; you cannot ban a whole POTUS for political expression you disagree with - someone who say his election was stolen bla de bla. Democrats spend 5yrs on their Russia sour grapes.
If there rules are the same - why don't normal user get the same level of scrutiny - or disclaimer - Facebook bla de bla - this disclaimer.
Russiagate was not propagated by the actual Left but by "Liberals" who couldn't accept that giving people a bad candidate (Killery) under the religion of wokeism (vote for the woman no matter what!) resulted in the loss of the election. Russiagate was what confirmed for me that Liberals were genuinely nuts :D all the while pretending nuttery was the privilege of right-wingers alone. They propagated that crap from MSNBC, via especially Rachel Maddow, nonstop 247, till Muller's reports came to nil. It was an ACTUAL leftist journalist (Aaron Mate) who debunked Rachel Maddow for her Russia conspiracies video by video, claim by claim, on Twitter. And yes, it is THESE independent voices on the Left that have been getting gutted by big tech in the past two years. They're hated by Fox but just as much by CNN/MSNBC, so unlike the Right, they don't have any "ally" in big media when google's algorithms come for them. At least Right-wingers have Fox which is still the biggest news network in the USA in terms of viewership/ratings.
Your mistake, pundit, is thinking liberals are the same thing as Left. It's the Right that lumps them together but they are VERY different. The Left has been wanting Facebook and their friends regulated/nationalized loooong before Trump. They like control by Capital (like Big tech) even less than they like control by govt, because Capital has ZERO accountability to the public good. They'll do whatver they want or whatver gives them a profit even if it's very bad for everybody. At least a govt is somewhat accountable to the electorate, however imperfectly. This was Angela Merkel's point: She said, essentially, that parliaments/govts should determine what free-speech rules are/should be on these platforms via regular law-making procedures, not the CEOs or boards of these companies. That way, there'd be fairness. I agree with her.
-
The REAL problem that's never mentioned; the thing that forces people from both sides of the political isle to take positions that otherwise contradict their "normal" principles when it comes to governance, is that the US has downright CRAZY "constitutional rights" including "free-speech rights" that prevent their various branches of govt from regulating matters like the use of such spaces. Other countries don't absolutize any set of rights so they can comfortably regulate the use of social media without going overboard. In the US, whenever they want to change something, they end up using somewhat dishonest (in my estimation) routes; because the "legitimate" paths to accomodating social changes that ought to be reflected in the law are blocked by their toxic politics which has made it impossible to change any part of the constitution "properly" going forward.
They are 50-50 roughly speaking; their constitution requires 75% of the 50+ states to agree to change as a start :D The country is in a cultural gridlock. So instead you have dictator big tech and judiciaries "finding" things in the constitution that are not/were obviously never there. All this stuff is because their politics means they can't change their laws to accommodate modern cultural realities in the same way their counterparts in Europe can.
-
Are you OK?
Youre kinda off the chats :(
"Impose on everyone"?
People chose to use tech because its convenient, hence the rules that come with it. You dont ban a platform because your little **CK has been hurt!
Na so broda! :D
It astonishes me the kind of loyalty this oaf commands among some folks. What can social science tell us about it? I understand deplorables in the rust belt acutely aware of white demographic trends latching on to his America white first platform but what is in it for a confused coal black miscreant? It is inexplicable.
Arcadian Sucker - I would call you pea-brained but that would be unfair to the pea. I always watch the extreme intolerance of liberals like you here - or in many Silicon Valley companies - or in US colleges - such a bunch of haters. I wonder where you get the audacity to point fingers at others? I have also always heard that the Rethugs will soon go stale, senile and extinct... ha! I loathe intolerance - which is what banning a (ex-) POTUS or President Buhari is.
While not necessarily agreeing with your characterization, I think it's a good thing to have intolerance for certain things. There are times when you have to treat one side in the manner it deserves and to hell with balance and fairness . Such as a head of state championing Nazis and similar ideals. I don't get the impression that tolerance for liberals is tolerance for tolerance's own sake.
-
Twitter exports their bad manners to Africa
Nigeria Bans Twitter After President’s Tweet Is Deleted
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/world/africa/nigeria-twitter-president.html)
There has been some RTLM level shade directed at Igbos recently. I wonder if that is what was deleted.
I imagine it was some vitriol, but that should be dependent on local laws not their policies. It should be rather obvious this wouldn't be tolerated in Africa.
I think he mentioned something along the lines of Igbos being dealt with in the language they understand while referencing the Biafra war. It's easy to ignore if this were some anonymous faceless account, but is pretty toxic stuff coming from a head of state.
-
The REAL problem that's never mentioned; the thing that forces people from both sides of the political isle to take positions that otherwise contradict their "normal" principles when it comes to governance, is that the US has downright CRAZY "constitutional rights" including "free-speech rights" that prevent their various branches of govt from regulating matters like the use of such spaces. Other countries don't absolutize any set of rights so they can comfortably regulate the use of social media without going overboard. In the US, whenever they want to change something, they end up using somewhat dishonest (in my estimation) routes; because the "legitimate" paths to accomodating social changes that ought to be reflected in the law are blocked by their toxic politics which has made it impossible to change any part of the constitution "properly" going forward.
Granted that practical regulation is necessary. But the issue here is kicking someone off a platform for violating policies he agreed to. How do you make that "relative"?
They are 50-50 roughly speaking; their constitution requires 75% of the 50+ states to agree to change as a start :D The country is in a cultural gridlock. So instead you have dictator big tech and judiciaries "finding" things in the constitution that are not/were obviously never there. All this stuff is because their politics means they can't change their laws to accommodate modern cultural realities in the same way their counterparts in Europe can.
I agree the US is hopelessly crippled by its constitution. It's become a suicide pact. But you have it wrong about what the REAL problem is. Big tech are doing what is good for their bottom line legitimately. The real problem is the Republican party.
-
USA will eventually unravel like USSR
The REAL problem that's never mentioned; the thing that forces people from both sides of the political isle to take positions that otherwise contradict their "normal" principles when it comes to governance, is that the US has downright CRAZY "constitutional rights" including "free-speech rights" that prevent their various branches of govt from regulating matters like the use of such spaces. Other countries don't absolutize any set of rights so they can comfortably regulate the use of social media without going overboard. In the US, whenever they want to change something, they end up using somewhat dishonest (in my estimation) routes; because the "legitimate" paths to accomodating social changes that ought to be reflected in the law are blocked by their toxic politics which has made it impossible to change any part of the constitution "properly" going forward.
They are 50-50 roughly speaking; their constitution requires 75% of the 50+ states to agree to change as a start :D The country is in a cultural gridlock. So instead you have dictator big tech and judiciaries "finding" things in the constitution that are not/were obviously never there. All this stuff is because their politics means they can't change their laws to accommodate modern cultural realities in the same way their counterparts in Europe can.
-
Surely it not like they were asked to flash it on their homepage? Like a headline. It on his small wall; people will read it; move on;if it's reported; it can be snoozed or deleted; but to ban the president?
There is so much they can do before permanently banning a head of state.
Delete the post, hide the post, warn the poster, suspend the account for a week, name anything.
Infact the best is to simply hide the post - make it invisible - unless edited. We are going nearly 10 yrs here - and NOBODY has been banned or even suspended.
I think he mentioned something along the lines of Igbos being dealt with in the language they understand while referencing the Biafra war. It's easy to ignore if this were some anonymous faceless account, but is pretty toxic stuff coming from a head of state.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57408179
Trump hails the Naija country.
"Congratulations to the country of Nigeria, who just banned Twitter because they banned their president," he said in a statement released on Tuesday.
He suggested that he should have banned Facebook while he was in office, but said the company's boss Mark Zuckerberg "kept calling me and coming to the White House for dinner telling me how great I was".
... A group of human rights organisations says it has filed a case with a West African regional court against the Twitter ban, saying it contravenes the right to the freedom of expression. :o
-
Surely it not like they were asked to flash it on their homepage? Like a headline. It on his small wall; people will read it; move on;if it's reported; it can be snoozed or deleted; but to ban the president?
There is so much they can do before permanently banning a head of state.
Delete the post, hide the post, warn the poster, suspend the account for a week, name anything.
Infact the best is to simply hide the post - make it invisible - unless edited. We are going nearly 10 yrs here - and NOBODY has been banned or even suspended.
I think he mentioned something along the lines of Igbos being dealt with in the language they understand while referencing the Biafra war. It's easy to ignore if this were some anonymous faceless account, but is pretty toxic stuff coming from a head of state.
I think Buhari was given a timeout of a few days and his tweet deleted. He was not permanently banned. Some people will want special treatment for him because he is President. And I agree. Just that the said special treatment includes special expectations for him and his peers. He cannot just go in and heckle people the same way you and I can. Some people listen to these fools religiously.
-
Granted that practical regulation is necessary. But the issue here is kicking someone off a platform for violating policies he agreed to. How do you make that "relative"?
I disagree, Termi, that that's the key issue here. No one is saying he has been illegally kicked out. The argument is that monopolies of this magnitude should not have the power to do this, given the importance of their platforms to public discourse. This is just the latest incident, but this argument was being made even be4 Trump smelt the White House. It's the right-wing position to say businesses should be allowed to control public life in this manner: They are only changing tune in this specific area (social media) over the past few years because it's affecting them. The key issue for those complaining is that this state of affairs is both wrong and dangerous for any nation going forward and ought to change.
I agree the US is hopelessly crippled by its constitution. It's become a suicide pact. But you have it wrong about what the REAL problem is. Big tech are doing what is good for their bottom line legitimately. The real problem is the Republican party.
Here, again, I strongly disagree. The U.S's problem is that it's an oligarchy and not the democracy it lies to its people it is. Unfortunately, too many Democrats think only Republicans serve that master. The Democratic party has been the Oligarch's puppy ever since the late 80s and esp the 90s when the Clintons' influence in the party grew. The Republicans are just more in-you-face about it. Both parties play to cultural divisions and different demographics to avoid changing the economics but they serve the same bosses in the end.
-
Granted that practical regulation is necessary. But the issue here is kicking someone off a platform for violating policies he agreed to. How do you make that "relative"?
I disagree, Termi, that that's the key issue here. No one is saying he has been illegally kicked out. The argument is that monopolies of this magnitude should not have the power to do this, given the importance of their platforms to public discourse. This is just the latest incident, but this argument was being made even be4 Trump smelt the White House. It's the right-wing position to say businesses should be allowed to control public life in this manner: They are only changing tune in this specific area (social media) over the past few years because it's affecting them. The key issue for those complaining is that this state of affairs is both wrong and dangerous for any nation going forward and ought to change.
That is not how I understand the issue of corporate influence in American politics. It's not so much about how a corporation carries out its business as it is about its ability to influence policy through financing of politician's campaigns.
In other words, Democrats are strongly opposed to twitter, facebook, google etc from being able to finance political campaigns. In terms of regulation, Democrats again favor net neutrality, which means you or I can compete on a relatively even keel with facebook, twitter etc when it comes to access to internet resources, which would be expensive if net-neutrality is killed. This runs counter to what the tech giants prefer. Republicans are conversely hostile to net neutrality - something which would result in an unfair advantage to the tech giants.
I agree the US is hopelessly crippled by its constitution. It's become a suicide pact. But you have it wrong about what the REAL problem is. Big tech are doing what is good for their bottom line legitimately. The real problem is the Republican party.
Here, again, I strongly disagree. The U.S's problem is that it's an oligarchy and not the democracy it lies to its people it is. Unfortunately, too many Democrats think only Republicans serve that master. The Democratic party has been the Oligarch's puppy ever since the late 80s and esp the 90s when the Clintons' influence in the party grew. The Republicans are just more in-you-face about it. Both parties play to cultural divisions and different demographics to avoid changing the economics but they serve the same bosses in the end.
Actually, only Democrats currently suggest the US is a democracy. Republicans long abandoned that notion. You've probably come across the ridiculous, "it's a republic not a democracy" right-wing nonsense. The demographic changes have resulted in the GOP coming out as an openly anti-democratic minority rule force. This, IMO, is the real danger facing the US today. The election that Biden won in Georgia just a few months ago, would today be overturned by the Georgia legislature. This is analogous to Jubilee parliamentary group being able to overrule the IEBC in Kenya. It's insane, but it is happening across a few GOP controlled states, including all the ones that Trump lost.
Does "oligarchy" it affect both parties? Probably. But it's right-wing in origin. Corporations are able to get off with favorable taxation terms and regulations under Republican administrations. The Democratic party is generally "hostile" to corporations on that basis. So their influence is not as pronounced on the Democratic side. There is a reason AOC and ilk gravitate towards the Democrats rather than Republicans. It's because in a nutshell they are definitely not the same. That's why Keystone pipeline, Arctic drilling etc are on Biden's chopping block. No. They are not the same.
-
Bitmask your Left-democracy vs the rightwing-republic argument is deep and insightful. I'm not deeply familiar with party politricks here but things are becoming clearer. It really depends on what issue. Traditionally, Democrats tended to side with liberal policies that empowered citizens, for example. This is the irony today, because there are also many democrats who feel the second amendment, for example, should not be touched even though more of them tend to favor gun regulation. This is in stark contrast to republicans most of whom are rabidly against any attempts to water down the second amendment. Gun control is a hot issue right now and most republicans will not support any controls. On issues like climate change, democrats tend to favor federal policies on carbon emissions. Republicans don't agree. With time, the democrats have pushed the US towards a more socialist agenda, which makes their policies stand out against the Republicans.
-
That is not how I understand the issue of corporate influence in American politics. It's not so much about how a corporation carries out its business as it is about its ability to influence policy through financing of politician's campaigns.
All you say is true, Termi, but the issue of the regulation of speech by social media companies has ALSO been in very serious discussion in both leftist and right-wing circles for a very long time. Perhaps it's because I've been in the Youtube scene following independent media for years now, but this has been a big deal. The influence of Capitalists even over media outputs is also a part of this discussion: paying politicians isn't the only way monopolies corrupt society.
Does "oligarchy" it affect both parties? Probably. But it's right-wing in origin. Corporations are able to get off with favorable taxation terms and regulations under Republican administrations. The Democratic party is generally "hostile" to corporations on that basis. So their influence is not as pronounced on the Democratic side. There is a reason AOC and ilk gravitate towards the Democrats rather than Republicans. It's because in a nutshell, they are definitely not the same. That's why Keystone pipeline, Arctic drilling etc are on Biden's chopping block. No. They are not the same.
Honestly, I'll wait for them to actually be chopped first before I give Dems a shred of credit. Biden so far has promised the moon and delivered crumbs, like Democratic presidents always do: Minimum Wage, Yemen, Private prisons, even this patent-thing. Right now, they are even dropping the climate business we were promised was the most important crisis of our time. I've learned to wait to see what actually happens in implementation, not what Liberal media hypes up. Sure, they make certain they are slightly better than Republicans to keep their base happy but will always leave office with things 99% the same, even when they control both houses.
AOC in her second terms has morphed into a centrist Democrat in everything but the Israel-Palestine issue. She blocked the force-the-vote movement and even donated against progressive candidates and was heavily criticized for it by leftists. People who go to Capital Hill eventually succumb to the game: the power of Capital. You should see a video of Pelosi 30 years ago I saw some months ago, as a fresh congresswoman. She was exactly like AOC! Singing universal health care in detail and whatnot. Right now, you can't even say she's the same person. So, respectfully, I disagree with you. The American government is a tool of the oligarchy, including the DNC, and its biggest politicians. Everyone goes to Washington with good intentions but eventually succumbs to business as usual, unfortunately.
-
By the way, when I say AOC is morphing into a centrist, I don't mean she doesn't "mouth the words" of Progressives, to borrow Chimamanda's expression. She just plays the "My hands are tied" game typical centrists do. The only place she has breathed fire is the Palestinian issue.
-
Bitmask your Left-democracy vs the rightwing-republic argument is deep and insightful. I'm not deeply familiar with party politricks here but things are becoming clearer. It really depends on what issue. Traditionally, Democrats tended to side with liberal policies that empowered citizens, for example. This is the irony today, because there are also many democrats who feel the second amendment, for example, should not be touched even though more of them tend to favor gun regulation. This is in stark contrast to republicans most of whom are rabidly against any attempts to water down the second amendment. Gun control is a hot issue right now and most republicans will not support any controls. On issues like climate change, democrats tend to favor federal policies on carbon emissions. Republicans don't agree. With time, the democrats have pushed the US towards a more socialist agenda, which makes their policies stand out against the Republicans.
The liberal/conservative divide of the parties is a relatively recent one. Historically, both parties harbored politicians on both sides of this divide. The parties and their political inclination have been in constant flux throughout history. There are a few periods in history where dramatic shifts occur. I would wager the current shift traces its origin back to the Southern Strategy during which Dixiecrats started moving towards the Republican party. 50 years in the making.
-
By the way, when I say AOC is morphing into a centrist, I don't mean she doesn't "mouth the words" of Progressives, to borrow Chimamanda's expression. She just plays the "My hands are tied" game typical centrists do. The only place she has breathed fire is the Palestinian issue.
But they are. It's not a game. I think you need to look a little more closely at the US Senate. Presently there is nothing AOC can do beyond mouth those words.
-
That is not how I understand the issue of corporate influence in American politics. It's not so much about how a corporation carries out its business as it is about its ability to influence policy through financing of politician's campaigns.
All you say is true, Termi, but the issue of the regulation of speech by social media companies has ALSO been in very serious discussion in both leftist and right-wing circles for a very long time. Perhaps it's because I've been in the Youtube scene following independent media for years now, but this has been a big deal. The influence of Capitalists even over media outputs is also a part of this discussion: paying politicians isn't the only way monopolies corrupt society.
To some extent, yes. What you say and think might earn you unfavorable coverage on national TV. This can be abused - I disagree this instance is one such case. Still, there are a lot of conservatives who are not banned on facebook or twitter including lunatics like Ann Coulter. Conservatives are not being persecuted by these platforms. FOX News is the most viewed TV channel in the US. It spews conservative and racist bullshit 24/7 without any pushback.
Does "oligarchy" it affect both parties? Probably. But it's right-wing in origin. Corporations are able to get off with favorable taxation terms and regulations under Republican administrations. The Democratic party is generally "hostile" to corporations on that basis. So their influence is not as pronounced on the Democratic side. There is a reason AOC and ilk gravitate towards the Democrats rather than Republicans. It's because in a nutshell, they are definitely not the same. That's why Keystone pipeline, Arctic drilling etc are on Biden's chopping block. No. They are not the same.
Honestly, I'll wait for them to actually be chopped first before I give Dems a shred of credit. Biden so far has promised the moon and delivered crumbs, like Democratic presidents always do: Minimum Wage, Yemen, Private prisons, even this patent-thing. Right now, they are even dropping the climate business we were promised was the most important crisis of our time. I've learned to wait to see what actually happens in implementation, not what Liberal media hypes up. Sure, they make certain they are slightly better than Republicans to keep their base happy but will always leave office with things 99% the same, even when they control both houses.
Keystone XL pipeline nixed after Biden stands firm on permit (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-keystone-pipeline-canada-environment-and-nature-141eabd7cca6449dfbd2dab8165812f2)
AOC in her second terms has morphed into a centrist Democrat in everything but the Israel-Palestine issue. She blocked the force-the-vote movement and even donated against progressive candidates and was heavily criticized for it by leftists. People who go to Capital Hill eventually succumb to the game: the power of Capital. You should see a video of Pelosi 30 years ago I saw some months ago, as a fresh congresswoman. She was exactly like AOC! Singing universal health care in detail and whatnot. Right now, you can't even say she's the same person. So, respectfully, I disagree with you. The American government is a tool of the oligarchy, including the DNC, and its biggest politicians. Everyone goes to Washington with good intentions but eventually succumbs to business as usual, unfortunately.
She just understands the challenges better. There is institutionalized gridlock that she just cannot bypass. She doesn't have to be bought to realize that. Party leadership may be partly to blame. But they would have nowhere to hide if it were not for real obstacles like the Senate filibuster. Things pass in the House to go die in the Senate.
The Democratic party as a whole is a center-left party. It's lately more centrist absorbing never-Trumper Republicans. While AOC and leftists can quit and join any myriad of leftist parties, they realize that the Democratic party is the only rational party left of the two major parties. So they cling to it not because they agree with everything it stands for, but because the alternative is the totally unhinged Republican party.
-
I wonder what Kadame makes of bitmask's lampoon of Rethugs as "totally unhinged."
For me they are unhinged yes on guns. Mass shootings don't move them. Even of kids.
Also on shifting demographics. Don't see the need for gerrymandering in Georgia, Arizona, etc purple states. What is progressive today will be conservative in 2050, so conservatism will never die. Rethug fear of demographics is irrational.
-
Also on shifting demographics. Don't see the need for gerrymandering in Georgia, Arizona, etc purple states. What is progressive today will be conservative in 2050, so conservatism will never die. Rethug fear of demographics is irrational.
When people focus solely on the culture wars, they get the impression that "things have shifted Left" in the U..S. I don't much care for the culture war; Besides being in some respect socially conservative myself (like when it comes to abortion,) I realized some time ago that this culture focus in the U.S. is a tribalism game the two parties play to maintain their "Right/Left" positioning while they march pretty much together when it comes to the economics. The truth is things have shifted RIGHT. Waaaay right, on the things that matter. Obama in the 80s would've been a moderate Republican. Yet he was called a flaming communist by right-wingers on Fox 247. After Reaganomics took hold, the direction is the opposite in fact. What is "moderate/centrist" now was straight-up "right-wing" a few decades ago. FDR would've been swallowed alive now if he had attempted to implement his social safety nets in 2020, (if they weren't already in place, that is).
I of course think the "Guns rights" and even "Free Speech rights" in the U.S. nuts and these are Right-wing "causes." You people are simply unreasonable with your tendencies to absolutize everything, leaving no room for nuanced policies in important matters. I've been acquainted with many people from all over the world and had heated discussions and debated about politics and so far, these crazy (to me) ideas have been heard only from American mouths:
American: "Everyone has a right to carry guns and other dangerous weapons"
Why?
"We need it to fight the govt if it goes tyrannical."
"But your military is overwhelmingly the most powerful this world has ever known. You'll stop them with your shotguns?"
"Yep!"
Literally, everyone else I've ever met thinks it's sheer insanity to just allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to run around with dangerous weapons.
Only Americans think paid maternity leave is a weird idea, or publicly funded healthcare "will destroy the economy."
The only "cultural" issues I care about in the U.S.?
1) Police and Justice culture re Black people
2) Education funding
Those are provable systemic issues that affect Blacks and Latins but MOSTLY Black people, however much Right-wingers deny it. The evidence is overwhelming, studies numerous (though they claim there's no evidence or studies that prove this.) Part of my frustration with the DNC is that fixing the economics will FIX these issues for Blacks but they just mouth the words and do not change the system. This makes me believe the entire system is under the thumb of Oligarchs who don't want anything about the economics to change.
-
Keystone XL pipeline nixed after Biden stands firm on permit (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-keystone-pipeline-canada-environment-and-nature-141eabd7cca6449dfbd2dab8165812f2)
Well, that's great news 4 sure. I'll give credit where it's due. But . . . I still think the Oligarchs have taken over your country, by and large. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
-
Folks this beyond the USA - let remember these silicon valley social media giants - are everywhere except China that have their own. They almost need to be controlled by UN. They are INCREDIBLY powerful and RICH. Most of them make revenues that would put them in top 30 - if they were countries.
-
Folks this beyond the USA - let remember these silicon valley social media giants - are everywhere except China that have their own. They almost need to be controlled by UN. They are INCREDIBLY powerful and RICH. Most of them make revenues that would put them in top 30 - if they were countries.
On the wider issue, I agree with the Europeans on the issue of big tech and speech: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic
Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.
“The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic,” Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, said at a regular news conference in Berlin. Rights like the freedom of speech “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature -- not according to a corporate decision.”
The German leader’s stance is echoed by the French government. Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune said he was “shocked” to see a private company make such an important decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire earlier said that the state should be responsible for regulations, rather than “the digital oligarchy,” and called big tech “one of the threats” to democracy.
Europe is increasingly pushing back against the growing influence of big technology companies. The EU is currently in the process of setting up regulation that could give the bloc power to split up platforms if they don’t comply with rules.
Like the Germans said, I think many rights can be rightly interfered with, including freedom of speech, but decisions like this should not be made by a few businessmen but by lawmakers.
-
Folks this beyond the USA - let remember these silicon valley social media giants - are everywhere except China that have their own. They almost need to be controlled by UN. They are INCREDIBLY powerful and RICH. Most of them make revenues that would put them in top 30 - if they were countries.
On the wider issue, I agree with the Europeans on the issue of big tech and speech: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic)
Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.
“The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic,” Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, said at a regular news conference in Berlin. Rights like the freedom of speech “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature -- not according to a corporate decision.”
The German leader’s stance is echoed by the French government. Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune said he was “shocked” to see a private company make such an important decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire earlier said that the state should be responsible for regulations, rather than “the digital oligarchy,” and called big tech “one of the threats” to democracy.
Europe is increasingly pushing back against the growing influence of big technology companies. The EU is currently in the process of setting up regulation that could give the bloc power to split up platforms if they don’t comply with rules.
Like the Germans said, I think many rights can be rightly interfered with, including freedom of speech, but decisions like this should not be made by a few businessmen but by lawmakers.
I find the EU leaders comments either disingenuous or willfully ignorant. Trump did not have his free speech rights violated, according to the laws(made by lawmakers) of the jurisdiction under which he falls.
-
Folks this beyond the USA - let remember these silicon valley social media giants - are everywhere except China that have their own. They almost need to be controlled by UN. They are INCREDIBLY powerful and RICH. Most of them make revenues that would put them in top 30 - if they were countries.
On the wider issue, I agree with the Europeans on the issue of big tech and speech: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic
Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.
“The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic,” Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, said at a regular news conference in Berlin. Rights like the freedom of speech “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature -- not according to a corporate decision.”
The German leader’s stance is echoed by the French government. Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune said he was “shocked” to see a private company make such an important decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire earlier said that the state should be responsible for regulations, rather than “the digital oligarchy,” and called big tech “one of the threats” to democracy.
Europe is increasingly pushing back against the growing influence of big technology companies. The EU is currently in the process of setting up regulation that could give the bloc power to split up platforms if they don’t comply with rules.
Like the Germans said, I think many rights can be rightly interfered with, including freedom of speech, but decisions like this should not be made by a few businessmen but by lawmakers.
Nice one by Merkel. We have been saying the same thing here but some cannot see it. One would have thought she was in our class. The banning/suspension of Trump is pretty much the way pro-oligarch DNC has almost succeeded in shutting out dissent on climate change and even Coronavirus. Who knows what next? It could be blacks protesting against police brutality, or gun owners speaking up on second amendment rights..... There is a problem and we all know it.
-
Folks this beyond the USA - let remember these silicon valley social media giants - are everywhere except China that have their own. They almost need to be controlled by UN. They are INCREDIBLY powerful and RICH. Most of them make revenues that would put them in top 30 - if they were countries.
On the wider issue, I agree with the Europeans on the issue of big tech and speech: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-sees-closing-trump-s-social-media-accounts-problematic)
Germany and France attacked Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. after U.S. President Donald Trump was shut off from the social media platforms, in an extension of Europe’s battle with big tech.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions, saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies.
“The chancellor sees the complete closing down of the account of an elected president as problematic,” Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, said at a regular news conference in Berlin. Rights like the freedom of speech “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature -- not according to a corporate decision.”
The German leader’s stance is echoed by the French government. Junior Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune said he was “shocked” to see a private company make such an important decision. “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO,” he told Bloomberg TV on Monday. “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms.” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire earlier said that the state should be responsible for regulations, rather than “the digital oligarchy,” and called big tech “one of the threats” to democracy.
Europe is increasingly pushing back against the growing influence of big technology companies. The EU is currently in the process of setting up regulation that could give the bloc power to split up platforms if they don’t comply with rules.
Like the Germans said, I think many rights can be rightly interfered with, including freedom of speech, but decisions like this should not be made by a few businessmen but by lawmakers.
I find the EU leaders comments either disingenuous or willfully ignorant. Trump did not have his free speech rights violated, according to the laws(made by lawmakers) of the jurisdiction under which he falls.
That's like saying you're a free slave as long as you stay quiet and humble in massa's house.
-
I wonder what Kadame makes of bitmask's lampoon of Rethugs as "totally unhinged."
For me they are unhinged yes on guns. Mass shootings don't move them. Even of kids.
Also on shifting demographics. Don't see the need for gerrymandering in Georgia, Arizona, etc purple states. What is progressive today will be conservative in 2050, so conservatism will never die. Rethug fear of demographics is irrational.
But they really are. The inmates have taken over the asylum in that party. Imagine trying to discuss how solve the climate crisis with a party whose standard bearers are now people like Marjorie Taylor, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar. And all you'll get back in response is "America First". Where do you even start? The latest is their criticism of Biden's decision to send some leftover vaccines to other countries. There is no reaching them, and that is pretty concerning.
-
Keystone XL pipeline nixed after Biden stands firm on permit (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-keystone-pipeline-canada-environment-and-nature-141eabd7cca6449dfbd2dab8165812f2)
Well, that's great news 4 sure. I'll give credit where it's due. But . . . I still think the Oligarchs have taken over your country, by and large. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
I think so too. Though it's been that way for decades, so I tend to make a distinction between that and what I consider a new problem of Republican anti-majoritarion behavior.
Since 2016, they have moved the "Overton Window" radically towards things that were unthinkable just 10 years ago. The GOP has made peace with the idea that they can no longer win a majority and are busy working to negate that need in a structural way. For instance it is now acceptable in their caucus to strategize winning the Presidency through not just a flawed Electoral College, but also through overturning unwanted results all the way to Congress. While technically possible, this has until recently not been considered thinkable as a strategy by either party; the election ended when one party got the Electoral College and the loser conceded.
-
BitMask, human rights are UNIVERSAL; doesn't matter how it's written; The right to free speech, thought and expression is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; be it in South Sudan or US or Germany. Written, unwritten, name it. It basic human right. You cannot and should not curtail anybody's right to say whatever they want - unless it truly offensive and moral decadent.
Quit this nonsense about US constitution.
The US constitution declares that black man like you is 3/4 or something of human being.
It very irritating to run into technicalities of a 200yr old constitution - to explain human rights violations
Everyone with a brain cell immediately knew something was wrong with banning Trump - even if you disagree totally with whatever political ideas he exposes.
If and when China does this - it's WRONG -whatever laws they Chinese pass in their country - i's simple violation of human rights. The french long explained why inherent human rights - are inherent.
How would you feel if you were kicked out of forums? Violated! Trumps feel the same and his supporters do! His human rights to have free thoughts and to express the same has been violated without due course and worse without being given a chance to defend himself.
And you cannot say facebook is private - it ceased being private when it invited everyone to their bar. You cannot invite public to your house and then turn around to say it's private.
-
BitMask, human rights are UNIVERSAL; doesn't matter how it's written; The right to free speech, thought and expression is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; be it in South Sudan or US or Germany. Written, unwritten, name it. It basic human right. You cannot and should not curtail anybody's right to say whatever they want - unless it truly offensive and moral decadent.
Quit this nonsense about US constitution.
The US constitution declares that black man like you is 3/4 or something of human being.
It very irritating to run into technicalities of a 200yr old constitution - to explain human rights violations
Everyone with a brain cell immediately knew something was wrong with banning Trump - even if you disagree totally with whatever political ideas he exposes.
I believe the First Amendment is the most permissive free speech law on the planet. And even this law, does not entitle Trump or anyone else to a platform. Trump shit on twitter rules for years with people demanding action. Twitter literally bent over backwards till they couldn't. So we just see things differently. You think a powerful person should be cut some slack - twitter did this with Trump for years. I think a powerful person should face a bit more scrutiny on those forums, with a lower tolerance for what he is allowed to say.
If and when China does this - it's WRONG -whatever laws they Chinese pass in their country - i's simple violation of human rights. The french long explained why inherent human rights - are inherent.
How would you feel if you were kicked out of forums? Violated! Trumps feel the same and his supporters do! His human rights to have free thoughts and to express the same has been violated without due course and worse without being given a chance to defend himself.
And you cannot say facebook is private - it ceased being private when it invited everyone to their bar. You cannot invite public to your house and then turn around to say it's private.
I don't disagree that it's annoying to log in "getting ready to write something important" only to be met with a screen telling you to take a hike. Even then I don't see why Trump deserves sympathy. He had many other ways of communicating. Now, someone like Cyprian Nyakundi, I totally sympathize with. After getting knocked off twitter he found himself talking to an audience of white supremacists on gab; no real recourse in his case.
-
I find the EU leaders comments either disingenuous or willfully ignorant. Trump did not have his free speech rights violated, according to the laws(made by lawmakers) of the jurisdiction under which he falls.
Again, no one is saying some law has been violated so there's nothing disingenuous or ignorant about what they are saying at all, which is: a few businessmen shouldn't be able to control public discourse like this; it's defacto dictatorship by a few unelected and unaccountable personalities. Bernie Sanders who is no fan of Trump said the same thing in March, and even these Facebook/Twitter owners admitted the problematic nature of these moves. I am not a free speech absolutist like Pundit, but I'll never be ok with corporate entities been given charge of the direction of political discourse. At least in China, it's the govt that's doing this, not some rich dudes who have no sense of duty or accountability to their populations, and furthermore, China doesn't claim to be based on the principles of freedom like Western countries.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/24/twitter-sanders-trump-ban-censorship-capitol-riots/6987757002/
Sen. Bernie Sanders is not a fan of Donald Trump, but that doesn’t mean he thinks the former president should have been banned from the social media platform after the deadly Capitol siege.
“Look, you have a former president in Trump, who was a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, a pathological liar, an authoritarian, somebody who doesn’t believe in the rule of law. This is a bad-news guy,” Sanders said on the New York Times podcast "The Ezra Klein Show" when asked if there's "truth to the critique that liberals have become too censorious and too willing to use their cultural and corporate and political power to censor or suppress ideas and products that offend them."
“But if you’re asking me, do I feel particularly comfortable that the then-president of the United States could not express his views on Twitter?,” Sanders, an indepe continued. “I don’t feel comfortable about that.”
Further, he said. “I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people.”
Not that Sanders thinks hate speech and conspiracy theories should be allowed to spread. And he does not want the internet used “for authoritarian purposes and an insurrection.”
....
“How do you balance that?” Sanders said. “I don’t know, but it is an issue that we have got to be thinking about. Because yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view.”
Sanders is not alone in his discomfort. The leaders of the nation’s largest social media companies, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, have expressed unease with a handful of corporations having so much control over the nation’s online conversation.
Months after the former president was suspended from all major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Google’s YouTube, YouTube said it would lift Trump's ban when the "risk of incitement to violence" abates. Facebook has left the decision in the hands of an advisory board. Trump has appealed his ban from Facebook and Instagram.
-
I find the EU leaders comments either disingenuous or willfully ignorant. Trump did not have his free speech rights violated, according to the laws(made by lawmakers) of the jurisdiction under which he falls.
Again, no one is saying some law has been violated so there's nothing disingenuous or ignorant about what they are saying at all, which is: a few businessmen shouldn't be able to control public discourse like this; it's defacto dictatorship by a few unelected and unaccountable personalities. Bernie Sanders who is no fan of Trump said the same thing in March, and even these Facebook/Twitter owners admitted the problematic nature of these moves. I am not a free speech absolutist like Pundit, but I'll never be ok with corporate entities been given charge of the direction of political discourse. At least in China, it's the govt that's doing this, not some rich dudes who have no sense of duty or accountability to their populations, and furthermore, China doesn't claim to be based on the principles of freedom like Western countries.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/24/twitter-sanders-trump-ban-censorship-capitol-riots/6987757002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/24/twitter-sanders-trump-ban-censorship-capitol-riots/6987757002/)
Sen. Bernie Sanders is not a fan of Donald Trump, but that doesn’t mean he thinks the former president should have been banned from the social media platform after the deadly Capitol siege.
“Look, you have a former president in Trump, who was a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, a pathological liar, an authoritarian, somebody who doesn’t believe in the rule of law. This is a bad-news guy,” Sanders said on the New York Times podcast "The Ezra Klein Show" when asked if there's "truth to the critique that liberals have become too censorious and too willing to use their cultural and corporate and political power to censor or suppress ideas and products that offend them."
“But if you’re asking me, do I feel particularly comfortable that the then-president of the United States could not express his views on Twitter?,” Sanders, an indepe continued. “I don’t feel comfortable about that.”
Further, he said. “I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people.”
Not that Sanders thinks hate speech and conspiracy theories should be allowed to spread. And he does not want the internet used “for authoritarian purposes and an insurrection.”
....
“How do you balance that?” Sanders said. “I don’t know, but it is an issue that we have got to be thinking about. Because yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view.”
Sanders is not alone in his discomfort. The leaders of the nation’s largest social media companies, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, have expressed unease with a handful of corporations having so much control over the nation’s online conversation.
Months after the former president was suspended from all major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Google’s YouTube, YouTube said it would lift Trump's ban when the "risk of incitement to violence" abates. Facebook has left the decision in the hands of an advisory board. Trump has appealed his ban from Facebook and Instagram.
Angela Markel implies that whatever Twitter did was not legally sanctioned or on dubious legal ground when she says lawmakers should be responsible for free speech. I guess one could read it differently, though it would be contrived.
Yes, some are uncomfortable with these actions. They stopped a bully from using their platform to lobby yet another juvenile insult at an opponent. While I understand potential for abuse of this power, this particular case does not warrant that level of concern. We are probably in agreement on the need to moderate this kind of power; we just disagree that the Trump case is an exemplar for the abuse of that power.
-
Proponents of this digital dictatorship by Twitter and FarceBook forget that although out of office, Trump is the de facto GOP leader and represents a constituency that large. By banning Trump, FarceBook and Twitter are delegitimizing and silencing GoP while endorsing the increasingly Socialist Dems who shout democracy all day. Banning Trump is an amazing act in a country that claims to defend democracy. If they want to support Biden, doing so does not have to involve shutting others down otherwise they become a shithole US. African kleptocrats loot and kill opponents. In the US, the tech companies do the same thing digitally and people cheer.
-
Bitmask cannot understand this. I don't know how to break it down any further. Trump is former POTUS for crying out loud. If you can shut him down - then you are indeed very powerful - and can shut down anything. They banned Trump when he had nuclear codes. Their 14 words platform was more dangerous to be entrusted to POTUS with powers to declare nuclear war.
Proponents of this digital dictatorship by Twitter and FarceBook forget that although out of office, Trump is the de facto GOP leader and represents a constituency that large. By banning Trump, FarceBook and Twitter are delegitimizing and silencing GoP while endorsing the increasingly Socialist Dems who shout democracy all day. Banning Trump is an amazing act in a country that claims to defend democracy. If they want to support Biden, doing so does not have to involve shutting others down otherwise they become a shithole US. African kleptocrats loot and kill opponents. In the US, the tech companies do the same thing digitally and people cheer.
-
Bitmask you are not getting traction because all 4 support Trump - Geemail, Dear Mami, Pundit, Robina all proudly support the Alt right. Social media companies were aggressively banning Islamic fanatics during ISIS's reign of terror, no complaints, no handwringing, but when they started targeting white massa his underlings squeal everywhere. Coons let in missionaries which directly led to colonization, coons sold their brethren in the Atlantic slave trade, coons are lining up ( I'm looking at you Lukaku) to represent European football teams despite widespread racist animus from the public, coons are falling over themselves mortgaging their countries to the Chinaman, in summary coons have been the downfall of the Blackman.
-
Equating alt right to terrorist is crazy. But you're always crazy. And I will defend your human right to be heard. Social Media platform should definitely ban some people - those posting child pornography, engaging in terror activities, etc. Those that crosses the line of decency - but to ban people you disagree with politically - is suppresion of free speech - and to ban Trump - whose is leader of huge majority of american - voted by 50million - is an attack of democracy.
So understand right from the title - 1) Free Speech and 2) Democracy. Two key concepts here. Most of you are struggling with # with free speech and are yet to even understand democracy.
Banning trump is probably okayish free speechish - but knowing he is GOP Leader/POTUS/elected by 50 million americans - is an attack on those people - it's an attack on democracy. It almost an attack on half the Americans.
Bitmask you are not getting traction because all 4 support Trump - Geemail, Dear Mami, Pundit, Robina all proudly support the Alt right. Social media companies were aggressively banning Islamic fanatics during ISIS's reign of terror, no complaints, no handwringing, but when they started targeting white massa his underlings squeal everywhere. Coons let in missionaries which directly led to colonization, coons sold their brethren in the Atlantic slave trade, coons are lining up ( I'm looking at you Lukaku) to represent European football teams despite widespread racist animus from the public, coons are falling over themselves mortgaging their countries to the Chinaman, in summary coons have been the downfall of the Blackman.
-
Actually Trump got 83million. That is a lot of people that these social media are trying to shut down by shutting down their leaders. It like British killing Koitalel in cold blood to shut down Nandis. You shut down Raila - you shut down Luos. It the whole intention.
-
Equating alt right to terrorist is crazy. But you're always crazy. And I will defend your human right to be heard. Social Media platform should definitely ban some people - those posting child pornography, engaging in terror activities, etc. Those that crosses the line of decency - but to ban people you disagree with politically - is suppresion of free speech - and to ban Trump - whose is leader of huge majority of american - voted by 50million - is an attack of democracy.
So understand right from the title - 1) Free Speech and 2) Democracy. Two key concepts here. Most of you are struggling with # with free speech and are yet to even understand democracy.
Banning trump is probably okayish free speechish - but knowing he is GOP Leader/POTUS/elected by 50 million americans - is an attack on those people - it's an attack on democracy. It almost an attack on half the Americans.
During Trump's reign of error terroristic acts by white nationalist gangs increased alarmingly remember Charlotte, Pennsylvania synagogue shooting and many others. White terrorists killed more people on American soil than Muslim terrorists - that is a fact, look it up, now who is crazy?
Here is my question Lumbwa boy, is there a difference between Neo Nazis terrorists aka alt right and Islamic terrorists?
-
Actually Trump got 83million. That is a lot of people that these social media are trying to shut down by shutting down their leaders. It like British killing Koitalel in cold blood to shut down Nandis. You shut down Raila - you shut down Luos. It the whole intention.
If Raila call for insurrection, then it right they kick him out. Can you comprehend that simple point? No one is banning 83mn supporters, its against an individual. He can always go to GAB :D and rant away. Deplatforming has been very effective, he was like a rabid animal, now the political temperature has gone down, it was the vaccine the doctor ordered.
-
As quiet as China. At the heart of it - you're not a democrat. Why would you want to silence other people. You can put your own ear plugs on.
If Raila call for insurrection, then it right they kick him out. Can you comprehend that simple point? No one is banning 83mn supporters, its against an individual. He can always go to GAB :D and rant away. Deplatforming has been very effective, he was like a rabid animal, now the political temperature has gone down, it was the vaccine the doctor ordered.
-
I've avoided this because it's going nowhere. It's like those debates we used to hold in primary school that went: " A dick is better than a Hen" (Bhai those teachers lacked imagination jameni!!!😱🙈)
A private company can't be told who to allow on it's platform. Trump supporting Republicans made that law eons ago when they supported golf clubs etc to continue segregation against blacks.
Trump violated Twitter regulations and rules for years. They let him stay for selfish economic reasons. Once his brand became poison they've predictably dumped him.
I've not read all that's written but my point as a former anarchist would be they were free to keep him when it served their economic self interests and they are free to jettison him when it serves their selfish economic interests now. Economic self interests don't expire that easily.
Trump is a despicable character who should be treated fairly by the government. But private individuals and companies have no such obligation. They are not KBC or VOICE OF KENYAATTA. They are exempt from liability but that's limited
-
Omollo - Radio technology was discovered - then a few people bought radios - then soon enough everyone had radios - it became mass media - they became powerful - they needed to be regulated. Some of the regulation including giving fair play to political opponents.
A few years - Cathode Ray tube - was discovered - that could beam images - people starting buying it - TVs were everywhere - they became mass media - they became powerful - gov had to regulate them.
A few more years - computer was discovered - internet became total mess - and everyone was happy - to be totally lost - but soon everyone converged on few sites - social media sites - with billions of users.
These social media sites need regulations. They are not private. They are not tech. They are not RF technology. They are not Cathode Ray Tube. They are social media that everyone is on. They are radios (FMS), TVS, and they are mass media.
As with everything - regulation has to catch up.
For at heart of modern democracy - gov is the regulator - otherwise powerful individuals will trample upon everyone - Zuckerberg could even decide an election. Well mass media led to turmoil in middle east.
I've avoided this because it's going nowhere. It's like those debates we used to hold in primary school that went: " A dick is better than a Hen" (Bhai those teachers lacked imagination jameni!!!😱🙈)
A private company can't be told who to allow on it's platform. Trump supporting Republicans made that law eons ago when they supported golf clubs etc to continue segregation against blacks.
Trump violated Twitter regulations and rules for years. They let him stay for selfish economic reasons. Once his brand became poison they've predictably dumped him.
I've not read all that's written but my point as a former anarchist would be they were free to keep him when it served their economic self interests and they are free to jettison him when it serves their selfish economic interests now. Economic self interests don't expire that easily.
Trump is a despicable character who should be treated fairly by the government. But private individuals and companies have no such obligation. They are not KBC or VOICE OF KENYAATTA. They are exempt from liability but that's limited
-
I'm not disagreeing. That regulation ain't there yet and trump party is the prime objector to regulation except when it benefits them.
If Democratic societies decide to regulate then it will be.
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/12/tech/twitter-india-nigeria-intl-hnk/index.html
You can imagine if Twitter or FarceBook decides to shut down Indians for saying cows must be worshiped.
India is a new twist in the tale. Modi government asks Twitter to delete 100 posts of Indian officials critical of his government. Twitter refuses saying that would be a violation of free speech. Twitter has been a bit more open but that's the very thing FarceBook have done to Trump.
-
I'm not disagreeing. That regulation ain't there yet and trump party is the prime objector to regulation except when it benefits them.
If Democratic societies decide to regulate then it will be.
In the US the only regulation of content for mass media has to with certain types of pornography. There is no requirement for private radio or TV to accommodate on their platforms anybody who wants to be heard. That is how you can have Fox News, OAN, Newsmax putting out right wing garbage 24/7.
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/12/tech/twitter-india-nigeria-intl-hnk/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/12/tech/twitter-india-nigeria-intl-hnk/index.html)
You can imagine if Twitter or FarceBook decides to shut down Indians for saying cows must be worshiped.
India is a new twist in the tale. Modi government asks Twitter to delete 100 posts of Indian officials critical of his government. Twitter refuses saying that would be a violation of free speech. Twitter has been a bit more open but that's the very thing FarceBook have done to Trump.
But they haven’t banned Indians for their religious beliefs. Much like they did not ban Trunp for being a Republican.
-
Bitmask cannot understand this. I don't know how to break it down any further. Trump is former POTUS for crying out loud. If you can shut him down - then you are indeed very powerful - and can shut down anything. They banned Trump when he had nuclear codes. Their 14 words platform was more dangerous to be entrusted to POTUS with powers to declare nuclear war.
Proponents of this digital dictatorship by Twitter and FarceBook forget that although out of office, Trump is the de facto GOP leader and represents a constituency that large. By banning Trump, FarceBook and Twitter are delegitimizing and silencing GoP while endorsing the increasingly Socialist Dems who shout democracy all day. Banning Trump is an amazing act in a country that claims to defend democracy. If they want to support Biden, doing so does not have to involve shutting others down otherwise they become a shithole US. African kleptocrats loot and kill opponents. In the US, the tech companies do the same thing digitally and people cheer.
I understand that point. And it even seems that way to Republicans. I also think it is not the germane issue. I just disagree even though I fully understand your point.
-
Bitmask you are not getting traction because all 4 support Trump - Geemail, Dear Mami, Pundit, Robina all proudly support the Alt right.
Your idiocy never fails to impress. :D
-
I've avoided this because it's going nowhere. It's like those debates we used to hold in primary school that went: " A dick is better than a Hen" (Bhai those teachers lacked imagination jameni!!!)
To me, it seems more like a President is better than a regular. Essentially an argument against what makes social media so appealing in the first place.
A private company can't be told who to allow on it's platform. Trump supporting Republicans made that law eons ago when they supported golf clubs etc to continue segregation against blacks.
My sentiment too. Unless the company is carrying out a contract for the government. Conservatives suddenly in favor of "regulation" is hypocrisy to say the least.
Trump violated Twitter regulations and rules for years. They let him stay for selfish economic reasons. Once his brand became poison they've predictably dumped him.
Actually I thought they risked losing a good chunk of "conservatives" with this move. Trump's main contribution was soiling his pants on twitter, arguably hurting the conservative cause. And still they left him unchecked for years, even as his targets of derision faced death threats.
I've not read all that's written but my point as a former anarchist would be they were free to keep him when it served their economic self interests and they are free to jettison him when it serves their selfish economic interests now. Economic self interests don't expire that easily.
Trump is a despicable character who should be treated fairly by the government. But private individuals and companies have no such obligation. They are not KBC or VOICE OF KENYAATTA. They are exempt from liability but that's limited
Yep. It's also a slippery slope, given that the arguments I have seen on this thread are just about the power accumulated by these companies. If you want a forum for world leaders to be heard no matter what you have the UN. And if they want they can create a platform just for themselves with other users getting to put up with them whether they like it or not.
-
Also on shifting demographics. Don't see the need for gerrymandering in Georgia, Arizona, etc purple states. What is progressive today will be conservative in 2050, so conservatism will never die. Rethug fear of demographics is irrational.
When people focus solely on the culture wars, they get the impression that "things have shifted Left" in the U..S. I don't much care for the culture war; Besides being in some respect socially conservative myself (like when it comes to abortion,) I realized some time ago that this culture focus in the U.S. is a tribalism game the two parties play to maintain their "Right/Left" positioning while they march pretty much together when it comes to the economics. The truth is things have shifted RIGHT. Waaaay right, on the things that matter. Obama in the 80s would've been a moderate Republican. Yet he was called a flaming communist by right-wingers on Fox 247. After Reaganomics took hold, the direction is the opposite in fact. What is "moderate/centrist" now was straight-up "right-wing" a few decades ago. FDR would've been swallowed alive now if he had attempted to implement his social safety nets in 2020, (if they weren't already in place, that is).
I of course think the "Guns rights" and even "Free Speech rights" in the U.S. nuts and these are Right-wing "causes." You people are simply unreasonable with your tendencies to absolutize everything, leaving no room for nuanced policies in important matters. I've been acquainted with many people from all over the world and had heated discussions and debated about politics and so far, these crazy (to me) ideas have been heard only from American mouths:
American: "Everyone has a right to carry guns and other dangerous weapons"
Why?
"We need it to fight the govt if it goes tyrannical."
"But your military is overwhelmingly the most powerful this world has ever known. You'll stop them with your shotguns?"
"Yep!"
Literally, everyone else I've ever met thinks it's sheer insanity to just allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to run around with dangerous weapons.
Only Americans think paid maternity leave is a weird idea, or publicly funded healthcare "will destroy the economy."
The only "cultural" issues I care about in the U.S.?
1) Police and Justice culture re Black people
2) Education funding
Those are provable systemic issues that affect Blacks and Latins but MOSTLY Black people, however much Right-wingers deny it. The evidence is overwhelming, studies numerous (though they claim there's no evidence or studies that prove this.) Part of my frustration with the DNC is that fixing the economics will FIX these issues for Blacks but they just mouth the words and do not change the system. This makes me believe the entire system is under the thumb of Oligarchs who don't want anything about the economics to change.
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/11/political-system-unites-to-condemn-ilhan-omar-for-telling-the-truth/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter
Marching together not just on economics.
-
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/11/political-system-unites-to-condemn-ilhan-omar-for-telling-the-truth/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter
Marching together not just on economics.
That Ilhan Omar lynching is one of the events along the way that defined what has become my political position in the past two years.
1. It got me completely off the "moderate conservatives pundits" audience. I used to watch a select few, like Ben Shapiro, to understand what was going on the right. That's because I knew the reporting is thoroughly skewed, so I said, "If you want t know about conservatives, listen to conservatives; if you want to know about liberals, listen to liberals: Don't go with their smears of each other." I believed until Ilhan Omar's lynching that these "free speech" conservatives were just traditional-minded people of good faith. When they complained about the cancel mobs in colleges and Twitter, I could totally understand. When they said, "Don't presume racism based on vague imaginary 'dog-whistle' claims" and demanded explicit evidence for claims of bigotry, I didn't agree but I at least believed they believed what they were saying, i.e., were arguing in good faith. I just thought their privilege blinded them from seeing all the hurdles blacker folk have to go through to get much of the same stuff they took for granted. The champion of this brigade was Shapiro.
Then . . . Shapiro literally ignited a mob and set it upon Ilhan Omar with MADE-UP antisemitism. He literally pretended she criticized JEWS when every single one of her "problematic" tweets carried only direct criticisms of the Israel state, its govt, its lobbies in the US, and the U.S. law-makers trying to establish Israeli support as some kind of legally mandated position for all Americans through the anti-BDS law. Those standards about not presuming bigotry through 'dog whistle' claims? Vanished. :D The underbelly of hate that came to the fore on the right!!! My goodness. I think calling it hate understates that ugly that came to the fore. Ilhan literally exposed the sheer visceral hatred that exists huko chini among these, so-called, good-faith actors. After that, I engaged these free-speech advocates on this Ilhan issue, and not ONE of them ever conceded that whole reaction was at least shocking. So much for their complaint about cancel culture: :D They just don't like it when it targets them, but they are happy to do it to their version of "deplorables" (She was Black, African, Muslim, and hijab-wearing, and that made her criticism of American or Israeli policies unbearable, apparently). They even pretended she was ugly :o As if . . . (Add to this them losing their minds over Colin Kaepernick's very simple, SILENT, short protest/demonstration re police brutality). They just have different standards for CANCELLING, because they have different sacred cows (Israel and the Military being the most prominent) but they are not in any way averse to cancelling.
2. It also added more to my suspicions (by then they were just suspicions) that the DNC serves the same master as the RNC. They literally went along with this Right-Wing lynching, all pretending that Ilhan had smeared Jews, when each one knew she had only criticized ISRAEL, AIPAC, and the Anti-BDS bill. Pelosi and crowd sanctioned her and essentially forced her to issue an unwarranted apology. I believe ONLY Bernie Sanders, a JEW, stood up for her and called out the hate and bigotry being directed at her by right-wingers. I realized these guys are not ant-right-wing in the true sense of the term right-wing. I mean, everyone who could read would've seen there was ZERO antisemitism in Ilhan's posts. In addition, she called for a boycott against Saudi Arabia urging Muslims to boycott the Hajj (for their genocidal rampage in Yemen among other atrocities) in the same terms as she was calling out Israel. They all ignored all that and allowed talking heads everywhere from the view to more serious platforms to pretend she had attacked Jews. I felt gaslit! The whole thing was beyond bizarre.
-
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/11/political-system-unites-to-condemn-ilhan-omar-for-telling-the-truth/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter (https://theintercept.com/2021/06/11/political-system-unites-to-condemn-ilhan-omar-for-telling-the-truth/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter)
Marching together not just on economics.
That Ilhan Omar lynching is one of the events along the way that defined what has become my political position in the past two years.
1. It got me completely off the "moderate conservatives pundits" audience. I used to watch a select few, like Ben Shapiro, to understand what was going on the right. That's because I knew the reporting is thoroughly skewed, so I said, "If you want t know about conservatives, listen to conservatives; if you want to know about liberals, listen to liberals: Don't go with their smears of each other." I believed until Ilhan Omar's lynching that these "free speech" conservatives were just traditional-minded people of good faith. When they complained about the cancel mobs in colleges and Twitter, I could totally understand. When they said, "Don't presume racism based on vague imaginary 'dog-whistle' claims" and demanded explicit evidence for claims of bigotry, I didn't agree but I at least believed they believed what they were saying, i.e., were arguing in good faith. I just thought their privilege blinded them from seeing all the hurdles blacker folk have to go through to get much of the same stuff they took for granted. The champion of this brigade was Shapiro.
Then . . . Shapiro literally ignited a mob and set it upon Ilhan Omar with MADE-UP antisemitism. He literally pretended she criticized JEWS when every single one of her "problematic" tweets carried only direct criticisms of the Israel state, its govt, its lobbies in the US, and the U.S. law-makers trying to establish Israeli support as some kind of legally mandated position for all Americans through the anti-BDS law. Those standards about not presuming bigotry through 'dog whistle' claims? Vanished. :D The underbelly of hate that came to the fore on the right!!! My goodness. I think calling it hate understates that ugly that came to the fore. Ilhan literally exposed the sheer visceral hatred that exists huko chini among these, so-called, good-faith actors. After that, I engaged these free-speech advocates on this Ilhan issue, and not ONE of them ever conceded that whole reaction was at least shocking. So much for their complaint about cancel culture: :D They just don't like it when it targets them, but they are happy to do it to their version of "deplorables" (She was Black, African, Muslim, and hijab-wearing, and that made her criticism of American or Israeli policies unbearable, apparently). They even pretended she was ugly :o As if . . . (Add to this them losing their minds over Colin Kaepernick's very simple, SILENT, short protest/demonstration re police brutality). They just have different standards for CANCELLING, because they have different sacred cows (Israel and the Military being the most prominent) but they are not in any way averse to cancelling.
2. It also added more to my suspicions (by then they were just suspicions) that the DNC serves the same master as the RNC. They literally went along with this Right-Wing lynching, all pretending that Ilhan had smeared Jews, when each one knew she had only criticized ISRAEL, AIPAC, and the Anti-BDS bill. Pelosi and crowd sanctioned her and essentially forced her to issue an unwarranted apology. I believe ONLY Bernie Sanders, a JEW, stood up for her and called out the hate and bigotry being directed at her by right-wingers. I realized these guys are not ant-right-wing in the true sense of the term right-wing. I mean, everyone who could read would've seen there was ZERO antisemitism in Ilhan's posts. In addition, she called for a boycott against Saudi Arabia urging Muslims to boycott the Hajj (for their genocidal rampage in Yemen among other atrocities) in the same terms as she was calling out Israel. They all ignored all that and allowed talking heads everywhere from the view to more serious platforms to pretend she had attacked Jews. I felt gaslit! The whole thing was beyond bizarre.
America is right-wing(Dems and Republicans) when it comes to Israel and foreign policy. It was much worse in the past. So bad, that after 9-11, C-SPAN stopped giving airtime(even at the usual ungodly hours) to people like Noam Chomsky and his ilk.
The internet and social media has provided an outlet for the previously suppressed sentiments against both Israeli apartheid and US crimes in the foreign domain. Another point in favor of treating everybody equally on social media platforms.
-
(http://gadocartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Jan.13.21.Trump_.Museveni.and_.Social.Media_.jpg)
-
I just saw this. A new court battle is startting in Ohio (a Republican state). They are asking for Google to be declared a common carrier.
-
I just saw this. A new court battle is startting in Ohio (a Republican state). They are asking for Google to be declared a common carrier.
That's the point we've been making all along. A common carrier cannot claim to censor content. It should simply act like a pipe carrying water.
-
I just saw this. A new court battle is startting in Ohio (a Republican state). They are asking for Google to be declared a common carrier.
That's the point we've been making all along. A common carrier cannot claim to censor content. It should simply act like a pipe carrying water.
It’s an argument better applicable to internet service providers and net neutrality. That aside you are going to have market outcomes in terms dominant content. I have not seen evidence of censorship of conservatives content. In fact facebook’s politics leans conservative.
-
You're about to get it. Market dominance - the bells of regulations start to ring.
It’s an argument better applicable to internet service providers and net neutrality. That aside you are going to have market outcomes in terms dominant content. I have not seen evidence of censorship of conservatives content. In fact facebook’s politics leans conservative.
-
You're about to get it. Market dominance - the bells of regulations start to ring.
It’s an argument better applicable to internet service providers and net neutrality. That aside you are going to have market outcomes in terms dominant content. I have not seen evidence of censorship of conservatives content. In fact facebook’s politics leans conservative.
I might get it if you explain how that is relevant, in the case of the social media companies. Merely being a good product in demand is not enough for the kind of interventions you appear to have in mind.
-
Some of the most racist(actually the most racist) people I have had the misfortune to work with are Israelis. Closely followed by Russians.
That maybe so but that doesn't make Israel an apartheid state. I think some have misconstrued their legitimate security precautions as apartheid. Remember they are dealing with Islamic fanatics like AS who won't hesitate to hide behind civilians to cause mayhem.
I want to keep this thread a bit more focused on the power of social media, censorship, the internet and regulations without straying too far off. Though I agree that individual racism is not the same thing as state racism, it's fairly well known that Israel keeps Palestinians(who are not citizens) in subhuman conditions. But that is something for a different thread.
-
Edit: Never mind . . . Not worth it. :D
-
Edit: Never mind . . . Not worth it. :D
Why did you chicken out bat soup lover?
-
Edit: Never mind . . . Not worth it. :D
Why did you chicken out bat soup lover?
Lol, are u twelve? :D Even ur insults scream soft in the head.
I admit invincible ignorance in an anonymous moniker presents an intimating challenge to attempt to tackle. Threw in the towel.
-
I screwed up. I tried to split the topic but instead lost some posts.
-
I say good riddance :D 2021 isn't the time to make a whole thread explaining that old issue, researched and discussed ad nauseum. Anybody who doesn't know at this stage. . . doesn't want to. Simple.
-
Now the big tech companies have banned American Frontline Doctors and removed their website for alleged disinformation on Covid. Like the bootleg days, it only works to drive things underground. Chang'aa is still sold and drank in Kenya despite Moi's spirited efforts against it. Not that opposing Covid is illegal, but removing websites does not stop people from seeing the plannedemic as another big heax from the usual suspects.
-
https://www.axios.com/trump-lawsuit-facebook-twitter-82323cf3-b8ce-48ed-8cab-cafe31f0bae7.html
Story refuses to die.