Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    For the life of me, I do not understand why Youtube just doesn't mass ban RT (Russia Today) and things of that nature.

    Labeling it as a Russian Government organ is not enough.
    Aww shucks being so fragile that anything but full blown cnn and nbc propaganda 24/7 is a huge threat to the democrats.


    Infracted.
    Last edited by Flarelaine; 2019-10-31 at 08:27 AM. Reason: Trolling

  2. #42
    Folks have mentioned Facebook a few times, so let's see how their alternative policy of washing their hands of any sort of moderation of political ads is working out.

    Facebook’s political ads policy that allows politicians to lie on its platform has, unsurprisingly, turned into a mess.

    As it faces pressure tests from politicians and political groups, Facebook is starting to make exceptions to its policy that it won’t fact-check advertisements published by politicians. It’s a position CEO Mark Zuckerberg in particular had taken a hard line on.

    ...

    But in recent days, Facebook has wavered as progressives have tested the limits of its policy. Over the weekend, the company took down an ad that falsely claimed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) supports the Green New Deal. A left-leaning political action committee, the Really Online Lefty League, had posted the ad, and Facebook said it took the action because the ad came from a political action group, not a politician, and therefore different rules applied.

    So the group found a workaround: One of the PAC members, Adriel Hampton, filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for California governor. Now a politician, as the logic of Facebook’s policies would go, he can run as many political ads as he wants.

    Except apparently not. Facebook on Tuesday evening said it was nixing Hampton’s workaround. “This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking,” a Facebook spokesman said in an email to Recode.

    Hampton told CNN he is considering legal action against Facebook. In an interview with Recode earlier in the day on Tuesday, he said that Facebook is “basically selling you to the lying politicians.”

    “I feel that I’m one of the few people who’s qualified in both that I’m an expert marketing strategist and a politician, and I think that’s what it’s going to take to either get this policy cleaned up and get Trump back on equal footing with other political committees — or to defeat the GOP, defeat Trump, and defeat the Senate GOP with fake ads,” he said.

    Hampton suggested he might actually run for office — he is, after all, a longtime political consultant who most recently worked on Mike Gravel’s ill-fated presidential campaign; Hampton also made an unsuccessful bid for Congress in 2009.
    So, to recap:

    - Facebook attempts to absolve itself of any responsibility in moderating its platform when it comes to political ads with a hardline stance of...not moderating at all.
    - The Democrats point out this is being abused, Facebook continues playing Pontius Pilate.
    - Elizabeth Warren's campaign puts out a fake ad saying Zuckerberg had endorsed Trump for the 2020 election in retaliation.
    - AOC strong-arms the Zucc into publicly admitting that, per Facebook's policy, she could publish facebook ads saying Republican candidates had voted for the Green New Deal.
    - When someone actually goes and does this with Lindsay Graham, Facebook reneges on its position and takes the video down because it's not being published by a candidate.
    - The makers of the video find a candidate to stand for office so the ad can circulate.
    - Facebook is now in the business of disputing whether or not candidates for office are legitimate.

    Bolded for emphasis.

    This is one of those situations where, I think, exceptions need to be made in the realm of free speech because digital media introduces complications that are entirely without precedent. Twitter's decision to preempt this by dropping political advertisements entirely is a smart move on their part if they want to remain sustainable in a more heavily regulated digital media market.

    Delenda Est.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Donatello Trumpi View Post
    Aww shucks being so fragile that anything but full blown cnn and nbc propaganda 24/7 is a huge threat to the democrats.
    Yeah, says the guy that literally can't refute anything they say, so let's be ignorant and call it fucking propaganda.

  4. #44
    Legendary! Darkeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    6,742
    Good change on Twitter's part.

    Now if it and the other social media would stop messing with results and trending tabs, as well - now that would be grand!

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    banning / capping political donations and advertising has been a debated topic for decades now. i came to the conclusion long ago that hard caps and bans would simply force right wing groups to buy media companies and use the entire platform for messaging. the money still exists and would need to go somewhere so they will start to look at buying newspapers, network tv stations, cable channels, etc. in the end, theyd be more powerful than ever.
    Right wing groups already own most media companies. The allegedly leftwing MSNBC is owned by Comcast who frequently donate and lobby to right wing politicians for example. That ship sailed years ago.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    How do you identify a fraud conservative? You can tell when they've never bothered to actually read the Constitution.

    TEXT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The Bill of Rights came about because many of the signatory delegations to the Constitutional Convention felt there needed to be stronger and definitive constraints on the powers of the Federal Government than in the text of the Constitution as originally written. They were concerned that they were moving from the United States under the weak central government under the Articles of the Confederation, to an overly strong central government under the Constitution, whose powers were unenumerated and theoretically vast. Many of them agreed to ratify the Constitution with the understanding the Bill of Rights would follow soon after to allay their concerns that the new government could encroach on individual and States rights.

    The First Amendment is pretty clear cut from the first four words in its scope and intent: "Congress shall make no law.". The First Amendment does not guarantee free speech between private citizens, or between private institutions and individuals. And it wasn't even clear until later court cases that the State were bound by this. Rather, the First Amendment says clearly that the Federal Government, by act of Congress, many not establish a national religion, prevent the practice of one, or interfere with freedom of speech and expression and assembly.

    It in other words, handcuffing what Congress is able to do.

    This is a common misconception with the Constitution. Many people - most Americans have never read it - think of it as a kind of social contract. That it is designed to manage the interactions between citizens. But it does no such thing. Such a thing, in fact, would have been antithetical to the Founders of the republic. The Constitution by in large is entirely built around constraining government and leaving unenumerated powers to the people, or establishing the structures and defining functions of that government.

    In fact there is really only two parts of the entire Constitution as amended that attempts to mediate behaviors of and between private individuals and not government.

    The first is the 13th Amendment, which explicitly bans slavery. This is a rare part of the Constitution that speaks of the country as a whole (the jurisdiction of the US), and not Government's role precisely.

    The second example is the 18th Amendment, AKA Prohibition, that bans the manufacture, sale, import, export and transportation of alcohol. It is "jurisdictional" like the 13th Amendment, but, I think all would agree, of an issue of far less severity than slavery. And what happened to it? It was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

    I think that's a fantastic example to have in the Constitution. Why? Because it lays a marker of what not to do. Some people have long wanted to define Marriage between Man and a Woman in the Constitution, or inject other aspects of what we could call "how people live" in the Constitution, because they mistake it as a Social Contract when the one case where the country tried that - putting aside the ban on Slavery which necessarily has to be like that - was a complete catastrophe that was unenforceable and had to be repealed. The government, simply put, cannot tell people how to live, work and do via the Constitution.

    The constraints on individual behaviors do have a place. It's called US Code. It's called the laws that the Constitution empowers Congress to create.

    With regards to Twitter, as a private organization, they have a right to choose how they will conduct their business. The first Amendment doesn't apply to them anymore than it applies to me, as in the example given above, having a right to go into your home and plaster it with Biden 2020 ads.
    Well you're allowing others to come plaster it with all kind of stuff (other adds) and you're getting paid for it so why discriminate against politics? New forming parties will most likely only be able to campaign on the internet, if internet campaigning is banned because it's private, then you basically hurt any kind of possible campaigning for new/small parties. This is will just kill democracy.

    Yes, first amendment apply to the government ... but private companies can just act proxies to the government. Yes we have a free speech but well all companies now can just support one or two parties and ban speech against the government or these parties ... would that be alright? Besides, we have a precedence, where a judge stopped POTUS from banning people on his twitter ... twitter is private, and if it can offer banning speech, it should be allowed to. But the judge ruled that POTUS account is a matter of governance and should be viewed as public .. well same can be said on campaigns of parties trying to compete for governance; they should be viewed as public domain.

  7. #47
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/tech/...age/index.html

    More reasons this is a good idea. Facebook can't consistently enforce their policy.

    Campaigns? Yep, they can lie.
    PACS? Nope.
    Guy who forms a campaign specifically so he can lie? Apparently not, even though he's running a legal campaign.
    Random fake group posing as a campaign? Yep, they can lie. At least until media ask Facebook about them and they get shut down.

    The only winning move, is not to play.

  8. #48
    I wonder if this was related to how hard aoc was pushing Zuckerberg on truthfulness in political ads.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by i9erek View Post
    So free speech should not include politics? How is that even remotely true? The whole purpose of free speech is to allow for political opinions to be heard. What's next? Banning all political content on the internet? So you bow down to big media to have your voice heard?
    Twitter has simply stopped selling ad space for political purposes. It isn't stopping you from sharing your spicy political memes. Nobody's free speech is being affected.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    I wonder if this was related to how hard aoc was pushing Zuckerberg on truthfulness in political ads.
    Probably the whole thing. They've seen the heat Facebook has taken since they announced their policy, seen their struggles to enforce it, seen their errors, seen the criticism from users and legislators who have regulatory power. Twitter is smart in removing themselves from this problem.

  11. #51
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    20,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Donatello Trumpi View Post
    Aww shucks being so fragile that anything but full blown cnn and nbc propaganda 24/7 is a huge threat to the democrats.
    All news is essentially going to be biased and effectively propaganda of one variety or another about some topics. RT isn't the place to find out if Putin's a bad guy or if Russia is corrupt. But it doesn't mean news reported there is made up of fictional. It might not paint say the United States in the best light, or slavishly praise every Raytheon missile fired at some country, but that doesn't make it false.

    More over if Youtube is making editorial decisions like than it isn't a "Platform" but a publisher and should then be subject to different rules. Now I know some would prefer "platforms" essentially have to consult the CIA spooks for marching orders as to what to allow or not, but thankfully they aren't yet THAT embedded with the US government.
    Last edited by Theodarzna; 2019-10-31 at 12:39 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    сила лунной призмы составляет - Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics.

  12. #52
    Moderator -aiko-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    The House of All Worlds
    Posts
    10,584
    Quote Originally Posted by i9erek View Post
    So free speech should not include politics? How is that even remotely true? The whole purpose of free speech is to allow for political opinions to be heard. What's next? Banning all political content on the internet? So you bow down to big media to have your voice heard?
    I'm not sure you entirely understand what is being banned.

    Discussing politics? Not banned.

    Paying Twitter to display political advertisements? Banned.

    Nobody's speech is being suppressed.

  13. #53
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    20,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Twitter has simply stopped selling ad space for political purposes. It isn't stopping you from sharing your spicy political memes. Nobody's free speech is being affected.
    Well, banning political ads universally is better than selectively doing so. Also I personally question the idea that being able to say construct advertisement is necessarily speech. Ofcourse as long as the bans are essentially against campaigns and pacs buying promoted Tweets I think almost every twitter user will thank you. As long as Twitter isn't preventing people from informing other people, than really the only distinction between Zuckerberg's position and Twitters is that Twitter has decided nobody can advertise there with money and bought and promoted tweets.

    The concept of social media as the Fifth Estate may be the most enduring part of Zuck's speech in congress. As the Fourth Estate, the press self-conceptualizes its role as holding society accountable. As the Fifth Estate, social media is how society holds the press accountable. Holding the press accountable is especially important when increasingly what is considered the "press" is a credentialed and elite position that most don't have access to. Even though really every single person is a journalist. In a sense this is how things already work, though it’s usually characterized negatively. Journalists publish & social media provides immediate accountability. It’s the comments section that can’t be shut down, the critic that can’t be shut up.

    The issue is bigger than Facebook or Twitter, as big as it is. It extends to every platform that provides people a voice. Should tech companies accede to demands from their direct competitors (namely media companies) to censor millions of users? Or should they stand for free speech? You can’t take that voice away. It’s like disenfranchising someone. The right to voice is as important as the right to vote. You can’t have an “informed citizenry” if citizens can’t inform other citizens. If a plebiscite was held, few people would want to give up their own right to voice on social media. They may want to silence someone else, but they would not want to give up their own right. Nor should it be taken away without good reason and due process.

    In the long term, I think the outcome of this “debate” over whether the masses should have a voice is already preordained. End-to-end encryption and crypto will see to that. We’re just buying time till the cavalry comes. Future historians will write about how this last ditch anti-speech Luddism was doomed from the start. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. You won’t take away the voices newly gained by billions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    сила лунной призмы составляет - Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    I highly doubt the DNC/RNC would straight up buy twitter and facebook, that's a lot more money than they ever get. And I doubt news stations are going to stop airing political ads.
    They wouldn't need to buy twitter and facebook because you can directly compete with them.

    But I think comcast bought a 51% stake in NBC for $7 billion, with further payments over a 7 year period to buy the rest. They could certainly do that. Then you just start producing programming that are pushing your parties viewpoint. So everything is an ad 24/7/365.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I want the ruins of K'aresh for 9.0 as I envision it as Netherstorm on steroids. A broken, shattered world. Eco-domes are stuck on various chunks to protect flora & fauna. I imagine a K'aresh ocean & maybe some islands contained in an eco dome or a snow-capped peak with some jungle valleys in another. Flesh version of Ethereals that never got altered. Space platforms as in Starcraft. Just a totally fantastic tileset & theme that I'd be very keen to explore. They could do some wild things.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    They wouldn't need to buy twitter and facebook because you can directly compete with them.

    But I think comcast bought a 51% stake in NBC for $7 billion, with further payments over a 7 year period to buy the rest. They could certainly do that. Then you just start producing programming that are pushing your parties viewpoint. So everything is an ad 24/7/365.
    Because right wing groups attempts to foster social media platforms have gone so well so far...

    Who's gonna bankroll, that? The Mercers? Koch? To what end? Who would they get to run it? Would Twitter shareholders support the buyout? Would Twitter executives?

    Good lord, you always seem to focus on the absurd and treat it as serious.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Because right wing groups attempts to foster social media platforms have gone so well so far...

    Who's gonna bankroll, that? The Mercers? Koch? To what end? Who would they get to run it? Would Twitter shareholders support the buyout? Would Twitter executives?

    Good lord, you always seem to focus on the absurd and treat it as serious.
    I just said they wouldn't buy twitter.

    They would buy the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, WarnerMedia, etc.

    Remember, campaign donations have limits. If you wanted to buy out a company, there are no funding limits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I want the ruins of K'aresh for 9.0 as I envision it as Netherstorm on steroids. A broken, shattered world. Eco-domes are stuck on various chunks to protect flora & fauna. I imagine a K'aresh ocean & maybe some islands contained in an eco dome or a snow-capped peak with some jungle valleys in another. Flesh version of Ethereals that never got altered. Space platforms as in Starcraft. Just a totally fantastic tileset & theme that I'd be very keen to explore. They could do some wild things.

  17. #57
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I just said they wouldn't buy twitter.

    They would buy the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, WarnerMedia, etc.
    Good fucking luck to them, I say.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I just said they wouldn't buy twitter.

    They would buy the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, WarnerMedia, etc.

    Remember, campaign donations have limits. If you wanted to buy out a company, there are no funding limits.
    Good luck to them on that, they have their own media ecosystem and have no desire to leave their safe space.

    Their readers aren't going to read those sites anyways, they've all been successfully demonized to be "liberal propaganda".

    They don't need to buy the NYT. They have The Federalist. They don't need to buy WashPo. They have NRO. They don't need to buy HuffPo. They have Breitbart.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Good fucking luck to them, I say.
    It should be pretty easy because there are no caps or limits on pooling money to buy media companies like there are on campaign donations. If you ban all political ads, the money MUST go somewhere, and its logical to think they will be FORCED to use the money to buy media companies outright if they cannot buy ad time.

    You think you are banning all political ads and that's the end. In truth, what happens is the RNC buys all the networks and newspapers and then every freaking tv show and news article is an ad for the RNC. You've broken the system instead of fixing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I want the ruins of K'aresh for 9.0 as I envision it as Netherstorm on steroids. A broken, shattered world. Eco-domes are stuck on various chunks to protect flora & fauna. I imagine a K'aresh ocean & maybe some islands contained in an eco dome or a snow-capped peak with some jungle valleys in another. Flesh version of Ethereals that never got altered. Space platforms as in Starcraft. Just a totally fantastic tileset & theme that I'd be very keen to explore. They could do some wild things.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kokolums View Post
    I just said they wouldn't buy twitter.

    They would buy the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, WarnerMedia, etc.

    Remember, campaign donations have limits. If you wanted to buy out a company, there are no funding limits.
    You think traditional outlets compete with twitter? Hilarious shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •