-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
The normal URL is paywalled. I had success going through Twitter (ironic, I know).
“Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.””
“Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.””
Swamp Yankee
New Member
One way to look at the Twitter situation: It's such an important means of communication that it amounts to a public utility available to all without/with minimal restriction. However, due to limited control over their financial outcomes, public utilities don't pay taxes and receive other forms of what are essentially government subsidies. Seems like a Catch-22 in terms of free speech and government interference.
That said, for all the complaining I hear from the right about cancel culture, folks like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and others are all readily accessible.
That said, for all the complaining I hear from the right about cancel culture, folks like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and others are all readily accessible.
I feel like you’re suggesting that perhaps they shouldn’t be readily accessible...?
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, they’re allowed to have an opinion. Just like every other American.
@IKE also since you’re an extreme capitalist, I assume you’ll be declining your stimulus check. DM me for my info and I’ll take it off your hands.
Swamp Yankee
New Member
Of course all should have the means to get their message out. I'm simply pointing out that there are many electronic outlets to communicate to the masses; yes Twitter, but also YouTube, podcasts, Facebook, even Instagram. For goodness sakes, people are even using LinkedIn to post political screeds.
I frequently hear the right wing pundits complain about cancel culture as if they're being stifled Soviet Union style. That's just not the case.
It's similar to the right's complaints about the "liberal mainstream media". That trope has been obsolete for at least 5 years. The mainstream media includes the right. Fox has the leading programs in the country and a massive viewer base. So does talk radio. OAN, Newsmax, Blaze are all significant and in some cases growing. Even freaking Epoch Times (aka 'Falun Gong Tribune') is establishing a position.
Certainly everyone can have an opinion but what says that everyone needs a platform?
Pre-twitter my choice was a letter to the editor of the paper or papers, a town hall type meeting, a street corner, or buy my own publishing company. If no one wanted to publish my screed then it didn't get published. The notion that a platform is some sort of right is a bit... interesting.
To the earlier question as to how to improve where we are i think people need to understand where govt begins and ends and where business begins and ends. And people also need to understand that business, even if doing things that they sell as a public service, is not beholden to citizens beyond what makes their bottom line look good. No matter how noblely that company sells itself it's still selling itself and isn't bound to it's founding principles in any legal way like a government is bound to it's constitution. For instance, despite their purported ethos, there's very little that would stop Patagonia from pivoting to buying land in the Alaskan NWR and to start drilling for oil. Sure, it may shock their past customers but the business leaders may not care as long as they're making money.
Don't think for a second that any media company assiduously watches their market share and who's consuming their ideas. If the current perceived political alignment of a newspaper stopped generating money because that political alignment is no longer popular then we shouldn't be surprised that that paper pivots to whatever the new hotness is to keep their market share. That's why there's a regrettable dearth of media coverage on the US Whig party or the Bull Moose party these days.
Bottom line: citizens need to understand that businesses aren't the same thing as a public park and what that means for rights between the citizen and a business and that those rights aren't the same as the rights between a citizen and the government.
And if there's a belief that this is something fundamentally required to be provided to all people, there should be consideration to restructuring and governing them (or certain parts of services of them) as utilities instead.
@Pags : Shack.
I have never thought it was a good idea for POTUS to use Twitter, particularly as a primary platform. Now the country is seeing why.
People don't need Twitter. It is not a utility, nor should it be treated as such. It is convenient, but absolutely not required for anyone to get the message out. Put another way, if I get banned from this forum, no reasonable person would argue it was government censorship. Like Twitter, this forum doesn't belong to the people. Our first amendment rights in these media only extend as far as the owners of said media are willing to allow them to extend.
What I do find interesting is the cartel-like behavior of big tech/SM companies toward Parler. They effectively muzzled a SM company that could have posed a business threat. My anti-trust radar is pinging a bit on this one, although what they did seems legally defensible from a "we reserve the right to refuse..." side of things. Parler could buy their own servers and distribute their apps via website, albeit at a higher cost basis than the deal they had with Amazon/Goog/Apple.
As for POTUS: he's got guaranteed, taxpayer-funded platforms to get his message out. The fact that he historically hasn't maximized their use (while favoring Twitter, because again, it's convenient) is not big tech's fault.
I have never thought it was a good idea for POTUS to use Twitter, particularly as a primary platform. Now the country is seeing why.
People don't need Twitter. It is not a utility, nor should it be treated as such. It is convenient, but absolutely not required for anyone to get the message out. Put another way, if I get banned from this forum, no reasonable person would argue it was government censorship. Like Twitter, this forum doesn't belong to the people. Our first amendment rights in these media only extend as far as the owners of said media are willing to allow them to extend.
What I do find interesting is the cartel-like behavior of big tech/SM companies toward Parler. They effectively muzzled a SM company that could have posed a business threat. My anti-trust radar is pinging a bit on this one, although what they did seems legally defensible from a "we reserve the right to refuse..." side of things. Parler could buy their own servers and distribute their apps via website, albeit at a higher cost basis than the deal they had with Amazon/Goog/Apple.
As for POTUS: he's got guaranteed, taxpayer-funded platforms to get his message out. The fact that he historically hasn't maximized their use (while favoring Twitter, because again, it's convenient) is not big tech's fault.
Last edited:
Trying hard to figure out why people do not comprehend the fact that FB, et al., are all online platforms each with Terms of Use. You have no right to Constitutional free speech on any of these platforms.
But, let's not let facts get in the way of a good flame throwing session fueled by ignorant people.
But, let's not let facts get in the way of a good flame throwing session fueled by ignorant people.
@bubblehead , are you able to provide context or source for your quote above? Maybe it's my browser, but all I see is a grey box with a quote in it.
The best solution is for everyone who disagrees with Twitter/FB/IG to nuke their accounts. Twitter dropped 5% yesterday. It's down 10% since friday. That's Billions, with a B, in value cost to the company. Fuck em. I hope their market value continues to take a shit on the way down. They deserve everything coming to them, and every time their stock price drops, zuckerberg and dorsey's net worth drops with it. Good. The less they're worth, the less influence and power they have. That's not a bad thing.
I don't particularly miss social media. Sure, I won't know which of my old high school girlfriends got fat or who thinks vaccines are the devil or that 737s pump out mind control chemtrails, but I guess I'll just have to be surprised if I ever make it to a reunion.
Your voice isn't really welcome on those platforms, anyway. Their engagement algorithms don't encourage a community of ideas; they reinforce whatever will keep you scrolling the longest. People like Zuck and Dorsey essentially built a highly addictive radicalizing echo chamber. Now they act shocked when the supercomputer pointed at reptile brains prompts reptilian responses to content. They've made the editorial decision that they'd rather have left leaning voices engaged in their echo chamber vice right-leaning. Whatever. That editorial decision has consequences, but it'll take time for those to play out.
I'd like the .gov to either treat them like utilities (AT&T doesn't give a fuck what you talk about until a warrant is involved), or (more preferably) go hands free and let a vertically integrated company scoop their right-leaning former users.
In the above scenario, though, there's a giant barrier to entry that someone with really deep pockets would have to attempt to overcome: The app store access and web-hosting services. It's a blatantly anti-competitive hurdle to market entry. The tech companies' over reach makes them ripe for the picking if/when the government swings the other way. It may not even need to swing too far; the left has a bone to pick (mostly in that they want more content moderation)...it only takes a few bones thrown in to get the right reps and senators on board and boom: the .gov just legislated half your valuation away. FB already has a history of anti-competitive behavior in scooping up competitors. Add de-platforming individuals to that, and you start getting a pretty sizable group with pitchforks and torches ready to go at it.
Microsoft learned the hard way; you can be the biggest kid on the block, but if uncle sugar decides you need knocked down a peg or two, he will swing the hammer til you submit.
I don't particularly miss social media. Sure, I won't know which of my old high school girlfriends got fat or who thinks vaccines are the devil or that 737s pump out mind control chemtrails, but I guess I'll just have to be surprised if I ever make it to a reunion.
Your voice isn't really welcome on those platforms, anyway. Their engagement algorithms don't encourage a community of ideas; they reinforce whatever will keep you scrolling the longest. People like Zuck and Dorsey essentially built a highly addictive radicalizing echo chamber. Now they act shocked when the supercomputer pointed at reptile brains prompts reptilian responses to content. They've made the editorial decision that they'd rather have left leaning voices engaged in their echo chamber vice right-leaning. Whatever. That editorial decision has consequences, but it'll take time for those to play out.
I'd like the .gov to either treat them like utilities (AT&T doesn't give a fuck what you talk about until a warrant is involved), or (more preferably) go hands free and let a vertically integrated company scoop their right-leaning former users.
In the above scenario, though, there's a giant barrier to entry that someone with really deep pockets would have to attempt to overcome: The app store access and web-hosting services. It's a blatantly anti-competitive hurdle to market entry. The tech companies' over reach makes them ripe for the picking if/when the government swings the other way. It may not even need to swing too far; the left has a bone to pick (mostly in that they want more content moderation)...it only takes a few bones thrown in to get the right reps and senators on board and boom: the .gov just legislated half your valuation away. FB already has a history of anti-competitive behavior in scooping up competitors. Add de-platforming individuals to that, and you start getting a pretty sizable group with pitchforks and torches ready to go at it.
Microsoft learned the hard way; you can be the biggest kid on the block, but if uncle sugar decides you need knocked down a peg or two, he will swing the hammer til you submit.
ABMD
Bullets don't fly without Supply
That's basically what I said 10 pages ago
"I think people forget that you have no first amendment right to social media, the first amendment protects us from being silenced by our government. As much as I abhor social media and wish that 99.9% of it to disappear overnight, they operate as private companies and can deny access to any customer/user just like any brick and motor retail establishment. "
Nice try, but that's just my stolen monies (taxes) being returned.
Even a know-it-all is subject to Android's auto-correct whims when typing tok quickly. (ferocity vs. voracity)
