This is bizarre. Check out the definition of censorship and tell me how what I am saying is limiting speech versus.
its a question of constitutionality imo...... and free market where the public is a driver in whats seen or not.
That I can understand. It is a free market today, but situations like Russia don’t happen over night. It happens gradually and every time you let someone powerful determine what is truth or not (whether public or private), you gradually get closer. I am just throwing my concern out there.
If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
As bad as you think it is that Twitter and FB determine what’s allowed or not, wouldn’t the government taking over that role be even worse? How’s that working out for North Korea?
I think in my arguments that I have made people think I want government to take a role in what gets posted on these large social media sites.
My reference to government - My argument here was that eventually these tech companies get so large that are they more than just private businesses at some point, but do they become as important or necessary to the public in sharing information as electricity or water utilities. Thus, if government cannot limit speech, then perhaps these large social media companies should be held to a similar standard and not limit speech.
This would be the exact opposite of NK.
Government stepping in and telling big companies to give everyone a voice is still a form of government taking a role in what gets posted. They’re telling a private company what to do at that point. But they actually need the ability to censor. If they don’t and they allow hate speech, organize smash and steal, promote violence without any checks and balances they’ll be held accountable for something. My guess is if places like FB and Twitter start to do it too much, then enough people will start using something else.
Government tells private companies what to do all of the time. This is not new and this board loves that government tells private companies what to do. But I guess there is no reason to have government interfere in this situation if the result would be more posts from people whose opinions you disagree with.
Government tells private companies what to do all of the time. This is not new and this board loves that government tells private companies what to do. But I guess there is no reason to have government interfere in this situation if the result would be more posts from people whose opinions you disagree with.
Fun discussion!
Social media can add or pull information based on consumer/market pressures. That's freedom right there. The decisions they are making are the ones they feel are in their best financial interests. There's nothing wrong with that. Breitbart feels like its best interests are served by posting nonsense, misinformation and lies. So they do. Twitter made decisions to remove Trump because it was in their best interests.
The gov't absolutely regulates but in the case of consumer protections laws, as an example, those rules are set by statute and don't interfere with Constitutional rights of entities. They are not subjective. And further, businesses have the right to sue the gov't when they feel the laws are unconstitutional. This is very different than having a bipartisan board voting to determine what a company has to add or remove.
Government tells private companies what to do all of the time. This is not new and this board loves that government tells private companies what to do. But I guess there is no reason to have government interfere in this situation if the result would be more posts from people whose opinions you disagree with.
Fun discussion!
But you’re talking about the government telling a company they have to give a voice to everyone. Not government enforcing safety requirements or something. I’m right compared to most here and I still don’t think they should that. Does the DNC need to allow republicans to speak at their conventions too?
Government tells private companies what to do all of the time. This is not new and this board loves that government tells private companies what to do. But I guess there is no reason to have government interfere in this situation if the result would be more posts from people whose opinions you disagree with.
Fun discussion!
But you’re talking about the government telling a company they have to give a voice to everyone. Not government enforcing safety requirements or something. I’m right compared to most here and I still don’t think they should that. Does the DNC need to allow republicans to speak at their conventions too?
No need at the DNC. That is clearly a political event.
Didn’t government require private businesses under the Civil Rights Act not to discriminate? So government gets involved with more than safety and environmental matters.
Anyway, nobody seems too concerned so I will let it go.
Government tells private companies what to do all of the time. This is not new and this board loves that government tells private companies what to do. But I guess there is no reason to have government interfere in this situation if the result would be more posts from people whose opinions you disagree with.
Fun discussion!
But you’re talking about the government telling a company they have to give a voice to everyone. Not government enforcing safety requirements or something. I’m right compared to most here and I still don’t think they should that. Does the DNC need to allow republicans to speak at their conventions too?
No need at the DNC. That is clearly a political event.
Didn’t government require private businesses under the Civil Rights Act not to discriminate? So government gets involved with more than safety and environmental matters.
Anyway, nobody seems too concerned so I will let it go.
I don’t see those being the same. That would like like FB deleting your account because you’re block. They’re just deleting posts they don’t like or agree with. To me that’s like a restaurant having a dress code. You don’t want to wear the clothes they like, don’t eat there. You don’t agree with the viewpoints of FB and how they monitor posts, don’t use it. I’d be much more worried about the government making that decision than FB.
Government tells private companies what to do all of the time. This is not new and this board loves that government tells private companies what to do. But I guess there is no reason to have government interfere in this situation if the result would be more posts from people whose opinions you disagree with.
Fun discussion!
But you’re talking about the government telling a company they have to give a voice to everyone. Not government enforcing safety requirements or something. I’m right compared to most here and I still don’t think they should that. Does the DNC need to allow republicans to speak at their conventions too?
No need at the DNC. That is clearly a political event.
Didn’t government require private businesses under the Civil Rights Act not to discriminate? So government gets involved with more than safety and environmental matters.
Anyway, nobody seems too concerned so I will let it go.
I don’t see those being the same. That would like like FB deleting your account because you’re block. They’re just deleting posts they don’t like or agree with. To me that’s like a restaurant having a dress code. You don’t want to wear the clothes they like, don’t eat there. You don’t agree with the viewpoints of FB and how they monitor posts, don’t use it. I’d be much more worried about the government making that decision than FB.
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
Oh well. We disagree.
The Supreme Court has relied on both the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment in upholding the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These arguments were used to counter the First Amendment arguments by plaintiffs who sought to continue to discriminate against Blacks. There's no question that businesses can be regulated outside of just safety. I think probably the "Fairness Doctrine" is as close as you will get to a precedent in your argument. However, that was held up due to 'scarcity' of distribution channels. That's not the case today.
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
Oh well. We disagree.
The Supreme Court has relied on both the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment in upholding the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These arguments were used to counter the First Amendment arguments by plaintiffs who sought to continue to discriminate against Blacks. There's no question that businesses can be regulated outside of just safety. I think probably the "Fairness Doctrine" is as close as you will get to a precedent in your argument. However, that was held up due to 'scarcity' of distribution channels. That's not the case today.
I agree there are lots of alternatives today. Mainly more concerned about the future as these "private businesses" get even more large and influential (or maybe they won't).
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
Oh well. We disagree.
The Supreme Court has relied on both the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment in upholding the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These arguments were used to counter the First Amendment arguments by plaintiffs who sought to continue to discriminate against Blacks. There's no question that businesses can be regulated outside of just safety. I think probably the "Fairness Doctrine" is as close as you will get to a precedent in your argument. However, that was held up due to 'scarcity' of distribution channels. That's not the case today.
I agree there are lots of alternatives today. Mainly more concerned about the future as these "private businesses" get even more large and influential (or maybe they won't).
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
Oh well. We disagree.
No one is stopping free speech though. Facebook isn’t the only outlet. Go stand on a street corner with a sign. Make your own social media site. They’re just asking not to share certain ideas on their private platform. Forget the dress code, go to a steak restaurant and start sharing some anti-vax ideas. You don’t think they have the right to ask you not to share that at their business? That’s no different than Facebook. They’re a private business and they want to control what messages are being shared through their business. They have that right. I disagree with some of the things they decided to censor, but they have that right as a private business.
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
Oh well. We disagree.
No one is stopping free speech though. Facebook isn’t the only outlet. Go stand on a street corner with a sign. Make your own social media site. They’re just asking not to share certain ideas on their private platform. Forget the dress code, go to a steak restaurant and start sharing some anti-vax ideas. You don’t think they have the right to ask you not to share that at their business? That’s no different than Facebook. They’re a private business and they want to control what messages are being shared through their business. They have that right. I disagree with some of the things they decided to censor, but they have that right as a private business.
I think this article is poignant. Really sums up how I feel as well.
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,482
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
Post edited by The Juggler on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,360
I used the civil rights example as an example of government getting involved with private business in a situation that didn’t involve safety guidelines. I was replying to the point Mace made. That is all. I debated on explaining that in my post but was hopeful I didn’t have to. The problem with debating on the internet and trying not to write a book.
The importance of speech compared to an outfit at a restaurant is a little silly.
Oh well. We disagree.
No one is stopping free speech though. Facebook isn’t the only outlet. Go stand on a street corner with a sign. Make your own social media site. They’re just asking not to share certain ideas on their private platform. Forget the dress code, go to a steak restaurant and start sharing some anti-vax ideas. You don’t think they have the right to ask you not to share that at their business? That’s no different than Facebook. They’re a private business and they want to control what messages are being shared through their business. They have that right. I disagree with some of the things they decided to censor, but they have that right as a private business.
I think this article is poignant. Really sums up how I feel as well.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
Democrats were a heavy majority of this poll.
I guess all of those illegal immigrants didn’t understand the questions then? MOE has to be -432?
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
Democrats were a heavy majority of this poll.
I guess all of those illegal immigrants didn’t understand the questions then? MOE has to be -432?
Typical ATM response.... "I don't like the facts so I'm going to dispute them with false assertions"
The buyers remorse on those that voted for Joe Biden is becoming more apparent by the day. Go ahead and lie and make more shit up. It's just as bad as the Trump sycophants. Congrats!
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
Democrats were a heavy majority of this poll.
I guess all of those illegal immigrants didn’t understand the questions then? MOE has to be -432?
Typical ATM response.... "I don't like the facts so I'm going to dispute them with false assertions"
The buyers remorse on those that voted for Joe Biden is becoming more apparent by the day. Go ahead and lie and make more shit up. It's just as bad as the Trump sycophants. Congrats!
I don’t care what Joe Biden’s poll numbers are. He’s working hard to clean up the mess left by and being made by the white supremacy party. It’s a tall order, on top of the white supremacy party’s support for Putin on the ritz’s war in Ukraine. It seems their party platform is still “our number one priority is for this POTUS to fail.” I know which way is up.
Sorry buddy, I don't think the majority of people care about the polling. Again, not Team Biden. People are just pointing out the irony of a Trump supporter now adamant to bring up polling. I don't care what Biden polls at. I think he can do better, but he's not. Still not a piece of shit scumbag carnival barking liar, just your average politician. The difference is that his numbers are a reflection of disappointment and the ability for liberals not to pretend this guy is the best thing ever no matter what dumb thing he does or says.
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
Democrats were a heavy majority of this poll.
The results are then weighted for the political distribution according to Reuters data. I’m afraid you don’t understand how polling works.
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
Democrats were a heavy majority of this poll.
Cmon, that’s a very misleading comment because amongst the general population there are more democrats. Not because there are significantly more democrats, but because a solid percentage of republicans (such as libertarians) refuse to identify with a particular party.
But but but Trump! I don't know if you knew this or not but he's been out of office for a while now. If you want to discuss Trump, he has his own thread. This is the Joe Biden thread in case you weren't aware.
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
That's hilarious that you actually believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. You want to talk about the poll I posted? Here are some interesting details.
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll is conducted online in English throughout the
United States. The latest poll gathered responses from a total of 1,005
adults, including 432 Democrats and 366 Republicans."
Democrats were a heavy majority of this poll.
Cmon, that’s a very misleading comment because amongst the general population there are more democrats. Not because there are significantly more democrats, but because a solid percentage of republicans (such as libertarians) refuse to identify with a particular party.
While this statement is true, it’s a non-sequitur.
Polls do not atttempt to get an even distribution of Ds and Rs. They take the 1005 responses and weight the answers to the distribution of what they believe the political makeup is of the population they are sampling. So if they think the county is 45/45/10 (D,R,I), they will adjust the results to match that. It’s irrelevant that there were 70 more Democrats in this poll because they will weigh down those responses.
This is why Rasmussen always had Trump higher than every other poll. It wasn’t because they talked to more R’s, rather they had a different political distribution than everyone else. They think there are more Republicans than other polling outfits.
and the other thing.....trumpsters were OBSESSED with his poll numbers, as trump was. me? I couldn't give two shits about anyone's (but it was fun to point it out to those who were obsessed with it).
it would be the same as someone making fun of me for it being a cloudy day where I live. "yeah, so...?"
It's fun to mock Trump's poll numbers, but Biden's are bad regardless of comparison and they indicate that the Democratic Party is in trouble. How would a Biden/Trump election go tomorrow? Do the Dems have anyone that could beat him or Desantis?
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Comments
My guess is if places like FB and Twitter start to do it too much, then enough people will start using something else.
The gov't absolutely regulates but in the case of consumer protections laws, as an example, those rules are set by statute and don't interfere with Constitutional rights of entities. They are not subjective. And further, businesses have the right to sue the gov't when they feel the laws are unconstitutional. This is very different than having a bipartisan board voting to determine what a company has to add or remove.
Didn’t government require private businesses under the Civil Rights Act not to discriminate? So government gets involved with more than safety and environmental matters.
I’d be much more worried about the government making that decision than FB.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-shame-and?s=r
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
biden's poll numbers: read em and weep!
www.headstonesband.com
it would be the same as someone making fun of me for it being a cloudy day where I live. "yeah, so...?"
www.headstonesband.com
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin