#46 President Joe Biden
Comments
-
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.bootlegger10 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?bootlegger10 said:
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.mickeyrat said:bootlegger10 said: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.If everybody is cool with it then so be it.
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.
My guess is if places like FB and Twitter start to do it too much, then enough people will start using something else.0 -
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!0
-
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.bootlegger10 said: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!
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.0 -
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?bootlegger10 said: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!0 -
No need at the DNC. That is clearly a political event.mace1229 said:
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?bootlegger10 said: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!
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.0 -
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.bootlegger10 said:
No need at the DNC. That is clearly a political event.mace1229 said:
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?bootlegger10 said: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!
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’d be much more worried about the government making that decision than FB.0 -
Angry white people aren't a protected class?mace1229 said:
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.bootlegger10 said:
No need at the DNC. That is clearly a political event.mace1229 said:
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?bootlegger10 said: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!
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’d be much more worried about the government making that decision than FB.0 -
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.0
-
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.bootlegger10 said: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.0 -
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).mrussel1 said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.0 -
They will and they arebootlegger10 said:
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).mrussel1 said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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.bootlegger10 said: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.0 -
I think this article is poignant. Really sums up how I feel as well.mace1229 said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-shame-and?s=r
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
New week, lower poll numbers!0
-
-
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.The Juggler said:
0 -
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.JB16057 said:
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.The Juggler said:
Also, use 538 average as opposed to cherry picking polls that suit your agenda.Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
benjs said:
I think this article is poignant. Really sums up how I feel as well.mace1229 said:
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.bootlegger10 said: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.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-shame-and?s=rwow, long read but well worth it. thank you for sharing it.like you, I agree with his stance._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
The Juggler said:
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.JB16057 said:
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.The Juggler said:
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.0 -
I guess all of those illegal immigrants didn’t understand the questions then? MOE has to be -432?JB16057 said:The Juggler said:
Biden's low remains near Trump's high. Perspective is good. Sorry.JB16057 said:
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.The Juggler said:
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.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help