The ‘Silicon Six’ spread propaganda. It’s time to regulate social media sites.

  
Via:  krishna  •  2 weeks ago  •  115 comments

By:   Sacha Baron Cohen

The ‘Silicon Six’ spread propaganda. It’s time to regulate social media sites.
A pluralistic democracy depends on shared truths

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


512

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg testifies at a House hearing. (Erin Scott/Reuters)




1d054119-b614-4684-8a83-82ee5f6d7e9b.png



By Sacha Baron Cohen 

Sacha Baron Cohen is an actor, director, comedian and screenwriter.




I get it: I’m one of the last people you’d expect to hear warning about the danger of conspiracies and lies. I’ve built a career on pushing the limits of propriety and good taste. I portrayed Borat, the first fake-news journalist, along with satirical characters such as Ali G, a wannabe gangster, and Bruno, a gay fashion reporter from Austria. Some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old racial and religious stereotypes.

I admit that most of my comedy over the years has been pretty juvenile. However, when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing  “throw the Jew down the well,”  it revealed people’s indifference to anti-Semitism. When, as Bruno, I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas and  nearly started a riot , it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when, disguised as an ultra-woke developer, I  proposed building a mosque in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist, against Muslims,” it showed a wide acceptance of Islamophobia.

The ugliness my jokes help reveal is why I’m so worried about our pluralistic democracies. Demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream, fueled in part by President Trump, who has spread such paranoid lies more than  1,700 times  to his 67 million Twitter followers. It’s as if the Age of Reason — the era of evidential argument — is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in  retreat , and autocracy, which thrives on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are  surging , as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.





 Relayed:  Intellectual Honesty


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    2 weeks ago

I admit that most of my comedy over the years has been pretty juvenile. However, when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing    “throw the Jew down the well,”    it revealed people’s indifference to anti-Semitism. When, as Bruno, I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas and    nearly started a riot   , it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when, disguised as an ultra-woke developer, I    proposed building a mosque   in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist, against Muslims,” it showed a wide acceptance of Islamophobia.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1    2 weeks ago
By Sacha Baron Cohen 
Sacha Baron Cohen is an actor, director, comedian and screenwriter.
That's his real name-- for those unfamiliar with his work, he uses the screen name "Borat". Biting satire-- but satire that has a message:
 
 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    2 weeks ago

The ugliness my jokes help reveal is why I’m so worried about our pluralistic democracies. Demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream, fueled in part by President Trump, who has spread such paranoid lies more than  1,700 times  to his 67 million Twitter followers

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1  lady in black  replied to  Krishna @2    2 weeks ago

And Crooked donnie supporters wonder why we cringe that he is in fact the president.  He treats the office like it's a joke, he is rude, crude and just a disgusting human being.  And it's scary how many of his supporters lap up the shit he spews daily and take it as truth.  I SMH that his supporters look at him with rose colored glasses.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  lady in black @2.1    2 weeks ago
And it's scary how many of his supporters lap up the shit he spews daily and take it as truth. 

Its pretty amazing how gullible some people can be.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.2  lady in black  replied to  Krishna @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

It's scary that some are on this site, that no matter what he says, tweets, lies about, gets caught in a lie, brags about stuff he accomplished and he had NOTHING to do with, they still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  He's a bully and a braggart and IMO that is NOT how a president should act.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Krishna @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Its pretty amazing how gullible some people can be.

"Social" media does that to folks !

512

512

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  lady in black @2.1    2 weeks ago
And it's scary how many of his supporters lap up the shit he spews daily and take it as truth.

I think it's far more genuinely scary that Americans think speech controls are a good idea.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.5  lady in black  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

I think is far more genuinely scary that we have a toddler for a president who rips anyone apart that disagrees with him.  Does the man ever act like an adult.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

Then your priorities on this issue are woefully misguided. In either one year or five, Trump will no longer be president, but when you take away freedom of speech, it will be gone forever. And when that happens, you won't have the freedom to call the new president a toddler. They'll likely shoot you if you do.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.7  lady in black  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Conspiracy theory much.  Oh please.  Crooked donnie acts like the toddler he is and you cheer him on

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
I think is far more genuinely scary that we have a toddler for a president who rips anyone apart that disagrees with him.  

Why would that be "scary"?  What's he going to do, tweet you to death?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
Conspiracy theory much.  Oh please.  

There is a reason the very first of the Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech.

Crooked donnie acts like the toddler he is and you cheer him on

And you don't think people should have the right to do so?  

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both utter lying sacks of shit with regard to single-payer healthcare.  Should Facebook censor them? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

I, for one, wish the internet was never invented.  I don't mean that we need to go back to the days when travelling troubadours went from town to town to spread the news, but somehow life seemed more peaceful when I was young.  We didn't hear about kids committing suicide because of things about them being posted on the internet, or so much false news being proliferated, or easy recruitment of terrorists, publishing how to make a pressure cooker bomb, etc.

And I say this notwithstanding that the internet is my window to the western world of my birth.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.11  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
I, for one, wish the internet was never invented.

I can agree at first blush but the lying lamestream media would have remained unquestioned and hillary would be president. we would now be under the tpp and paris agreements and  globalism would have only grown from there.  trump stopping the tpp and paris agreements was a god send.

in short? if the internet was not invented we'd be fuked proper by now.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.12  lady in black  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

I'm talking about Crooked donnie and his bs tweets that people lap up like flies on shit.  

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.13  lady in black  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

Sorry, but I don't blindly suck up his lies like others do.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.14  pat wilson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
we would now be under the tpp and paris agreements and  globalism

Can you explain the negative effects you might suffer from these ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  lady in black @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
Conspiracy theory much.  Oh please.

I think you should study the history of speech in America and the rest of the world. Here's some food for thought:

Lèse-majesté

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.16  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
I think is far more genuinely scary that we have a toddler for a president who rips anyone apart that disagrees with him.  
Why would that be "scary"?  What's he going to do, tweet you to death?  

Well, for starters, he might withdraw troops from Kurdish areas in Norther the Middle-east, thus allowing the bloodthirsty Turks in to massacre the Kurds (perhaps the grou8p that has done the most to defeat Daesh (AKA "ISIS").

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
Can you explain the negative effects you might suffer from these ?

fewer jobs, new and higher taxes. and regardless what the federal govt said or tried to tell us to do...  this country will never submit to a global govt without one hell of a fight coming from the states first.   

(none of that sounds fun to me.)

cheers :)

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.18  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

Actually I think there's been a lot of controversy historically each time some new form of technology appears. There are positive as well as negative aspects to each new thing.

(Although I would agree that the Internet seems to be an especially powerful force for changing the world-- and its negative influences are indeed powerful)

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
I, for one, wish the internet was never invented. 

Along with "Smart? Phones" too.

We were more free when phones were "tethered" and "Paper" was the way to get information. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

Nothing drives me crazier than having a client call me when I'm driving, I tell them I'm driving, and they ask me if I can open up the set of plans so we can discuss them. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.20  lady in black  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.19    2 weeks ago

I've always said the internet, texting, smart phones are a blessing and a curse.

Having to try to fix things myself, the internet especially Google and Youtube are a blessing.

I was able to fix my dryer and replace my sump pump check value due to Google and Youtube.  Otherwise I would have had to call a relative or repair person.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  lady in black @2.1.20    2 weeks ago

Youtube is great for those DIY projects ya need to get done on the cheap. For Entertainment too.  I use youtube a lot. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

And for being able to be on this site too. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.22  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.19    2 weeks ago

LOL.  My NON-smartphone cost me the equivalent of US$40, has no internet or movies or music, nor ability to pay for anything, but I can make and receive voice calls and text messages.  It does have a camera I've never used, and a clock and an alarm and a couple other things I've never used.   As well, I still know how to use a dial phone if I had to.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.23  It Is ME  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.22    2 weeks ago

I had one of those older cell phones for a long time. My wife and kids kept bugging me to upgrade. To me, if it works, don't fix it. Well....they all got me one of them dang smarty phones without me knowing it. I grumbled under my thank you smile. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.24  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
Well, for starters, he might withdraw troops from Kurdish areas in Norther the Middle-east, thus allowing the bloodthirsty Turks in to massacre the Kurds (perhaps the grou8p that has done the most to defeat Daesh (AKA "ISIS").

Was the plan to leave US troops stationed there forever?

Was the previous president "a toddler" when he withdrew troops from the region? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @2.1.13    2 weeks ago
Sorry, but I don't blindly suck up his lies like others do.

Sooo..... "scary"....or "not scary"?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.26  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.23    2 weeks ago
I had one of those older cell phones

me too..   it lasted about 20yrs.

left it out in the rain two months ago.. game over.. LOL

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.27  It Is ME  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.26    2 weeks ago

That sucks. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I luv'd my flip phone. My family didn't. jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

Best part about my old phone was....I could say I don't do texts, when someone says they texted me, and because the old phone was a bear to text on, I was actually telling the truth. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.28  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.27    2 weeks ago
I luv'd my flip phone

mine was not a flip phone but it was so small it could fit in the credit card slot in my wallet.   I still miss that.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.29  lady in black  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.28    2 weeks ago

I still have a pantech, the smallest phone out there.  I stop using it years ago and now have an Iphone XR.

pantech-pg-c300-1.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.30  It Is ME  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.28    2 weeks ago

And they WORKED ! 

To me, that was most important. Now I have some hand held computer thingy that seems to need to upgrade itself alot. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif It's so demanding. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.31  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @2.1.29    2 weeks ago

How do you like it my wife has one I just got a new 8 for work I was using a 5s.I was thinking about getting a 10 it seems kinda big.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.32  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.30    2 weeks ago
Now I have some hand held computer thingy that seems to need to upgrade itself alot. It's so demanding. 

Every day it becomes clearer to me that I made the right choice not to have a cell/smart phone. This December will be 20 years for me since I had a cell phone, other than a few short months when my wife was pregnant with our first daughter and she reactivated one of her old phones for me during the last two months before she was due. It was a flip phone and even then I only used it once.

Besides all the monthly cell phone fees I've saved, the amount of headaches I've avoided are likely immeasurable. My wife is basically on call 24/7 where friends and family, co-workers, everyone she knows, has access to her all day every day. I do not envy such a way of life.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.33  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.32    2 weeks ago

Mine was supposed to be for "Emergencies" only. It just didn't work out that way. 

Word got out I actually had a "Cell Phone" . jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.34  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @2.1.31    2 weeks ago

I like it.  I had a 6 that still worked great but Apple is stopping with security updates, so I upgraded.  I'll keep this one until the same thing happens.  I don't need a new one every year.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.35  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lady in black @2.1.29    2 weeks ago

ah the good ol days.. ha.

mine was a 20 dollar "go phone" bought it at a gas station.

had I not left it in the rain it might have lasted another 20 yrs.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.36  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  lady in black @2.1.29    2 weeks ago

The first phone I bought when I came here was a flip phone like that one.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.37  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.32    2 weeks ago

Almost 4 years ago I bought my present NON-SMART phone for the equivalent of about US$40 - full price, no contract required, and paid about the equivalent of US$35 for 200 minutes usage.  It is an indication of how much I use my phone that I still have about half those minutes left.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.38  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.9    2 weeks ago
There is a reason the very first of the Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech.

Tell it to Trump:

A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how  Facebook   ( FB ) Twitter   ( TWTR )  and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. (Read it all)

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.39  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

What’s actually interesting to see is that the lefties here don’t see the great things our President has done for us and our country and he has.  It’s actually entertaining to us to see them rant so much about him in the knowledge that we intend to re elect him regardless what they think about it. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.40  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

We are used to them all over on line including here.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.41  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @2.1.34    2 weeks ago

I’m still using an original 6 and I still get updates.  When are they cutting off support for it?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.42  Heartland American  replied to  Krishna @2.1.38    2 weeks ago

If on line platforms are going to curtail free expression and express bias and use IFCN and their Soros affiliated foundations to gate keeper content perhaps they all deserve to be regulated by the federal government...an interesting concept for Alphabet, FB, Twitter, and the rest to consider.  

 
 
 
sixpick
2.1.43  sixpick  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Tacos!..... They still think Obama had the most transparent administration in history. LOL

I guess they were right in one respect, we could see right through it.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.44  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @2.1.38    2 weeks ago
Tell it to Trump:

he already knows that stopping assholes from censoring conservative voices does not violate anyone's free speech.

hint: the freedom of speech does not include the right to silence others.

write that down it will be on the test.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.45  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lady in black @2.1    2 weeks ago

I am so thankful you feel that way about him, it mostly serves to reinforce why I believe he’s on the right track.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.46  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.41    2 weeks ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/09/07/why-ios13-will-be-a-security-nightmare-for-millions-of-apple-iphone-users/#7e262ca663c7

This article has the information.  

After I read this article I talked with the person where I work who deals company phones but they are only for the higher ups (their plans are really low in price) and she told me to wait until the new Iphones come out before switching to a newer model because the prices were going to drop.  

I waited and the XR dropped in price buy quite a bit so I pay $20.00 a month.  I have AT&T.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.47  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lady in black @2.1.46    2 weeks ago
$20.00 a month.  I have AT&T. 

that is a good deal. no doubt.

I just dropped at&t because they kept switching me to paperless, 3 times without even asking me.

so now, spectrum, 14 dollars per month - unlimited talk and text.

had two phones with at&t now have three = and still saved about 700 per year :)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.48  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @2.1.38    2 weeks ago
Tell it to Trump:

Happily.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.49  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.44    2 weeks ago
hint: the freedom of speech does not include the right to silence others.

Correct.  

But just because you can say whatever you want does not mean you can say it wherever you want.

For example, I have the right to throw your ass out of my living room if you scream insults at my wife.  I have the right to throw your ass out of my office if you're interfering with our business, or if you're wearing a pink vagina hat.  And I have the right to block you commenting on the blog on my company website.  Why?  Because I own them.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.50  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

And triggering America’s intolerant progressives with our stated support for his policies and achievements makes our support ofhim all the merrier.  🎉😂

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.51  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @2.1.12    2 weeks ago

Yum yum 🦗💩

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.52  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.49    2 weeks ago

Why?  Because I own them.

unlike those massive tech companies.

your house, your business, and your blog are not considered part of the public square.

https://qz.com/1009546/the-us-supreme-court-just-decided-access-to-facebook-twitter-or-snapchat-is-fundamental-to-free-speech/

in other words, what you said is irrelevant.

cheers )

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.53  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.49    2 weeks ago
Why?  Because I own them.

also,

if your business violates my rights? I can sue your company into oblivion.   depending on what state we are in, if you can not pay the damages awarded me I might even wind up owning all your stuff.  but since you are in texas im going to assume your home is homesteaded.. and untouchable. (unless you have two houses... or two cars / then one will be mine.

google, twitter, and facebook should be treated no different.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.54  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.52    2 weeks ago
unlike those massive tech companies.

your house, your business, and your blog are not considered part of the public square.

https://qz.com/1009546/the-us-supreme-court-just-decided-access-to-facebook-twitter-or-snapchat-is-fundamental-to-free-speech/

Read what you cite.  The decision limits the power of government to pass laws prohibiting people from using social media.  You know... the most popular phrase in the Constitution...."Congress shall make no law".

The ruling says nothing about Facebook, Twitter, or anybody else's "terms of use", which they can and do control.

in other words, what you said is irrelevant. cheers )

I'm sure it appears so if you haven't actually read the article you cited.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.55  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.53    2 weeks ago
if your business violates my rights? I can sue your company into oblivion.

Sure.  But throwing you out of my office because you refuse to behave is not violating your rights.  No shoes, no shirt, no manners, no service.

Similarly, Facebook banning you because your behavior violates terms of service to which you agreed is not violating your rights.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1.56  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.55    2 weeks ago

The argument is are these services service providers like a phone company. If they are service providers their censorship is the same as your phone company listening to your conversation and cutting the line because they don't like what you're are saying. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.57  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.54    2 weeks ago
The ruling says nothing about Facebook, Twitter, or anybody else's "terms of use", which they can and do control.

things change... and they will. ask the phone companies who tried to treat different customers differently  - they got their asses regulated from end to end.  those giant tech companies of today have the same fate in store for them.

but as "you say... google, twitter and the like have no need for the current legal protections from lawsuits so they won't miss them one bit once removed. or, will they?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.58  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.55    2 weeks ago
But throwing you out of my office because you refuse to behave is not violating your rights.

true. but if you're treating me different than every other customer?    id bankrupt your business.

does facebook terms and service say "no conservative opinions allowed?  I think not.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.59  Jack_TX  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.56    2 weeks ago
The argument is are these services service providers like a phone company.

I understand that.  I just disagree.  

If they are service providers their censorship is the same as your phone company listening to your conversation and cutting the line because they don't like what you're are saying. 

Phone company/utility legislation is a holdover from the days when they were government-protected monopolies.  Social media companies are not.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.60  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.59    2 weeks ago
  Social media companies are not.

at the moment they are indeed govt protected...  but that can and probably will end soon enough.

we don't care if you agree.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.61  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.58    2 weeks ago
true. but if you're treating me different than every other customer?

If your behavior is different than other customers, yes.

    id bankrupt your business.

I'm sure you would try. 

does facebook terms and service say "no conservative opinions allowed?  I think not.

No, that's NYT and Huffington Post.

But you open the larger conversation about why things are removed and why they are not.  We can use our very own NT right here as an example.

There are two ardent liberals who post on here who are well known for their abusive posts.  When those posts are removed, these people whine extensively about how unfair it is that their "liberal" views are "censored"....which is complete and obvious bullshit.

Owners of forums and social media sites should and do have the right to tell people to take their nonsense elsewhere.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.62  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.61    2 weeks ago
If your behavior is different than other customers, yes.

my behavior is no different than anyone else.

censoring people simply for conservative opinions is wrong. period.

unless you only sell pussy hats, and safe spaces your business would not last long if you kicked out everyone who was conservative for no other reason except that they were conservative. you would be buried in lawsuits.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.63  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.60    2 weeks ago
at the moment they are indeed govt protected...  but that can and probably will end soon enough.

As it should.  They're private businesses. 

we don't care if you agree.

*eyeroll*

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.64  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.62    2 weeks ago
my behavior is no different than anyone else. censoring people simply for conservative opinions is wrong. period.

Have you been censored on FB?

The point is that MOST people who complain about "conservative views" being censored are in fact being censored for totally different reasons.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.65  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.63    2 weeks ago
They're private businesses.

so was the phone company.  and then, they got their asses federally regulated as well.

now the phone companies must treat everyone the same.... such a nightmare... LOL

 .

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.66  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.64    2 weeks ago
The point is that MOST people who complain about "conservative views" being censored are in fact being censored for totally different reasons.

well then, they should have no problem proving that in court when they get sued.

problem solved :)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.67  Jack_TX  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.65    2 weeks ago
so was the phone company.  and then, they got their asses federally regulated as well.

They got regulated when the government prohibited other companies from competing against them.  Has the US govt passed legislation prohibiting you from opening your own social media site?  

now the phone companies must treat everyone the same.... such a nightmare... LOL

You imagine govt intervention will somehow protect your speech.  I think the risk you run far outweighs the potential benefit.  

Liberals especially have shown zero reticence when it comes to using government offices to suppress speech with which they disagree.  Lois Lerner?  Kathleen Sebelius?  You don't remember the Obama Administration asking for people to "report misinformation" about the ACA?  

And you want one of these people to have the power to determine what is acceptable on Facebook or Twitter? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.1.68  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
scary that we have a toddler for a president

It's far better than the other option.  There is a reason that a person with 40 years in Washington lost to the "New Guy" twice.  

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    2 weeks ago

I keep saying this. If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago

I keep saying this. If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

I totally agree.

(In fact I'm surprised that the CEOs of some of the social media companies don't realize that...)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @3.1    2 weeks ago
(In fact I'm surprised that the CEOs of some of the social media companies don't realize that...)

if they can get trump out and a progressive president in?   they will remain protected by the govt.   

  they have nothing to lose until they are actually regulated

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2  It Is ME  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

Censorship ?

If the important "News" can put out crap, and then allowed to apologies later, why can't the others do the same, without MORE regulation ?

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @3.2    2 weeks ago

If the important "News" can put out crap, and then allowed to apologies later, why can't the others do the same, without MORE regulation ?

Up until now the law has treated them differently-- here's why:

Social Media and Censorship

The large internet companies have maintained that they are simply neutral platforms on which their users can exchange information freely with one another. As such, they do not have an obligation to filter that content for accuracy, social consequences, and the like.

They are supported in this position by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which exempts these companies from liability for what appears on their sites provided they do  not  play the role of traditional media companies like the  New York Times , the  Wall Street Journal , CNN, or Fox News.

Section 230 was put in place both to protect freedom of speech and to promote growth and innovation in the tech sector. (Read it all)

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @3.2    2 weeks ago
f the important "News" can put out crap, and then allowed to apologies later, why can't the others do the same, without MORE regulation ?

Good question!

But Trump wants the government to censor social media sites:

Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies.
Politico   first reported   the existence of the draft
.
If put into effect, the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
I keep saying this. If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

Describe your ideas for "regulation".

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.4  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

Don't forget to have the police patrolling the parks, streets, and sidewalks of America. We can't afford to have wrong speech anywhere now, can we?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

a great way to regulate social media is to remove their legal protection that allows them to censor legal speech and fine them into bankruptcy.

if they keep up with the bs? that is their future.

 

 
 
 
Krishna
3.5.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.5    2 weeks ago
a great way to regulate social media is to remove their legal protection that allows them to censor legal speech and fine them into bankruptcy. if they keep up with the bs? that is their future.

Well then-- what about the "Mainstream Media"-- for example sites such as CNN, MSNBC or Fox News?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.5.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @3.5.1    2 weeks ago
Well then-- what about the "Mainstream Media"-- for example sites such as CNN, MSNBC or Fox News?

I have never had cnn, msnbc or fox censor my speech

enlighten me... how do they censor our speech?  their comment section?

I say, if they censor "legal speech" to stifle political speech they do not like? they should be fined as well.

the first amendment is there to protect political opinions and related speech other people may not  like /  with no exceptions

 
 
 
Krishna
3.5.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.5.2    2 weeks ago
have never had cnn, msnbc or fox censor my speech enlighten me... how do they censor our speech?  their comment section?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the media censor our speech-- rather that there's been a lot of discussion about the degree to which the government should censor  the media.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.5.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @3.5.3    2 weeks ago
there's been a lot of discussion about the degree to which the government should censor  the media.

a lot of discussions by whom?

I don't support censorship of legal speech even if I don't like it and regardless of where it comes from.

 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.5.5  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.5    2 weeks ago
is to remove their legal protection that allows them to censor legal speech and fine them into bankruptcy.

I didn't know you were a Socialist. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.5.6  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.5.2    2 weeks ago
I have never had cnn, msnbc or fox censor my speech

Go over to fox news and say something negative about Trump...your comment will most likely be deleted. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.5.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @3.5.6    2 weeks ago

 have not been to foxnews comment section in years so just for fun I had a look...  picked an opinion article at random.

. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ben-shapiro-pete-buttigiegs-big-mistake-telling-the-truth

there are anti trump posts at a steady pace no matter how many times I click "show more comments"

so, lets downgrade this....

will most likely be deleted. 

to this....

could possibly be deleted but I have no proof.

 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.5.8  KDMichigan  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.5.7    2 weeks ago

[delete]

 
 
 
sixpick
3.6  sixpick  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago
I keep saying this. If social media does not regulate itself then regulation will be, nay must be, imposed upon social media...

Now who is going to be the Censorship Judge, Judge Schiffty, The Washington Post, The New York Times or maybe the girl with the purple hair holding up the protest sign?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.6.1  Heartland American  replied to  sixpick @3.6    2 weeks ago

MBFC 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago

That’s got to be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

If the government regulates the web hopefully the dark web will thrive.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    2 weeks ago
If the government regulates the web hopefully the dark web will thrive

The "dark Web" already thrives-- you can easily get everything from illegal hard drugs to racial hate literature to bomb-making instructions there.

 
 
 
sixpick
4.2  sixpick  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    2 weeks ago
If the government regulates the web hopefully the dark web will thrive.

Never been to the dark web, but if the government regulates the web, it will soon become a wasteland of gibberish.  Well, it's pretty much that already, but maybe we could get some advice from one of those countries who do regulate the web and everything else for that matter.  And they wonder why we don't want them in power.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

To 'regulate' the social media will be impossible. 

After all, how would regulation deter or convince those that truly believe Hillary Clinton and cohorts ran a child sex ring from the basement of a pizza parlor?  For those that accept that sort of information, maybe the problem isn't so much 'the media', but rather portions of our population instead.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1  Jack_TX  replied to  bbl-1 @5    2 weeks ago
For those that accept that sort of information, maybe the problem isn't so much 'the media', but rather portions of our population instead.

When we accept this obvious fact as truth, we can start to work on the problems in our society.  

Until we accept this obvious fact as truth, nothing we do is going to help.

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1    2 weeks ago

( We accept ) ?  Sure.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1    2 weeks ago
For those that accept that sort of information, maybe the problem isn't so much 'the media', but rather portions of our population instead.
When we accept this obvious fact as truth, we can start to work on the problems in our society.   Until we accept this obvious fact as truth, nothing we do is going to help.

Are you advocating that instead of regulating social media sites, we should focus on brainwashing-- those folks who have ideas that the gopvernment doesn't like?

Huge leaks are exposing Xinjiang's re-education camps. But don't expect Beijing to back down

The Chinese government's carefully constructed narrative around its Xinjiang detention centers appears to have been shattered by hundreds of pages of leaked documents   published by Western media   over the last two weeks.

Beijing has long insisted that its vast camps are voluntary   "vocational training centers,"   where people learn job skills and are then free to leave.
Yet the leaks paint a grim picture of heavily fortified re-education centers, designed to turn Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into good Chinese citizens who also speak Mandarin.
 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
Are you advocating that instead of regulating social media sites, we should focus on brainwashing-- those folks who have ideas that the gopvernment doesn't like?

Exactly the opposite.  I see no need to regulate social media.

"Regulating" social media sites attempts to control the way people think by controlling the information they receive. 

I cannot imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea.

The problem is not the message.  The problem is the quality of the person receiving them...or lack of quality, in many cases. 

The vast majority of our societal problems are rooted in the lack of intelligence and education of our populace.  Until we address that, we're not serious about improving anything.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
( We accept ) ?  Sure.

To clarify, you posted 

maybe the problem isn't so much 'the media', but rather portions of our population instead.

I agreed with that. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Under the kind of system he's endorsing, he wouldn't be allowed to even tell his jokes. People who propose censorship and the elimination of free speech never consider that their own right to speak might vanish.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 weeks ago
Under the kind of system he's endorsing, he wouldn't be allowed to even tell his jokes. People who propose censorship and the elimination of free speech never consider that their own right to speak might vanish.

But what about speech that is for a good cause-- for example restrictions on folks like, for example, AOC who advocate evil political systems such as Socialism?

Or worse yet-- strengthening background check so that the insane and convicted felons can't purchase guns?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @6.1    2 weeks ago
who advocate evil political systems such as Socialism?

we don't want to shut them up... 

 they helped elect trump and will help re-elect trump in 2020 all while destroying the democrat party from inside while we watch.    is good fun :)

 

 
 
 
Krishna
6.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
we don't want to shut them up...   they helped elect trump

Who are you referring to-- Social media?

Facebook, Twitter, etc?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Who are you referring to

all of it and everyone.  everything they said and everything they have done whether they be in office, online, or in the streets has only awakened those who simply will not have any of it.

7 million obama voters voted for trump thanks to today's lunatic left  /  moderate dems are bailing out at a phenomenal rate.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/28/jarrett-voters-flipped-trump-painful-think-about/

 progressives, liberals, socialists, and marxists matters not what flag they fly, they all played a part.  "the left" did it to themselves and they still blame everyone and everything except themselves which means they will only continue.

it was predictable, I did just that in 2009 and it is still hilarious :) 

 

  

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.3    2 weeks ago
a great way to regulate social media is to remove their legal protection that allows them to censor legal speech and fine them into bankruptcy.

You know that's socialism, right? 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.4    2 weeks ago

not embracing our first amendment right to free speech and censoring political speech because one does not agree is a progressive/socialist/marxist thing.

I support free speech even when I don't like it. meanwhile, the left has been trying to shut people up for well over a decade now because "feelings".  we know their game. and it aint gonna work. it only gets worse for the left from here on out.

 

thanks for playing  :)

 
 
 
Krishna
6.1.6  seeder  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.5    2 weeks ago
not embracing our first amendment right to free speech and censoring political speech because one does not agree is a progressive/socialist/marxist thing.

Are you aware of the fact that Right-wing dictatorships do the same thing? (i.e. censor anti-government speech).

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

Are you aware of the fact that Right-wing dictatorships do the same thing? (i.e. censor anti-government speech).

of course, both sides of the political spectrum do it. history has many examples either way.

however, I was speaking about this country, at this time in history, when no one on the right with any clout is trying to censor anyone on the left.    we want the left to speak freely and  show their ignorance so we can put it on youtube... LOL

 censorship today in this country:  is predominantly a democrat thing. who happen to be progressives, socialists, and marxists

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.1.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @6.1    2 weeks ago

 Must be some sort of joke everybody should be able to listen to what a complete fucking wingnut like AIC represents this is the only way we know how bad things are and how to vanquish such dumbphuckery  to the trash heap of history.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.5    2 weeks ago

One of the core beliefs of socialism is the governments role in private business. What YOU described is socialism to a "T". Playing? Hey, you're the one that pointed it out. 

 
 
 
Krishna
7  seeder  Krishna    2 weeks ago

however, I was speaking about this country, at this time in history, when no one on the right with any clout is trying to censor anyone on the left. 

What about Trump?

The Trump administration drafted an executive order to censor the internet

CNN has obtained a draft of an executive order that could potentially censor huge portions of the internet. In an attempt to stop a perceived “bias” against conservatives, Trump’s plan attempts to strip certain protections from companies like Facebook and Twitter, particularly those protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Although it’s still in its early stages, and subject to change, the details it contains are a paradox that involve fighting censorship with more censorship.

Any order pushing for political neutrality, however, is sure to raise questions of constitutionality. Enforcing a change that would amount to making the internet politically neutral would certainly infringe on users’ First Amendment rights. It’s quite likely the order would be viewed as political overreach, thus ensuring a lengthy process of litigation.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @7    2 weeks ago
Trump’s plan attempts to strip certain protections from companies like Facebook and Twitter

removing their legal protections from lawsuits for censoring legal political speech they do not like, is censorship? 

don't even bother to answer that... LOL

ya bring a story about the president trying to stop LeftWingWingNuts from censoring conservative voices....  and say that is an example of censorship. truely, unbelievable, 

thanks for the laugh :)

 
 
 
sixpick
7.2  sixpick  replied to  Krishna @7    2 weeks ago
CNN has obtained a draft of an executive order

Where is it?  You know, Krishna, if I put something on this site, I'm expected to provide some sort of link or evidence of what I'm saying is true.  Now, I'm not saying you're lying or anything like that, but all these MSM sources keep coming up with anonymous sources, people involved, those close to and other sources, but they seem to keep getting away with telling the stories without providing any real evidence.  So where is the the draft?  I want to see it.  CNN says they have obtained it, but I couldn't find it in their article.  My eyesight isn't that good, so maybe I overlooked it.  Could you look for me and see if you can find it.  I want to see the draft, not CNN's interpretation of it.

Anything that censors the web needs to be thoroughly examined.  Censorship is a long way from speaking your mind.  Twitter and Facebook are guilty as all get out for bias censorship.  That's not a secret.  I wouldn't support Trump promoting any censorship, but I would support eliminating selective censorship against a group of people.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Snuffy
bugsy
Just Jim NC TttH
Kavika
Wishful_thinkin
Gordy327
Ozzwald
Sunshine
Ronin2
SteevieGee

Freefaller
Texan1211


46 visitors