As White House Says It's 'Reviewing 230', Biden Admits His Comments About Facebook Were Misinformation
from the of-course,-not-in-those-words dept
In the never ending stupidity saga, kicked off by the White House picking a fight with Facebook because Facebook hasn't banned 12 individuals (who were named as disinformation dozen by the Center for Countering Digital Hate), things have kicked up a notch -- and nobody involved in the debate seems to know how any of this works. First, the White House has claimed that it is "reviewing Section 230" whatever that means.
"We're reviewing that, and certainly they should be held accountable," Bedingfield told MSNBC when asked about Section 230 and whether social media companies like Facebook should be liable and open to lawsuits for publishing false information that causes Americans harm.
The problem with this, of course, is they can "review" it all they want, but if the people spreading disinformation aren't breaking the law (and, they're not), there would be no underlying cause of action against Facebook with or without Section 230. But, of course, this should be worrisome on multiple levels, not the least of which is that Biden said multiple times during his campaign for President that he wanted to repeal Section 230 entirely, explicitly because he (falsely) thought this would magically make Facebook liable for disinformation.
(As a small aside, it's kind of rich that it's Communications Director Kate Bedingfield claiming that the White House is looking at Section 230, considering in a former life she was VP for the MPAA -- and was literally the chief spokesperson for the MPAA at a time when it was running a secretive campaign to have its own lawyers act as a shadow legal team for state Attorneys General to undermine Section 230 in order to take down tech companies Hollywood disliked. Seems kind of like a conflict, but what do I know?)
Anyway, along with all of this, President Biden walked back his statement on Friday when he said directly that he believed Facebook was "killing people," by not banning certain users. This was a stupid and misleading thing to say. And on Monday, he kind of recognized that what he originally said was not accurate:
“Facebook isn’t killing people, these 12 people are out there giving misinformation,” the president said, citing an administration report last week on online coronavirus vaccine misinformation. “That’s what I meant.”
“My hope is that Facebook, instead of taking it personally … that they would do something about the misinformation, the outrageous misinformation about the vaccine,” Biden continued.
And, again, it's perfectly fair to talk about misinformation, and how the impact of it can be very real and very dangerous. But the blame for that misinformation really ought to be on the people spreading it.
Indeed, in this case, it could easily be argued that the President himself spread misinformation in saying that Facebook was killing people. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially when it's intended to deceive. Biden's statement on Friday certainly could qualify. It was inaccurate to say that Facebook is killing people. It is not. It's arguably deceptive to pin the blame on Facebook rather than on the individuals spreading the disinformation -- and Biden corrected that misinformation on Monday.
And, to be clear, I do think that Facebook should be better about dealing with such misinformation on its platform -- I'm just not so naive as to think that the company can just magically snap its fingers and make misinformation disappear. Should it be doing more to stop the spread of misinformation about vaccines? Yes. Absolutely. Does it help when the White House jumps in like this? Not at all.
And, again, it's not as if there's a clear rule on what is and what is not misinformation. As I noted, it's arguable that Biden's own comments are misinformation. There are no simple rules to distinguish what is and what is not misinformation in these contexts that can easily be applied across billions of users. And the end result of more aggressive removals also likely means the removal of perfectly reasonable content, perhaps that criticizing vaccine deniers and helping to better educate people.
Everyone thinks it's easy to make disinformation go away until you actually have to make the calls yourself.
And the White House isn't doing anyone any favors by claiming that getting rid of Section 230 would actually help. If anything, it would make things way worse, by vastly cutting back on the ability of websites (including Facebook) to experiment with better approaches to actually minimizing the impact of misinformation on their platforms.
On top of that, as some are noting, this appears to be yet another case of the government trying to cover up its own policy failings by blaming social media.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, disinformation, joe biden, kate bedingfield, liability, misinformation, section 230, vaccines
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So Biden admitted that his statement around section 230 Facebook is surrounded by misinformation. This is honestly refreshing, especially after the era of:
“DUhhh, I wanna kiLL SeCtion 230 sO Twitter COuld leVe mi aLoNE. ”
(At this point I’m just asking to be attacked by Koby)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, leave the poor kid alone already. He's more likely to bring a squirt gun to your knife-fight than anything remotely worthy of engagement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'Willing to admit to making a mistake' is admittedly an insanely low bar to meet but after fours years of someone for whom it was still insurmountable I'll take what improvements I can get.
Now if only he'll admit that he's wrong on 230 and wrong about wanting to kill it this particular blunder can be addressed entirely and we can all move on to other things that need fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cancel FASCBOOK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't Blame Him
I don't think it was misinformation. He never intended to deceive anyone, and he doesn't know what's going on around him. He'll read anything that his handlers put on the teleprompter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Blame Him
You're confusing misinformation with disinformation. And the "He'll read anything that his handlers put on the teleprompter" was also said about Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't Blame Him
And what his handlers would have liked Trump to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Trump's handlers would have liked
Yes. Countless PR disasters during the Trump a̶d̶m̶i̶n̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ r̶e̶g̶i̶m̶e̶ a̶d̶m̶i̶n̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ r̶e̶g̶i̶m̶e̶ administration came from Trump refusing to stick to the teleprompted remarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't Blame Him
“ was also said about Obama.”
And trump.
The difference is Obama and Trump knew what they were reading and saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't Blame Him
No, the difference was that Obama largely kept to the point of the speech he had in front on him, and while he was usually mocked by the right for actually thinking and considering what he was saying off script, it was usually within the realm of the point of the speech.
Trump wasn't mocked for following what the speechwriters had prepared for him. He was mocked for going on long nonsensical ramblings about ratings, crowd sizes, telling his supporters to beat up journalists and random attacks on his own pandemic experts while pushing snake oil suggestions from voodoo doctors (remember the "demon sperm" lady?).
That you are unable to tell the difference is not surprising, but it doesn't make them the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't Blame Him
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't Blame Him
"The difference is Obama and Trump knew what they were reading and saying."
You realize that most of his speeches are one long disassociated ramble which might as well have been produced by a smartphone spellchecker filling random words in? There's a reason Trump among all former presidents has been singled out over his "rhetoric" and it certainly isn't because he was acting presidential.
Trevor Noah made the best comparison when he talked about "the best african president america ever had". Trump's rhetoric is that of a tinpot dictator, to the point where many of his lines seem copied directly from notables like Idi Amin, Gadaffi and Zuma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Blame Him
"He'll read anything that his handlers put on the teleprompter."
At least he can read what's on the teleprompter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Blame Him
"He'll read anything that his handlers put on the teleprompter."
So do most presidents, and in fact most public speakers. They have their speeches prepared and they will generally stick to those speeches.
The fact that you had a rambling senile con artist who regularly spouted contradictory and childish nonsense when supposedly trying to instruct and inform the public during a time of crisis does not mean that it's wrong for a competent president to stick to prepared and approved speeches.
But, it seems that this is all you have. Recycled anti-Obama nonsense that was easily debunked at that time as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that should be quick
Reviewing 230 should take about five minutes, a little extra if he wants to ask the people who wrote the bloody thing and ask if it's doing what it's supposed to(spoiler: it is), as for all the problems people attribute to it(why, some of them might even be legitimate! ... at some point) the alternatives are all much worse, ranging from outright unconstitutional to the extremes of 'no user content' and 'free-for-all cesspits'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that should be quick
That should be easy. One of them's currently a US senator, and the other one used to be an SEC Chairman for the George W. Bush administration. It's not like one is divining the intentions of the dead founding fathers or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that should be quick
Spoilers should be the core content when it comes to these things, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disinformation
While there may be a significant amount of misinformation on social media in general, the same can be said of traditional news in print or broadcast when you look at as a whole. (check out your local AM frequencies! turn on the '700 club' or FOX news! don't forget about National Enquirer).
My point is that you've always needed to carefully judge the source of information you're taking in... Facebook/Twitter and the like are more a clipbook of other news sources, so it does complicate things...
That being said, people need to learn to look at the source of these 'clipbooks' and realize that it's a mix of other sources that don't really relate as far as reliability.
So maybe don't rely on what you've read on Social Media... you wouldn't call in a fire just because you saw smoke! (who am I kidding... "you" might)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disinformation
You left out CNN and MSNBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disinformation
No, he did not leave out the extreme-right's disinformation projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disinformation
toom1275 from inside the bubble reports:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disinformation
[Projects facts disproven by your own testimony]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disinformation
Neither CNN nor MSNBC have been credibly accused of peddling outright falsehood or making use of forged photographs - like the one where a masked ISIS terrorist in full tacical gear was pasted into a BLM protest picture.
Neither CNN nor MSNBC have had to have their legal team declare, as legal defense, that no rational person would take anything one of their hosts said seriously.
If I see a story on CNN I usually look through some international news agency's take on it - like al-jazeera, haaretz, Reuters or, hell, any which doesn't have a dog in the fight stateside.
But Fox isn't on the level of a news agency. Not since they claimed they were in the entertainment business primarily catering to people who desired to have their biases confirmed.
And that's your problem right there. You place on equal level one set of news media which has a political spin on factual events with a dystopian bunch of storytellers who have multiple times been caught spinning their stories out of thin air and grievance.
No sane person will ever take you seriously if you insist on a "both sides" argument with two so disparate sources.
Or putting it bluntly; If you think reality has a liberal bias and as a result you choose to deny reality no rhetoric or argument possible will ever change either reality or the minds of the people looking at you in repulsed disbelief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I go to a QANON meeting (I wouldn't, but just for the sake of argument), and they produce a pamphlett with their stupid crap on it, and I pick up a stack of the pamphletts and when I return home to my neighbourhood and I walk the streets putting pamphlets in peoples letter boxes, who spread the QANON disinformation? QANON or me?
In my opinion, QANON created the disinformation, but I spread it, I amplified it.
In the same way, Facebook is 'spreading' and amplifying it. They are the ones who are picking up the bits/bytes of the disinformation created by whoever it is, and carrying it to other people. Facebook decides who gets to see it (whose letter boxes to put the pampheltt in in my above analogy) and displays it to other people. They are the ones who wrote the algorithms that decide what other users get to see, what gets placed in newsfeeds, where it gets place in newsfeeds (what prominence to give it) etc. They are not a 'dumb' transport like the data pipes and backbone providers that blindly (at least in theory) move bits from one location to another, they consciously and deliberately choose who gets to see what - by proxy of the algorithms they created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except, the moderation paradox
In the same way, Facebook is 'spreading' and amplifying [QAnon disinformation]
In the way the USPS distributed Kaczynski's mail bombs. Facebook distributes trillions of banal messages about cats and school kids and shopping encounters amung which disinformation is intermixed and as years of notices about your car's extended warranty have demonstrated there is no simple way to filter them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In the same way, Facebook is 'spreading' and amplifying it."
No, not really. Facebook's role in this is like that of a mall putting up a cork board. They do not "spread", they allow individuals to put up notices.
What you can argue is that disinformation of certain kinds directly violate FB's ToS and as such FB can remove those posts and withdraw their permission to access their forum for the people involved.
What you can not argue is that FB is in any way obligated to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what was this ‘disinformation’ in the first place that could trigger the White House to speak on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The list is linked in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’m missing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're blind to a lot of facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No… I don’t salivate over every thing handed out by my media choices that confirms my own opinions.
Point it out please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The words "disinformation dozen" in the article are formatted as a link. If you click that link, it takes you to the source of document that's triggered this conversation, along with a link to the full document.
"I don’t salivate over every thing handed out by my media choices that confirms my own opinions"
You already confirmed that you do exactly this and believe that any source you don't already agree with is run by the Democrats and that you ignore anything not printed on the patch of land you were spawned on.
You pretend you're above such propaganda, but you're apparently incapable of parsing anything that Murdoch and Breitbart haven't simplified for you. Whether or not we agree with them, the rest of us are at least capable of reading and evaluating links and sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ The words "disinformation dozen" in the article are formatted as a link. If you click that link, it takes you to the source of document that's triggered this conversation, along with a link to the full document.”
You could have said that the first time.
Interesting report. Looks like 20 they’re focusing on though, not 12.
A) anti-Vader’s are idiots. There are legitimate reasons or to take the vaccination. Maybe you have an underlying condition that precludes it. Or maybe you already had covid and thus have the same, or better, immunity.
Otherwise get the vaccination or drop dead.
That’s said, the government has no right to censorship. Calling for removal is just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You could have said that the first time."
Sorry, I thought you were as literate as everyone else reading the article.
"There are legitimate reasons or to take the vaccination. Maybe you have an underlying condition that precludes it"
True, but that's between you and your doctor, not something that should be encouraged as a default to people with. no such condition.
"Or maybe you already had covid and thus have the same, or better, immunity."
Unproven. People who have had the disease are still encouraged to have vaccines if possible due to the new variants. Which, by the way, are expressly existing because of people who fought against all the earlier medical recommendations.
"Otherwise get the vaccination or drop dead."
If those were the only choices I'd be fine with that, you made your choice. Sadly, real life is way more complicated than that and if we have to face further restrictions, lockdowns and death I'd rather it be because of medical reasons than because a handful of assholes decides there was profit to be had, or because some people have been so brainwashed that wearing a piece of clothing is tyranny.
"That’s said, the government has no right to censorship. Calling for removal is just that."
Not if there's no legal weight behind it. We may come from different places here, but history is full of government agents telling people to do things and then getting laughed at and ignored. The main problem here appears to be that this action is costing lives, but it's not a call for tyranny. Just an observation that there's a reason why some people get "deplatformed", and it's not because they happen to put an X next to the R on their voting slip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Sorry, I thought you were as literate as everyone else reading the article.”
I don’t randomly click on links. It doesn’t say Anywhere that clicking through would eventually bring you to a report that actually shows evidence.
Given that I have tracking turned on for targeted advertising: I make some choices in what I do.
“ If those were the only choices I'd be fine with that”
That’s more or less the end of my view. If your too stupid or brainwashed to get the vaccine than you deserve to die.
I blame every person that refuses to get vaccinated for the variants mutating further.
I wouldn’t mind seeing an anti-vax super spreader event. They’d all get sick. Many would die. Those that don’t would have stronger immunity. And no longer be a walking risk factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don’t randomly click on links."
Something to notice here is that while TD often refer back to older articles, the links aren't randomly selected, and they will link to either primary sources or the source that inspired the article early in the copy.
"That’s more or less the end of my view. If your too stupid or brainwashed to get the vaccine than you deserve to die."
OK. That's the attitude that gets use mutations that either infect people who didn't make that choice, or that threaten people who did. I read an interesting article earlier (it's late so I might link later if you need it), which shows the current spread of different variants in the US. The original version of COVID is almost unaccounted for, the spread is mainly new variants that came from places that opened up too early after periods of lockdown, and then mainly among the unvaccinated. The vaccination isn't 100% effective and it's not an immortality potion, so the concern that the people who tried claiming it was fake/conspiracy threaten the rest of us.
"I wouldn’t mind seeing an anti-vax super spreader event. They’d all get sick."
Which suggests that you don't understand the actual science. The virus doesn't care about political leanings. It is more likely to spread in certain places, and there is some schadenfreude to see the deniers get infected. But they place everyone else at risk. The Delta variant is specifically because a bunch of people in India thought that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ and then mainly among the unvaccinated. The vaccination isn't 100% effective and it's not an immortality potion, so the concern that the people who tried claiming it was fake/conspiracy threaten the rest of us.”
No, not completely. Somewhere between ~80 and <100 depending on the brand. Well, except the China version which is theoretically around 40% but….
“ and there is some schadenfreude to see the deniers get infected”
Some? Only some?
I’m not as socially caring as you.
~~
Anti vax falls over
“Ha ha” in Nelson voice
~~
Personally, I’d disturb the real ID with more realistic verification processing, thus creating a National ID.
And attach covid vax status to that. The passport.
The. Companies can decide what to do about it. I’d also support a law of right of refusal for un-vaxd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, not completely. Somewhere between ~80 and <100 depending on the brand."
For now. The more variants that are bred by people who think that "freedom" is worth more than taking basic medical advise, the less effective that advice is. I've been seeing a depressing number of stories recently of people who are crowing about their "freedoms" not to take vaccines then regret it when they're in the ICU. I would hope to skip that part straight to the part where we are actually safe, generally speaking.
"Anti vax falls over
“Ha ha” in Nelson voice"
Yes, people who made the decision not to protect themselves then get hurt from the thing they claimed they didn't need protection from will get that reaction. Sadly, they don't tend to only hurt themselves.
"Personally, I’d disturb the real ID with more realistic verification processing, thus creating a National ID."
Interesting. The opposition I've heard from that in the US is a combination of "libertarian" types who don't want to be tracked by the government and religious types who believe it to a mark of the beast situation. There's also the issue of things like identity theft, where it's depressingly hard for an innocent victim to reestablish credit and, often, their lives after falling victim. A single point of failure seems problematic unless there's serious safeguards in place.
"I’d also support a law of right of refusal for un-vaxd."
That would be nice, but the opposition to such things won't go away, and may even become more violent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One thing about American libertarians is it’s become a generic umbrella for anyone who disagrees with a party principle; both parties.
There’s a line in dead centre libertarianism that ‘true’ respect. Sometimes violently.
Public is public and private is private.
Calling someone a libertarian for not opposing a street corner camera doesn’t make them one.
Real id would also make identity fraud considerably harder. Over time.
But that’s often ignored. Because big brother and Baal
:facepalm:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"One thing about American libertarians is it’s become a generic umbrella for anyone who disagrees with a party principle; both parties."
So, No True Scotsman it is... gotcha.
"Calling someone a libertarian for not opposing a street corner camera doesn’t make them one."
Why would someone call someone that for not opposing a camera? Regardless, I'm usually referring to people who apply that label to themselves, which seem to be a common escape route for people who don't want to call themselves R or independent. You might have a different idea of the label, but others tend to misuse it, and you don't do yourselves any favours in that regard by saying "I'm a libertarian who just so happened to vote R last election"...
"Real id would also make identity fraud considerably harder. Over time."
As long as it's done in a way that doesn't disenfranchise rights, introduce a backdoor poll tax or all the other problems already discussed, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ which seem to be a common escape route for people who don't want to call themselves R or independent”
Except I spent most of my voting life a registered Dem.
I have very few things on the right I agree with. They were just more important than my left agreement and the disagreement with the progressive shift was too much to support.
R gun rights, individualism, states rights, border security.
As for the dems I disagree with globalism and think the green new deal is a disaster.
My belief in private property rights firmly places me in the Libertarian category. Everything else is a sway to one or another person with a chance of winning, or, the one I absolutely cannot stand to be under.
It’s not no true…, it’s that the two main parties are quick to toss anyone who disagrees under another banner. For someone who absolutely against a kee component of the Republican platform the banner tends to be libertarian.
disenfranchise rights
Should be free for all from birth to death. All citizens and legal residents.
backdoor poll tax
Oh yuck
all the other problems already discussed,
Yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except I spent most of my voting life a registered Dem."
Which would make it even more mystifying that you voted for a Republican con artist after his cons and failures had been laid bare.
"As for the dems I disagree with globalism and think the green new deal is a disaster."
You've never stated exactly why you think this, apart from some easily refuted barbs at AOC's intelligence. Why exactly is trying to repeat the previous new deal with a focus on making sure that the US is more self-sufficient and able to address many upcoming problems while increasing employment and business opportunities a disaster? Be specific.
Also, I'd be interested in hearing what you think "globalism" is. there's some definitions that are interesting to discuss, others are a thinly veiled rewording of the Protocols Of The Elders of Zion...
"For someone who absolutely against a kee component of the Republican platform the banner tends to be libertarian."
Yet, you vote R when the election comes up. Meaning that you have stated that you support their platform, including the part you disagree with.
"backdoor poll tax
Oh yuck"
I note that you don't explain why forcing people to pay for a document that they didn't previously need in order to vote is not a poll tax..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Which would make it even more mystifying that you voted for a Republican con artist after his cons and failures had been laid bare.”
We’ve been through this. I worked as a volunteer on both of Obama’s campaigns.
The choice was easy.
Socialist who would be tempered by reality or con artist whit deep ties to a genocidal government.
The conniving con artist stole that
Then
Pro guns, border wall, no green new deal, isolation.
Vs
Crooked conniving genocidal freak
Taking trump was easy.
Second time, nearly everyone now recognises there’s cognitive issues with Biden and nobody knows who the real driver is. That was my concern goingn in round 2.
“ You've never stated exactly why you think this”
If made my opinions very clear. That ultimately the plan doesn’t say anythi As to HOW!
Setting absolute dates in law with no method to make teaching them likely.
“Globalism”
As in placing international priorities over this of the nation.
Sending food to other countries when we have starving poor as well. Spending a billion on a nuke ransom when we could have built housing.
Opening our borders and letting a flood of people in our country with no accounting based on foreign issues
What the hell that has to do wish some propaganda book, I have no idea.
I voted all ways. I happened to choose two Republicans. I also chose a Dem and an independent. Key issue is it was Bush jr (mistake) over end of the world Gore.
“ I note that you don't explain why forcing people to pay for a document that they didn't previously need in order to vote is not a poll tax..?”
I clearly say every time it should be government paid and issued at birth.
Nobody should have to pay for it. And if you don’t have to pay for it it’s not a back door tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, we have, and you keep thinking that acting all offended because someone casually threw an insult in Trump's general direction makes you a superior human specimen. You've made that very clear since Day One. I suspect people keep engaging you because out_of_the_blue hasn't been posting as regularly and folks don't typically look a gift village idiot replacement in the mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Pro guns, border wall, no green new deal, isolation.
Vs
Crooked conniving genocidal freak"
You mentioned Trump twice.
"“Globalism”
As in placing international priorities over this of the nation."
As nice as it is to see you deny the anti-semetic and more dangerous version of the term, why do I get the feeling that you'll apply this label to anyone you disagree with, not matter what benefits they're working towards for your country by actually collaborating with others? You don't seem to have a very good track record of understanding how co-operation works.
"Sending food to other countries when we have starving poor as well"
Nothing stopping you doing both. Might I suggest redirecting some of the funds you've been using for the last decades to create the wars and poverty in those places? You might find you need to send less international aid when you stop bombing the shit out of them and funding their druglords.
"Opening our borders and letting a flood of people in our country with no accounting"
Oh, look another fantasy that nobody actually pushes for, but it'¡s great to fleece you morons out of more money when your xenophobia starts acting up when Fox tells you to be scared.
"What the hell that has to do wish some propaganda book, I have no idea."
People who agree with you on many issues, often consume the same news sources and are scared of the same phantoms use "globalism" when spreading that same propaganda around because they realise they can't use original terminology any more.
"I clearly say every time it should be government paid and issued at birth."
Yes, that's one part of the puzzle. What about the rest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ You mentioned Trump twice.”
See Clinton Foundation Expenditures
Clinton foundation controversies
And Ukrainian Civil War
“ why do I get the feeling that you'll apply this label to anyone you disagree with”
Because so many of our agreements screw us over.
NAFTA, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA MNCA, PCA…
Most get processed with no issue or backlash. And sadly they’re all good unless big technos compromised.
“ Might I suggest redirecting some of the funds you've been using for the last decades to create the wars and poverty in those places?”
Sounds good to me. I support the pull out of West Asia.
I find it annoyingly funny that I have to keep reiterating history.
Allies win WWII.
*
-USSR Allies push forward a new christian Crusade against big bad atheist communism.
Allies topple autocratic, now semi-independent governments for 20 years and install Islamic hard-line dictators to secure a block to communist spread.
Allies involve themselves in 4 long, bloody, civil wars.
Allies spend 30 years fighting Islamic terror in countries we created, against soldiers we trained, with weapons we supplied them.
*
Yes. Why I despise globalisation? Because (almost) everything the US has done internationally since 1948 has been to the detriment of ourselves and others.
“ Oh, look another fantasy that nobody actually pushes”
A d yet a reality we have.
Bill Clinton pushed for securing the southern border. It didn’t pass.
Bush Jr started to work bipartisan, then 9/11.
Obama promised border security. But neither party wanted it.
Trump ram on it, and started the wall. After Dems and a handful of pro business Reps stalled every aspect.
Biden came in and shut it down. The y quietly restarted it.
It’s not saying you want an open border (which some Progressives actually did), it’s not closing the giant holes and making things go through a legal system. (Things is all aspects, not just people).
“ Yes, that's one part of the puzzle. What about the rest?”
As far as I can tell that knocks out any “rest” of the puzzle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"See Clinton Foundation Expenditures
Clinton foundation controversies
And Ukrainian Civil War"
OK, I'll admit that because you were whining about Obama I though you were talking about him and not Clinton. But... Trump promised to do these things and delivered, and the main objection people point out to you is not the fact you voted for the orange con artist when Clinton was running against him, but the most recent election where he proved his worth before that.
"Because so many of our agreements screw us over."
There's individual supports and objections for each of those that we don't really have enough room in this sort of thread to talk about with the proper level of details. But, while it's true that this happens, a lot of it is not due to there being an international agreement. In fact, a lot of it is due to the US not being a trustworthy partner. Some are problematic from conception, but such is the problem when you have a government who think that "business" trumps "people". The people who would profit from such situations usually get what they asked for, and they're not typically people who support the people you're scared of.
"Bush Jr started to work bipartisan, then 9/11."
You think that 9/11 reduced bipartisanship on international issues? Really?
"Allies spend 30 years fighting Islamic terror in countries we created, against soldiers we trained, with weapons we supplied them."
Hence my suggestion that if you don't like this then you stop creating it rather than whining when the desperate refugees you created require aid?
"As far as I can tell that knocks out any “rest” of the puzzle."
So, you don't think that "issue at birth" doesn't leave 300+ million American citizens who don't have such a thing with a problem getting one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“You think that 9/11 reduced bipartisanship on international issues? Really?”
And the discussion here is border security.
9/11 changed the focus of the country. But after Iraq the dems thumbed their nose at everything.
“Hence my suggestion that if you don't like this then you stop creating it”
Agreed. Trump ram on bringing troops home from West Asia, AND less international involvement.
All while Clinton didn’t hide her support for Ukraine.
“So, you don't think that "issue at birth" doesn't leave 300+ million American citizens who don't have such a thing with a problem getting one?”
First what part of ‘government should supply every citizen and legal resident a photo id’ excludes 300+ million people.
Second, do you really suggest 300+ million people don’t have photo ID? The population barely passes 300 million country wide.
There’s only 30,000 people with ID?
The federal and state DOTs disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And the discussion here is border security."
Oh, I see, when the conversation turns in a direction you don't like, pretend it's about something else.
"Trump ram on bringing troops home from West Asia, AND less international involvement."
How did that turn out? Also, why are his fans attacking Biden on Afghanistan?
"First what part of ‘government should supply every citizen and legal resident a photo id’ excludes 300+ million people."
Nothing, but you've only suggested "at birth"so far. So, what's your plan for the already born?
"Second, do you really suggest 300+ million people don’t have photo ID?"
We've been through this. While the majority do, there are many who don't. What's your plan for those people - and, no, you usual "they're a small minority so they don't matter" is not a plan.
"The federal and state DOTs disagree with you."
No, they disagree with the idiotic threadbare strawman you erected yet again to avoid my actual words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Oh, I see, when the conversation turns in a direction you don't like, pretend it's about something else.”
“ Bill Clinton pushed for securing the southern border. It didn’t pass.
Bush Jr started to work bipartisan, then 9/11.
Obama promised border security. But neither party wanted it.
Trump {ram} on it, and started the wall. After Dems and a handful of pro business Reps stalled every aspect.
Biden came in and shut it down.”~lostinlodos
“ How did that turn out?”
Well, given our troops are coming home: I'd say quite well.
“ Also, why are his fans attacking Biden on Afghanistan?”
No clue. Haven’t read anything related to such an occurrence.
“ Nothing, but you've only suggested "at birth"so far.”
Since your either incapable of deductive comprehension or are intentionally trolling the idea…
‘The federal government should supply every citizen and legal resident a federal ID, as of right now, to every living person of those two classes, and moving forward every citizen at birth.
Better?
“ We've been through this. While the majority do, there are many who don't. “ but you made it out that 300+ million don’t.
“What's your plan for those people - and, no, you usual "they're a small minority so they don't matter" is not a plan.”
I personally never said they didn’t matter. The government should supply a National id to… see above.
“ No, they disagree with the idiotic threadbare strawman you erected yet again to avoid my actual words”
The following quote is from
PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2021 @ 12:49pm
“So, you don't think that "issue at birth" doesn't leave 300+ million American citizens who don't have such a thing with a problem getting one?”
————————
How am I avoiding your actual words? You claim only 10.5% of the population of the United States has photo ID!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"How am I avoiding your actual words? You claim only 10.5% of the population of the United States has photo ID!"
For fuck's sake, are you actually this bad at comprehending basic language or are you this desperate not to address what I'm actually saying?
My point was that when you start issuing ID at birth, that doesn't address the people that plan doesn't cover, i.e. the current population who are already born. I can't speak exact numbers since you've not specified what form the birth ID would take, but not everyone will have that form of ID.
If you're introducing a new form of ID, how do you get everyone in the country to have the same form? If you're expanding an existing form, how do you deal with the people who don't have one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ 'The federal government should supply
every citizen and legal resident a
federal ID, as of right now, to every
living person of those two classes, and
moving forward every citizen at birth.”
How, I’m not sure.
But there’s no how in the GND either.
Here we have a logical starting point.
Over 300 million people have a photo ID now.
That should be fairly easy
If the roughly 50-150 thousand who don’t, it’s a bit more complicated but not impossible. Some method of two part verification based on social security number (all citizens) or itn (legal immigrants and perma-res).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Over 300 million people have a photo ID now"
This is my point - they hav various different kinds of ID, most of which can be revoked at any point. If you're giving people an automatic right to a presumably irrevocable ID at birth, then considerations have to be made for people who didn't have that right - especially those who don't currently have such an ID.
"If the roughly 50-150 thousand who don’t"
One of the reasons I push you on these subjects is that you seem to have a woefully idealistic and unrealistic idea of what reality is like. Inserting actual reality into the mix changes things somewhat. Especially regarding areas where vulnerable populations are affected.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf
I'm happy that you're thinking of a plan that might help resolve these inequalities, I'd just hope that you stop pretending they don't exist and that they don't affect elections as they are right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“… do not have government-issued photo identification"
Ok, there’s our disconnect.
First, that number is higher than the DMV numbers give us.
Which gives us around 9% or 23 million.
That doesn’t include RealID. Which depending on the conflicting government sources is another 13-15 million.
So 10 million without government ID
So in honesty this isn’t the kind of numbers the Democrats are making it out to be. Not when you start counting other forms of photo identification.
Obviously you can figure out I believe every citizen has a right to vote.
And reaching those remaining people is a must.
The best way to do that is not hopping on an airplane and having a show flight party.
It’s sitting at the table and making sure these voting security laws address the remaining people who would be left out.
And I see this in the same way as the green new deal.
I don’t think the green new deal itself is a bad plan. I think it’s incomplete.
And these voting security plans aren’t bad either. They’re incomplete.
In a drive to get it down and ram them through major holes are not addressed.
If the Dems would sit down, maybe a competent set of bills can be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So 10 million without government ID"
Which is a massive problem when you're trying to mandate its usage to exercise basic rights, in order to address a problem that barely registers as a rounding error on the total vote.
So, again - you want to mandate a form of ID at birth. OK, so what's your plan to deal with the already born who don't/cant have the forms of ID already in place?
"It’s sitting at the table "
...with a party that has announced that their plan is to oppose everything the Democrats do, and to "fix" the massive loss they suffered by disenfranchising as many people as possible.
The biggest problem over Obama's term was that he was naively thinking that he was dealing with adults who were determined to do what was best for their constituents, not children who think that politics is a team game and are willing to drive the country into oblivion so long as they "won". The compromises on the PPACA alone were intended to placate Republicans, but they went out and pretended Obama was a dictator intend of installing a communist state when he essentially return to them with their own plan.
It's hard to have a good faith debate if one "side" is not acting in good faith to begin with, and they have announced that they are not.
"I don’t think the green new deal itself is a bad plan. I think it’s incomplete."
OK, so instead of calling AOC stupid and whining about it, why not discuss the actual issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
…so let’s discuss the actual issue with voting id.
How do we get 10mil people who don’t have govern id back into the system.
A free we com to you program?
How about registration cards at every post office.
A web portal. A phone hotline.
Buy them dinner to show up? Works for covid vaccination!
We’re not talking rocket science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is, you need to fix the ID issue before you fix the "voter fraud" issue, because unless you do that then you are disenfranchising people. Which is bad no matter what, but since at the moment there's way more people who would be disenfranchised than the number of votes you're trying to "fix", then that's not something that can be seriously discussed.
How you actually do this is open to question, but at least you've accepted that it's not just a handful of people and just issuing new IDs to newborns will not fix the issues as they exist in reality.
"We’re not talking rocket science."
As usual with these things, it's not about the task being complicated, it's about the political will to take action. Republicans have admitted that they would not win elections if voting was truly free. That's what you have to deal with - not the process of gaining ID, but a party that cannot win elections without disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform -coronavirus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ The point is, you need to fix the ID issue before you fix the "voter fraud" issue, because unless you do that then you are disenfranchising people. ”
Or… fix both at the same time.
And nice out of context clip from the guardian. From what I can find, since they don’t link to the source video/transcript, is that was right smack in the middle of a discussion about the potential for no-id fraud!
Oven with my disagrezthat mail in fraud is prevalent at this time (and agreeing it could be)
That’s entirely different From saying ‘we won’t win fair elections’
Maybe do the same verification you demand I do? I just highlighted the quote and tapped search Bing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Or… fix both at the same time."
Frankly, not possible. You can't "fix" voter fraud without fixing access to ID, at least not without disenfranchising a lot of people. Since that's by far the largest project, and by far the one with the worst potential negative outcomes, it needs to be done first.
"And nice out of context clip from the guardian"
OK, so what was the context that makes it acceptable or fundamentally changes what was being said? Because I'm not seeing it.
Meanwhile, Obama is still attacked for saying "57 states" even though he clearly didn't mean that he thought that was the number of states the US has.
"I just highlighted the quote and tapped search Bing."
Something I've noticed recently is that after I agreed to set my default search in one of my browsers to try and grab some more reward points, there's a massive difference in my results. As in, there's a lot of right-leaning sources that I don't often see in Google, DuckDuckGo or any other alternative I occasionally use, some of which are purely opinion pieces rather than the actual news.
This may be totally subjective, but I'd dare say that if you're only using Bing and nothing else, you've let yourself into another echo chamber situation. I got extraordinarily different results with my BLM search earlier, as an example.
That doesn't change the validity of what you said, it's just interesting to me that there's such a wide difference in search results, and how your results are skewed when search for something not completely objective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ You can't "fix" voter fraud without fixing access to ID”
Bingo!
If everyone has ID the point of concern is moot. Let’s start getting these IDs out!
“ or fundamentally changes what was being said”
The fact that the comment was in relation to (hypothetical) voter fraud via indiscriminate mail in voting with minimal verification.
His firm belief in a situation that does not, currently, exist doesn’t change the context of what he was saying it in.
It wasn’t about Republicans wining a fair election or not. It was about loosing in the case of voter fraud via unsolicited mail in voting.
“Obama is still attacked for saying "57 states" even though he clearly didn't mean…”
Lol. That’s actually the very first time I’ve heard that.
“ Something I've noticed recently is that after I agreed to set my default search in one of my browsers to try and grab some more reward points”
I wouldn’t say /more/. Bing’s algorithm doesn’t Dow rank the way Google does. And keep in mind most alternatives depend on Google, including duck.
For better and for worse, and I do mean that, bing doesn’t have the same “by source” manipulation/ranking/CallItSomethingHere.
The results are generally, but not completely, more organic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If everyone has ID the point of concern is moot. Let’s start getting these IDs out!"
Well, the point of concern is also moot if the proven instances of actual voter fraud attempts don't justify the massive expense of such a program. But, I'll agree with the idea that it would be a good thing if everyone is issued the ID they're expected to use to confirm basic rights.
"the comment was in relation to (hypothetical) voter fraud"
The man's habit of word salad isn't helped by addressing fantasies when trying to make a point.
"Lol. That’s actually the very first time I’ve heard that."
I find that hard to believe, but if true then I congratulate you for staying away from the dumbest Republicans. If only they're stay away from the rest of us as readily.
"I wouldn’t say /more/"
I sure as hell would, but then my browser history and location don't lend themselves as easily to the more open fiction peddlers to get a foothold.
"The results are generally, but not completely, more organic."
That's purely subjective. My experience is I've seen a lot more known liars appear in Bing,. Even when I'm only searching for error codes, I see noticeable fraud attempts and irrelevant ad farms.
If "organic" means "you'll see lots of con artists before the primary sources", I'm happy for the search results to be better curated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ That's purely subjective. ”
What ever the organic results Are is more a sign of where the internet is than the individual user.
Look up a trump quote on Google and you get 5 pages of articles before you find the source link.
More often than not Bing will have it on the first page.
But the big thing for me is tech. Enter a part number find sources and sales.
Same thing on Google and you find reviews and reviews and reviews.
But to each their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What ever the organic results Are is more a sign of where the internet is than the individual user"
Not really. Google has spent 2 decades fighting against people who game the system so that the "organic" results are fixed. I very much doubt that smaller, more easily gamed, engines are immune to such things.
"Look up a trump quote on Google and you get 5 pages of articles before you find the source link."
Examples? Bear in mind that if you put the words in quotes, to ensure that it's treated as a quote rather than a collection of words, it will generate different results.
"But the big thing for me is tech. Enter a part number find sources and sales."
I actually had a fun time earlier today - I had a DB connection error and as I'm experimenting with Bing to grab some MS rewards, I used Bing initially to search for the issue. I gave up because no matter how I tried specifying that I was connecting to an Oracle DB running on a Linux host from a MacOS client, I kept getting Windows-specific results. DuckDuckGo and Google gave me what I actually needed.
"But to each their own."
True, as ever my point is - your experience may not be the majority, not the preferred experience. I'm happy if you find your needs met by something not in the mainstream, but for many other uses, it's not good enough.l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you completely ignorant on the subjects of civics and economics, about harms and responsibilities?
Would you rather wallow in your ignorant misanthropy than grow up and join civilization?
If yes, then Libertarianism is the religion for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about those who for whatever reason have not yet been vaccinated, and then suffer because those anti-vaxers from the event bring covid19 to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the biggest problem here. If those people could just infect each other get it over with? Fine, they got what they asked for. But, while they not only risk the lives of people who can't be vaccinated but risk further mutations that may get the rest of us back to square one? Screw them and their imagined persecution...
I dread to think what would have happened in my childhood if polio and smallpox has not already been eradicated by vaccines due to these people..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ll be clear here:
If you have no medical reason to abstain OR you were previously infected then you should get the vaccination.
If not you’re a piece of shite and I hope you have a slow painful death.
And that’s non-partisan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And where was this glowing piece of non-partisan demonstration when your boy Trump was in charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The disinformation dozen".
Google: "Why platforms must act on twelve leading online anti-vaxxers"
Essentially there are, according to the published report, twelve leading anti-vaxxers who spend their days lying to the public about the vaccines. The direct result of this being lives lost - a great many such - the CCDH suggested FB should ban these twelve from their platform. FB has not done so and that's well within FB's rights as a private platform.
The White House have questioned why FB isn't doing this, given that what these twelve are doing certainly violates FB's ToS. This is well within the purview of government.
The above is not in question. Those are the facts.
By far more shady is Amy Klobuchnar's suggested bill on forcing FB to evict those people...and THAT is a different kettle of fish altogether. Ironically it's the liberals who picked that one up and started harping about it, because the alt-right and the GOP is still stuck on Biden daring to ask, ignoring the mountain and throwing a frothing fit over the molehill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]