The fact that Biden himself many times took credit for writing the Patriot Act (at least, very significant parts of it) right after the Oklahoma bombing
A confusing claim since the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 1995, and the USA PATRIOT Act was written in 2001. What he said was he drafted an anti-terrorism bill in 1995 that was essentially the same as what became the Patriot Act later.
Since when is flying a constitutional right? Travel, sure; flying specifically, I don't buy it.
The thing is, the government is not supposed to be able to do anything unless the constitution authorizes it. They don't get to do whatever they want to you that doesn't violate an enumerated right. Curtailing any freedoms at all, whether guaranteed by the constitution or not, should require a sufficient governmental interest (where sufficiency depends on various factors) backed up by specific constitutional authority. The way the no fly list has been operated is... not that.
“U.S. adult Twitter users are younger and more likely to be Democrats than the general public”? Is that not what I said?
Perhaps that is what you meant to say, and if so I agree. What you actually said is that they are majority less than 25 years old and majority Democrat, neither of which is true.
Fox has said that there is a 3:1 likelihood that a conservative post will be censored vs liberal on both platforms.
There are two obvious explanations for that. One is that those platforms prefer to remove conservative posts. The other is that conservatives are more likely to post things that violate the platforms' terms of service. Conservatives have largely chosen to believe the first one, but as far as I can tell this belief is entirely without supporting evidence.
But if you want protections for moderation of content it must be politically neutral.
Are you saying this is currently what the law states, or you wish it said that?
Even when they just added a link encouraging users to get informed about the election, the right wing complained about censorship. Though I don't remember if that was Twitter or Facebook.
And this was upheld by the (captured) US Supreme Court.
Can't find that one.
At the same time a similar law in California was ruled unconstitutional which required Crisis Pregnancy Centers (religious centers that routinely pretend to be abortion providers to pressure pregnant moms to carry to term) to reveal they were not abortion providers and that there are abortion providers nearby.
Re: Re: Might as well compare a papercut to a rotting amputation
Sure this wouldn't have happened if Clinton had won - but then we'd likely have thousands upon thousands of dead Iranian children on-top of the thousands of dead Iraqi children already on our conscience.
Just to be clear, you're saying Clinton would have gone to war with Iran?
And you are telling me that most people will, in the current environment, make a distinction or look at the actual numbers before going to the street and chant "stop the steal"??
Since that would be counterfactual, no, I am not saying that. I'm not sure why you think that is what I was telling you.
because it happened only for 2020 related videos, not for 2016
It seems like a very straightforward explanation for that is because the claims about the 2020 election were baseless nonsense, and claims about voter suppression and gerrymandering in the 2016 election were factually supported.
The US has been a two-party system since the inception, and in fact the wording in the Constitution of the United States belies that it was intended to be and stay a two-party system.
How so? The founders feared political parties and hoped to avoid them entirely.
On the post: Bad Idea: President-Elect Biden Wants To Turn 1/6 Into The New 9/11
Re:
A confusing claim since the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 1995, and the USA PATRIOT Act was written in 2001. What he said was he drafted an anti-terrorism bill in 1995 that was essentially the same as what became the Patriot Act later.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveillance-joe
On the post: Bad Idea: President-Elect Biden Wants To Turn 1/6 Into The New 9/11
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Nazis were neither socialist nor communist. They were fascist.
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/o utlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/
https://www.prospect magazine.co.uk/magazine/was-communism-as-bad-as-nazism
https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.htm l
On the post: More Bad Ideas: Congressional Rep Suggests Participants In The Attack On The Capitol Building Be Added To The No-Fly List
Re:
The thing is, the government is not supposed to be able to do anything unless the constitution authorizes it. They don't get to do whatever they want to you that doesn't violate an enumerated right. Curtailing any freedoms at all, whether guaranteed by the constitution or not, should require a sufficient governmental interest (where sufficiency depends on various factors) backed up by specific constitutional authority. The way the no fly list has been operated is... not that.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you use threaded view, it will be more clear who is replying to whom.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Twitter et al. wants it both ways
Perhaps that is what you meant to say, and if so I agree. What you actually said is that they are majority less than 25 years old and majority Democrat, neither of which is true.
There are two obvious explanations for that. One is that those platforms prefer to remove conservative posts. The other is that conservatives are more likely to post things that violate the platforms' terms of service. Conservatives have largely chosen to believe the first one, but as far as I can tell this belief is entirely without supporting evidence.
Are you saying this is currently what the law states, or you wish it said that?
On the post: Everything Pundits Are Getting Wrong About This Current Moment In Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even when they just added a link encouraging users to get informed about the election, the right wing complained about censorship. Though I don't remember if that was Twitter or Facebook.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Twitter et al. wants it both ways
What would even be the point of having section 230 if providers lose its protections by moderating (or censoring if you must call it that)?
Not even close.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter-users/
https:// smallbusiness.chron.com/breakdown-facebook-users-age-63280.html
Wrong again.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
I couldn't find data on Facebook users after looking for a few minutes but it would surprise me if they're more liberal than Twitter users.
I doubt anybody has solid information on either of those, and I expect you made them up.
Where did you get this idea that there is a requirement for information service providers to be neutral?
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
There are no protections for platforms that are predicated on neutrality. So nothing to lose there.
On the post: Everything Pundits Are Getting Wrong About This Current Moment In Content Moderation
Re: Apple's Walled Garden
There are launchers to make Android look so many different ways, including like iOS.
https://www.maketecheasier.com/make-android-look-like-iphone/
On the post: Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely
Re: lies
It's funny, the only evidence anyone ever seems to have to prove censorship of conservatives is "everyone knows it's true".
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech
Where is this prohibition on trading data found?
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Compelled speech
Can't find that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Family_and_Life_Advocates_v._Becerra
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
They aren't. They are very clearly private property.
The First Amendment says otherwise.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
If you would like to learn about the first amendment and compelled speech:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re:
You're really saying a press release in 2020 or 2021 was one sided because it didn't mention efforts to combat misinformation about the 2016 election?
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Might as well compare a papercut to a rotting amputation
Just to be clear, you're saying Clinton would have gone to war with Iran?
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since that would be counterfactual, no, I am not saying that. I'm not sure why you think that is what I was telling you.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems like a very straightforward explanation for that is because the claims about the 2020 election were baseless nonsense, and claims about voter suppression and gerrymandering in the 2016 election were factually supported.
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Re:
Why do you believe that is not what happened (other than the jail part, which isn't YouTube's job)?
On the post: Politics Is Not A Game
Re: Two party system
How so? The founders feared political parties and hoped to avoid them entirely.
https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion
Next >>