Not if that's the side that is right. If wallstreet is saying 2+2=4 and americans are saying 2+2=meh who cares lets cut up a successful american company and give the pieces to the aussies, there is something wrong with pretending you can't follow simple logic and facts just to get a cut of the take though.
News orgs are more sad than the music and movie guys.
They want things to go back to how they were before.. Before communication was instant. News travels too fast now, but unlike the others they know it doesn't "belong" to them so they can't keep people from repeating it completely.. Someone is still needed to do the journalism, but not really for the dissemination anymore which is where they made their money. They are lost.
You've got it all wrong.. Microsoft and google are in cahoots on this and M saying "hey you can always use bing" is part of google's negotiating strategy.
Just because we are supporting people who want to deceive people and take advantage of others and possibly collect their gold teeth in a big pile, does that make us bad people?
Because they both serve the underlying principle of take from democrats, give to republicans. It's not "Businesses cannot be forced" it's "We cannot be forced..."
This is really similar to the europe stuff where they are trying to force google to pay the news sites..
Some people don't like how the current players are doing things and love to play armchair quarterback for google and facebook, they would love it if "someone" would just come by and do it their way, but not enough to, you know actually put in the effort to get it done
I'm not just talking about a system that favours the status quo, I'm saying they have shown they really have nothing preventing someone coming in and using the weight of the government to make elections into a farce and ending up with a system like Russia has. If trump was as smart as putin, they would already be on an irreversible path to that
The reason cancel culture isn't a thing is because "Cancel culture" isn't the claim that sometimes people get it wrong.. it's a defense of the indefensible. It's not trying to argue whether or not you are right that you think Nike uses child labour, just trying to argue regardless of whether you are right or not you shouldn't tell anyone why you think that or do anything about it.
You see, I'm not actually as concerned with that. That part seems to be going away slowly, those people make up less and less of the U.S. every election.
what concerned me more is they aren't going to go quietly, and before that happens they are willing to subvert democracy to win and what I saw a system unable to deal with that problem
You were lucky enough that he leaked some evidence that he was trying to use the power of the presidency to subvert democracy, you even had one of the branches of government trying to expose him, but he was able to suppress everything because he had control of the justice department and intelligence communities and a large portion of the media. He and the senators all still had plausible deniability because Barr made sure we wouldn't get answers.
From what I saw the only thing that saved democracy was Trump's incompetence. He had the will and all the power needed to rig the elections in his favour, he could largely control both the ability to investigate any wrongdoing and the message that got to the people
all signs pointed that he was trying to do so, setting up the justice department and intelligence community as him personal propaganda machine, and working with foreign leaders to try to get their assistance falsifying information;
Elections were your only safeguard against election interference, nothing in the system could stop him and you just got lucky and he bungled it himself.
Surprised I didn't see the reason that jumps to mind for me.. Social Engineering attacks and identity theft.. If your real name is attached with all your comments that's now metadata attached together with your identity, just makes it easier for a malicious actor to pretend they are you
Every system is around is an estimation and not "perfect democracy", so that doesn't surprise me at all.
I have a lot of family ties to the U.S. I wish I could trick myself into believing the whole problem is that small fraction of people between the popular vote and the electoral college. If you have a way to convince me I'm all ears.
You might need to explain fourth-grade civics to me though, our system is different.. I'm just a guy from canada who balked when I saw your president fired the person in charge of investigating him and replaced him with a stooge who covered it up to the best of his ability.. But maybe I just don't understand and that isn't a problem
I thought it was obvious but I wasn't trying to make the claim that the electoral college system is a true full proper democratic representation and gives everyone a fair say or whatever blah blah, that's a whole separate horse that has been beaten to death already. It's what you have for your elections check right now regardless, it's never going to be perfect.
it's not anti-democratic, it's just a check against the will of the people?
Correct. meant like checking against an answer sheet. They are elected separately, the senate and president are in bed together because that's how the people voted.
Of course they did. The Senate has the power to launch investigations.
There already was an investigation. Launching one isn't an issue. Actually getting one performed without interference is. The resources with the capability to investigate and access to the info you need answer to the target.
The senate could tried to do another investigation, in our opinion they still had enough to go on that they should have done more, but they made all those calls on tainted information.
they could have called witnesses if they knew who to call, they could have tried to do independent investigation, with whatever resources and intel were given to them by the justice department under the president (more realistically the house also had the same options) but how much of an investigation can you do if you can't rely on Justice Department resources?
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Put up or shut up'
Not if that's the side that is right. If wallstreet is saying 2+2=4 and americans are saying 2+2=meh who cares lets cut up a successful american company and give the pieces to the aussies, there is something wrong with pretending you can't follow simple logic and facts just to get a cut of the take though.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re:
Just make sure they only pick on the ones carrying their own weight. Lay off the corrupt parasite ones using legislation as their revenue streams
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: 'Put up or shut up'
Not sure if you are trying to make OP's point or doing it unintentionally
On the post: Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine
Re:
News orgs are more sad than the music and movie guys.
They want things to go back to how they were before.. Before communication was instant. News travels too fast now, but unlike the others they know it doesn't "belong" to them so they can't keep people from repeating it completely.. Someone is still needed to do the journalism, but not really for the dissemination anymore which is where they made their money. They are lost.
On the post: Microsoft Offers To Break The Web In A Desperate Attempt To Get Somebody To Use Its Widely-Ignored Bing Search Engine
You've got it all wrong.. Microsoft and google are in cahoots on this and M saying "hey you can always use bing" is part of google's negotiating strategy.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because we are supporting people who want to deceive people and take advantage of others and possibly collect their gold teeth in a big pile, does that make us bad people?
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, doesn't like lying, hypocrisy and trying to affect policy disingenuously.. how prejudiced,
deceiving people can be a great thing if you just give it a chance
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re:
Because they both serve the underlying principle of take from democrats, give to republicans. It's not "Businesses cannot be forced" it's "We cannot be forced..."
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re:
parler got 1 foot from their chair and then they were like "this is way to much work, make google do it"
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
This is really similar to the europe stuff where they are trying to force google to pay the news sites..
Some people don't like how the current players are doing things and love to play armchair quarterback for google and facebook, they would love it if "someone" would just come by and do it their way, but not enough to, you know actually put in the effort to get it done
On the post: Facebook Oversight Board's First Decisions... Seem To Confirm Everyone's Opinions Of The Board
the Oversight Board -- which is the official name that the former Facebook Oversight Board wants you to call it
Because it's the only oversight board in existence or because it oversees everything in existence?
Everyone shall henceforth refer to this comment as "the comment"..
On the post: No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not just talking about a system that favours the status quo, I'm saying they have shown they really have nothing preventing someone coming in and using the weight of the government to make elections into a farce and ending up with a system like Russia has. If trump was as smart as putin, they would already be on an irreversible path to that
On the post: Professional Assholes Equate Consequences With 'Cancel Culture' To Obscure That They're Finally Being Held Accountable
The reason cancel culture isn't a thing is because "Cancel culture" isn't the claim that sometimes people get it wrong.. it's a defense of the indefensible. It's not trying to argue whether or not you are right that you think Nike uses child labour, just trying to argue regardless of whether you are right or not you shouldn't tell anyone why you think that or do anything about it.
On the post: Professional Assholes Equate Consequences With 'Cancel Culture' To Obscure That They're Finally Being Held Accountable
"and complained about some of what I originally submitted"
Can you tell us what they made you change and what their issues with the original were?
On the post: No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You see, I'm not actually as concerned with that. That part seems to be going away slowly, those people make up less and less of the U.S. every election.
what concerned me more is they aren't going to go quietly, and before that happens they are willing to subvert democracy to win and what I saw a system unable to deal with that problem
You were lucky enough that he leaked some evidence that he was trying to use the power of the presidency to subvert democracy, you even had one of the branches of government trying to expose him, but he was able to suppress everything because he had control of the justice department and intelligence communities and a large portion of the media. He and the senators all still had plausible deniability because Barr made sure we wouldn't get answers.
From what I saw the only thing that saved democracy was Trump's incompetence. He had the will and all the power needed to rig the elections in his favour, he could largely control both the ability to investigate any wrongdoing and the message that got to the people
all signs pointed that he was trying to do so, setting up the justice department and intelligence community as him personal propaganda machine, and working with foreign leaders to try to get their assistance falsifying information;
Elections were your only safeguard against election interference, nothing in the system could stop him and you just got lucky and he bungled it himself.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Surprised I didn't see the reason that jumps to mind for me.. Social Engineering attacks and identity theft.. If your real name is attached with all your comments that's now metadata attached together with your identity, just makes it easier for a malicious actor to pretend they are you
On the post: No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every system is around is an estimation and not "perfect democracy", so that doesn't surprise me at all.
I have a lot of family ties to the U.S. I wish I could trick myself into believing the whole problem is that small fraction of people between the popular vote and the electoral college. If you have a way to convince me I'm all ears.
On the post: No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might need to explain fourth-grade civics to me though, our system is different.. I'm just a guy from canada who balked when I saw your president fired the person in charge of investigating him and replaced him with a stooge who covered it up to the best of his ability.. But maybe I just don't understand and that isn't a problem
On the post: No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought it was obvious but I wasn't trying to make the claim that the electoral college system is a true full proper democratic representation and gives everyone a fair say or whatever blah blah, that's a whole separate horse that has been beaten to death already. It's what you have for your elections check right now regardless, it's never going to be perfect.
On the post: No, Revoking Section 230 Would Not 'Save Democracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's not anti-democratic, it's just a check against the will of the people?
Correct. meant like checking against an answer sheet. They are elected separately, the senate and president are in bed together because that's how the people voted.
Of course they did. The Senate has the power to launch investigations.
There already was an investigation. Launching one isn't an issue. Actually getting one performed without interference is. The resources with the capability to investigate and access to the info you need answer to the target.
The senate could tried to do another investigation, in our opinion they still had enough to go on that they should have done more, but they made all those calls on tainted information.
they could have called witnesses if they knew who to call, they could have tried to do independent investigation, with whatever resources and intel were given to them by the justice department under the president (more realistically the house also had the same options) but how much of an investigation can you do if you can't rely on Justice Department resources?
Next >>