This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 23 Aug 2018 @ 11:54am
The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
I notice that nobody has talked about Obama's war on journalism aside from the token statement in the article itself:
"Trump inherited Obama's unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers who give information to the media..."
Once again proving the small minded short sighted nature of the dumb mob. Left, Right, Center, doesn't matter...
When Obama, and his cronies, destroyed Journalistic freedom and integrity by schmoozing journalists who played ball, ostracizing, assassinating, or jailing those who did not, and creating a system by which his administrations scandals were sold to the highest bidder, for the small sum of not reporting on anything until such time as none of the crimes committed mattered.
A few examples: 1. Politico's article on the Obama administration allowing hezbollah to sell cocaine and destroying the DOJ investigation. Why didn't Politico print this story when it mattered, and not a year after Obama had left office?
2. Michael Hastings Assassination
With that said, just because that crook Obama did it, DOES NOT excuse Trump, however, nobody can blame Trump for his actions in regards to the media.
Which has been in a literal collective psychotic breakdown since he was elected.
Perhaps if the media wants to be treated honorably, they should endeavor to act honorably.
That means not hiring former CIA agents like MSNBC, and covering stories of actual political corruption, not Trumps romantic relations with some slut bag porn star.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 21 Aug 2018 @ 9:14pm
Ajit Pai lied about being hacked, right?
Well, this is insane. So the FCC LIED about being hacked and that was the reason that Ajit Pai used to ignore overwhelming criticism, then why are we still here yacking?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 21 Aug 2018 @ 9:10pm
Re: Re: HEY, why weren't "platforms" controlling speech from the start?
That sounds like a logical conclusion to me, and would be the basis for a solid law suit by Alex Jones.
The fact that they don't enforce their terms equally AND the fact that they did not enforce their terms AT ALL for YEARS means that their current de-platforming event could be illegal.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 21 Aug 2018 @ 8:58pm
Re: YET you tacitly state that Google, Facebook, Twitter colluded
Yes, that is exactly what happened. This is verbatim quote from a noted researcher and investigative journalist, me:
Newly leaked confidential Media Matters / Soros policy memos reveal that the recent de-platforming of Alex Jones and others are just a small part of a larger effort to destroy free speech and replace it with a bastardized corporate controlled shit show:
"In the next four years, Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing misinformation...
"....Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists..."
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 21 Aug 2018 @ 8:56pm
I agree. But let's talk about what really happened
Great article Mike! However, that theoretical third party you speak of, well, that's only going to make it easier to hijack and control speech.
Now I'm not jacking your topic, no pun intended, but let's talk about the big obese elephant in the room first, and that's the recent coordinated de-platforming of Alex Jones.
Newly leaked confidential Media Matters / Soros policy memos reveal that the recent de-platforming of Alex Jones and others are just a small part of a larger effort to destroy free speech and replace it with a bastardized corporate controlled shit show:
"In the next four years, Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing misinformation...
"....Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists..."
So basically we already have a conspiracy led by a corrupt un-elected billionaire to control and direct speech in this country through coordinated effort of several of the largest internet companies.
My Point?!?!?
The amount of pressure, effort, internal apparatchiks, and political gymnastics involved in pulling this off is again nothing short of brilliant. Again, I have nothing but admiration for George Soros and his "open" foundation organizations ability to subvert and manipulate society to his own twisted will.
HOWEVER, what you propose is basically, consolidating and centralizing a system which could be a shared objective resource which these companies would defer to in the future when it comes to content moderation. I admire you Mike, and your idealistic disregard of reality. Unfortunately, intentional or not, all you are going to achieve is to make it easier to destroy practical access to speech and information.
Sorry to rain on your gay parade, but history shows that centralization of power never increases freedom.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 20 Aug 2018 @ 6:31pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes Mike, a platform is allowed to remove spam.
Now what does that have to do with the principle of Freedom of Speech in the digital Speakers' Corner?
Spam is not speech, and enforcing a policy of ZERO moderation (aside from spam obviously, like duh...) DOES NOT imply a company's tacit association or support of whatever speech occurs on that platform.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 20 Aug 2018 @ 3:03pm
Re: Re:
Yes much of Mike's article contains impartial legalistic facts, but it starts with the normative expression "Phew." implying his tacit approval of a sick twisted legal philosophy defending the rights of corporate oligarchs to determine speech.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 20 Aug 2018 @ 2:57pm
Re:
You are digging the same cadet-level latrine with your combination: 'who watches the watchers / resource expenditure' style argument.
1. the resources expended in "hosting" this content are so low as to be negligible, so really this is a non-sequitur red herring.
2. The beauty and elegance of free speech is that it does not require a committee of power hungry social rejects to wring their hands over what people are and are not allowed to think, say or believe. You just let them do it. (oooh scary!)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 20 Aug 2018 @ 2:28pm
Re: Re:
"we end up with LESS free speech, because any platform would automatically be overrun by spam and nonsense,"
...oh mike. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
....because I think far too highly of you, I'm just going to ignore this statement and pretend like it never happened: You know very well this is an edge case which has no bearing on the primary argument.
"...you have the right NOT to associate with things you don't like. And thus, not host the content you dislike."
Sorry, but flailing stock price or not, Twitter has grown too large to allow an unelected, slovenly dressed CEO to determine what is or is not allowed to be said.
Keeping a digital public square free from moderation, and a safe-space for FREEDOM OF SPEECH is NOT the same as "associating" with views on it you disagree with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 20 Aug 2018 @ 11:38am
Re: Re:
Please, PLEASE, try to actually read what is being written, THEN this is the important part, take a moment to actually COMPREHEND what is being said:
Once a digital platform becomes a certain size, it is no longer "just a private company" but a public digital space, and as such, subject to Federal Laws and Rights such as the freedom of digital citizenry to assemble and speak.
Your simplistic conclusions don't work in the real world. If we followed your infantile philosophy we would all still be working in corporate towns run and governed by corrupt corporations:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Sayonara Felicia-San (profile), 20 Aug 2018 @ 11:30am
Re: Re:
Yes. Exactly. And thus should default to the values enshrined in the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: The predictable Obama id it first thread
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
"Trump inherited Obama's unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers who give information to the media..."
Once again proving the small minded short sighted nature of the dumb mob. Left, Right, Center, doesn't matter...
When Obama, and his cronies, destroyed Journalistic freedom and integrity by schmoozing journalists who played ball, ostracizing, assassinating, or jailing those who did not, and creating a system by which his administrations scandals were sold to the highest bidder, for the small sum of not reporting on anything until such time as none of the crimes committed mattered.
A few examples:
1. Politico's article on the Obama administration allowing hezbollah to sell cocaine and destroying the DOJ investigation. Why didn't Politico print this story when it mattered, and not a year after Obama had left office?
2. Michael Hastings Assassination
With that said, just because that crook Obama did it, DOES NOT excuse Trump, however, nobody can blame Trump for his actions in regards to the media.
Which has been in a literal collective psychotic breakdown since he was elected.
Perhaps if the media wants to be treated honorably, they should endeavor to act honorably.
That means not hiring former CIA agents like MSNBC, and covering stories of actual political corruption, not Trumps romantic relations with some slut bag porn star.
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
Re: Re: I agree. But let's talk about what really happened
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
Re:
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
Re:
I provided proof. Your bizarre retort only fools the most stupid and ignorant.
The so called "scribd link" is actually a link to a pdf file from Media Matters. Scribd is a document hosting company. Nice try though.
You've lost all credibility by attacking 'the link' and there is no point in continuing any further discourse.
On the post: 23 Attorneys General Urge Appeals Court To Restore Net Neutrality
Ajit Pai lied about being hacked, right?
Ajit Pai knew DDoS claim was false in January, says he couldn’t tell Congress | Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/ajit-pai-knew-ddos-claim-was-false-in-january-says-he-co uldnt-tell-congress/
Shouldn't net neutrality be re-instated immediately and the process started over from the beginning?
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
Re: Re: HEY, why weren't "platforms" controlling speech from the start?
The fact that they don't enforce their terms equally AND the fact that they did not enforce their terms AT ALL for YEARS means that their current de-platforming event could be illegal.
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
Re: YET you tacitly state that Google, Facebook, Twitter colluded
Newly leaked confidential Media Matters / Soros policy memos reveal that the recent de-platforming of Alex Jones and others are just a small part of a larger effort to destroy free speech and replace it with a bastardized corporate controlled shit show:
"In the next four years, Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing misinformation...
"....Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists..."
https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fig hting-Trump#from_embed
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
I agree. But let's talk about what really happened
Now I'm not jacking your topic, no pun intended, but let's talk about the big obese elephant in the room first, and that's the recent coordinated de-platforming of Alex Jones.
Newly leaked confidential Media Matters / Soros policy memos reveal that the recent de-platforming of Alex Jones and others are just a small part of a larger effort to destroy free speech and replace it with a bastardized corporate controlled shit show:
"In the next four years, Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing misinformation...
"....Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists..."
https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fig hting-Trump#from_embed
So basically we already have a conspiracy led by a corrupt un-elected billionaire to control and direct speech in this country through coordinated effort of several of the largest internet companies.
My Point?!?!?
The amount of pressure, effort, internal apparatchiks, and political gymnastics involved in pulling this off is again nothing short of brilliant. Again, I have nothing but admiration for George Soros and his "open" foundation organizations ability to subvert and manipulate society to his own twisted will.
HOWEVER, what you propose is basically, consolidating and centralizing a system which could be a shared objective resource which these companies would defer to in the future when it comes to content moderation. I admire you Mike, and your idealistic disregard of reality. Unfortunately, intentional or not, all you are going to achieve is to make it easier to destroy practical access to speech and information.
Sorry to rain on your gay parade, but history shows that centralization of power never increases freedom.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now what does that have to do with the principle of Freedom of Speech in the digital Speakers' Corner?
Spam is not speech, and enforcing a policy of ZERO moderation (aside from spam obviously, like duh...) DOES NOT imply a company's tacit association or support of whatever speech occurs on that platform.
On the post: As Press Freedom Dies In Turkey, Twitter Is There To Help Dig Its Grave
At least they are consistent...
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re:
1. the resources expended in "hosting" this content are so low as to be negligible, so really this is a non-sequitur red herring.
2. The beauty and elegance of free speech is that it does not require a committee of power hungry social rejects to wring their hands over what people are and are not allowed to think, say or believe. You just let them do it. (oooh scary!)
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re:
...oh mike. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
....because I think far too highly of you, I'm just going to ignore this statement and pretend like it never happened: You know very well this is an edge case which has no bearing on the primary argument.
"...you have the right NOT to associate with things you don't like. And thus, not host the content you dislike."
Sorry, but flailing stock price or not, Twitter has grown too large to allow an unelected, slovenly dressed CEO to determine what is or is not allowed to be said.
Keeping a digital public square free from moderation, and a safe-space for FREEDOM OF SPEECH is NOT the same as "associating" with views on it you disagree with.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: A Moral View...
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re:
Once a digital platform becomes a certain size, it is no longer "just a private company" but a public digital space, and as such, subject to Federal Laws and Rights such as the freedom of digital citizenry to assemble and speak.
Your simplistic conclusions don't work in the real world. If we followed your infantile philosophy we would all still be working in corporate towns run and governed by corrupt corporations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#Pullman_lesson
please go learn some history, and put away the Reason magazine.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And please don't bother me with your silly "at what size does a private company become a public space" hokum."
That's for a rational committee of thought leaders and policy experts to decide.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Twitter Can Kick Racists Off Its Platform
Re: Re:
In the real world companies grow too large and must beaten down before they exact their detrimental impact on society.
I'm not interested in your CATO Institute childish drivel. We're talking about an adult topic, with adult consequences.
Next >>