First off, I honestly have no idea how to respond with the mental contortions that must be happening in order for these arguments to make sense. I've made the evidence and links as clear as day. Your and Paul's refusal to see that I've provided actual counter-arguments is on y'all. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his argument depends upon his not understanding it.
And really, you think Crowder is reprehensible? I bet you think Shapiro, or Peterson are also just as bad. Does that mean that you're one of those people who think that every joke about racism is inherently racist? Say goodbye to comedy people, the politically correct police are here! Say goodbye to hyperbole, oh wait, unless its BLM screaming for us to fry the pigs like bacon, or that covid hasn't killed nearly enough white men. Then it's acceptable hyperbole right? Jeeze you people have ZERO consistency.
As for this little gem you left,"If a 'left wing youtuber' is acting as reprehensibly as the examples you noted then they damn well should get the hammer too."
Amazing, and here i thought the horseshoe theory of ideologies had been debunked. Whatever happened to the liberal ideal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You. are. advocating. for. censorship. How in the holy hell can you consider that a good idea after the countless examples of how that goes horribly wrong on this blog alone? I guess neither of you agree with Masnik when he says that the solution to speech you don't like is more speech. Not very surprising, but certainly disappointing.
Still talking in circles without a hint of self-awareness, without addressing any of my rebuttals with any sort of substance, and continuing to make personal attacks. Buh bye.
I would, but every time I bother with you, you ignore my arguments and go straight to the character attack. I've rebutted your arguments multiple times, and you have consistently deflected my responses with personal attacks. To quote Bernard Shaw, "I learned long ago to never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
If you are actually serious- feel free to reread my comments and actually respond to them at face value. For example, the study that showed Facebook fact checkers were more than twice as likely to flag content from republican sources as from democrat. Such flagging reduces the chances of that content being seen, thus, censorship. The only reason I can think that you didn't respond to that specific issue is that you believe republicans are lying far more than democrats, and if you believe that, I have some nice coastal land in Florida I'll sell you for a song.
And that's just the first article. Your response to the Crowder article was similarly asinine. Basically saying, "He's a racist and homophobe because I read quotes from other liberals calling him one, so clearly he is." Why don't you do what you keep trying to insist I'm not doing and provide EVIDENCE for your baseless character attacks.
Unfortunately your argument is: "Several conservatives claim the liberal bias based on the fact that many areas of bigotry and outright racism now falls under the umbrella of what an increasing base of "conservatives" now call "conservative values".
Anyone with half a brain can translate that to "My political view is morally correct, yours is immoral."
I could go on an on about each of your arguments and how they just don't even bother to respond to the issue, but yea, let me refer you to the GBS quote above. But if you really insist on feeling morally righteous, go ahead and call all Republicans/conservatives liars, baskets of deplorables, racists and homophobes. See how far that gets you in the next election.
What I find hilarious is that my original statement wasn't even all that controversial. I said the issue of censorship was unsettled. That it wasn't as clear cut as is often implied here. I have clearly met that goal and then some. I was NOT claiming that conservatives are being systematically discriminated against, I wasn't claiming to have evidence of some massive conspiracy, just that there is a lot of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that supports the assertion that it ISN'T SO CLEAR CUT. But yea, go ahead and launch some more straw man arguments. I'll sit here laughing at the ridiculous levels of double think and mental gymnastics required.
I can agree with most of your assertions. A few quibbles:
"You realize that Obama was screaming about this back in 2009?"
I wouldn't say he screamed about it. he bitched and moaned for about 5 months, and then went ahead and put little to no actual effort behind it, ensuring that the needle never moved. That way he got to have his cake and eat it too- pretend he was being tough on China without any of the actual consequences...
"Let me posit an alternative suggestion to you; That any political and financial analyst worth their salt knows that there are no good options on the US table."
I never argued otherwise, and if it reads like I did, then I was unclear. I believe that in making it an actual issue, by forcing everyone to talk about it, and staying on point about it, Trump did us a better service than Obama did, especially as he was at least willing to recognize the harmful effects of TPP and the like, whereas Hillary was calling it the "gold standard". Of course Trump has failed in terms of the actual fallout, but as you say, it was a no-win situation to begin with. But better to start taking the medicine now than wait for the leg to fall off, which is definitely the way the politicians on both sides of the aisle were headed.
"And he made people aware they were on the brink by shoving them off it. That "silver lining" really isn't helpful."
I'd argue that people are more willing to take a bullet now than they were in the previous years, as evidenced by rural (Read: farmers) support for Trumps trade war, even as they recognize the damage it is doing directly to their bottom line.
Talking about the good effects of Trump's administration is like highlighting the positive that the Zodiac killer's murder spree provided much needed public safety awareness.
to take your analogy to its logical conclusion, talking about previous administrations (Bush, Obama) as if they were really all that much better is really putting lipstick on the murderous pig. (Extralegal drone killings of American citizens anyone?) Yea... Trump and his admin sucks, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of crying wolf at every single shitty think the Trump admin is responsible for. It diminishes our arguments when he really does go over the line. I'd definitely argue that the average American perspective shift on China is a good and important outcome of this admin.
Typical liberal illiberalism. My political point of view is morally correct, you are a racist, bigot, homophobe because you disagree. Great argument bud. Keep up those ad hominem attacks.
Wow. The vitriol. I guess that will teach me for trying to engage in a constructive manner. Thanks for diminishing my faith in humanity just a little bit more.
I love how you directly respond to my arguments with more personal attacks and deflections. Let's ignore the antifa's avocation of violence, BLM's fry em like bacon, and countless other examples. Ignore and nitpick the examples I provide, then claim I'm giving zero evidence. good one.
but seriously, don't bother responding. Cause I'm done with trying to have a constructive dialogue only to be shat on rather than taken seriously.
I make a fuller reply to Paul T. but I would appreciate it if you kept your attacks to attacks on logic rather than ad hominem bullshit.
And you obviously have never seen Crowders videos. The man is a professional troll, and his homophobic "slurs" were him acting as a shock jock. Give me one video link in which he is seriously racist/homophobic slurs and not being sarcastic/bombastic to make a point. Just one. Go ahead. Do your research.
as for conservative bias- allowing conservatives to get away with crap... , I get it- with a president just itching for an excuse to try and "crackdown", who is itching to point to liberal bias, I'd be cautious as fuck too. I'd bet dollars to donuts that fear disappears once Trump is out of office, and we start seeing more blatant attempts at censorship.
frankly, you do make some acceptable points, but the problem with them is that you can't prove a negative, especially with regard to your last paragraph. The fact is that both you and Paul are requiring a burden of proof that is pretty impossible to meet without millions of dollars available to do the actual digging. Why don't we lower it to the one i asked Paul. Give me 1 anecdotal example of a prominent (read: more than 150k followers) left wing youtuber experiencing what we see happening to the conservatives.
Responding to you, and "that one guy" cause im lazy and don't want to repeat myself.
I have to say, I'd expect more reasoned criticisms from Techdirt followers, rather than a bunch of ad-hominem attacks.
I actually don't like or approve of any of those right-wing voices. But I do believe in the principles of free speech, and as Masnik has so often stated, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not censoring speech.
And sure, it may be stretching the definition of the term to call demonitization censorship, but it is definitely making it harder, putting up additional roadblocks to them, nudging them towards not posting at all because of the hurdles put in place. If you have to complain and fight with youtube for every video you make... How could that not be seen as attempts to limit a person's speech...
Its annoying that people assume I actually belong to that crowd just because I defend them. Again, protections for free speech aren't about protecting popular speech.. which again, Masnik also says. But in your haste to attack me, you both seem to forget these principles.
It's clear that the opinion article I cited was for the study THEY cited. The other two are just the most famous/obvious examples. Arguing that there's no clear bias unless I can point to hundreds or thousands of individual bannings is ridiculous. You are setting the burden of proof so high that it would only be met by someone funded with a grant... Those two that i did cite were POPULAR conservative voices. What matters is their view count. If you consistently cherry pick the handful of popular accounts, you're doing way more damage than if you banned a hundred youtubers who had a hundred followers each...
Please- why don't we flip the tables; you accept the burden of proof and show me a single popular liberal voice who has been targeted in a similar way.
Ok. I'm confused. Please explain how none of them prove what I hoped...
How do you figure that none of these equal liberal bias? Conservative voices being moderated despite clear evidence that their content didn't violate the companies policies?
I don't disagree with the idea that the pandemic has had more of an impact in rethinking supply chains. I suppose I worded my argument poorly.
The attitude is what's important, and supply chains are really only a small part of that equation- what we should be thinking about is the common American perception of China, ideas about how we should view its actions, and how to respond. And for that, I thank Turnip Trump's aggressive stance.
Traditional foreign political thought was that as we embraced China on the global stage, it would become more democratic. The opposite has happened. And nobody- not Republicans, not Democrats wanted to face the juggernaut that China was becoming. Because it would mean a lot of short-term pain to wean ourselves of our dependence on them. It would be a fight that none of the politicians in power had the stomach for.
The question that faced Trump was, "Do we ignore Chinese provocations- attempts to steal technology, forced tech transfers, massive subsidies, manipulation of currency, attempts at global censorship, or do we take a stand?" Trump made a clear political calculation, throwing red meat to his base so to speak, but it was also the right call. It was the right call long-term economically, politically, and morally.
Why is it that he had to be the one to take that stand? Why didn't Obama do that? (and don't even get me started at what a half-assed attempt the pivot to the east was... good idea, but again, no political stomach for that particular battle. The avoidance of tough issues like supporting Taiwan and Hong Kong was shameful. Preaching engagement towards China over tough confrontations was pure cowardice, considering that China refused to play ball on that front in any way, using North Korea like a guard dog... You simply can't engage with them. (I speak as someone having lived there 5 of the last 9 years, and negotiations in good faith will never work considering the dynamics of their politics.)
Clearly, Biden and the establishment were happy for things to keep going the way they were. This is because they are in a protected industry, like lawyers and doctors. Nobody gave two craps about the average farmer/blue collar worker, as evidenced by everyone being all for trade deals like NAFTA which accelerated the outsourcing. (Remember how Hillary was in complete support when the TPP (which was a major part of the pivot to Asia) was being pushed through while she was Secretary of State , until Trump started focusing on it, showing how it was really bad for the average manual laborer in the USA? Then suddenly, she's against it? Wow... what a turnaround!)
And yea, Trump is an opportunist, and his desire to make a deal and look good means we probably won't see much meaningful action/results, but without him, our politicians would still be trying to ignore all their bullying and abusive behaviors rather than both Republicans and Democrats now uniting in saying that they have to be confronted.
Trump shone a spotlight on an issue that was long overdue for a re-evaluation, and so i say that yes, the trade war has done wonders. Its now in the public consciousness that china provides massive subsidies to important industries like solar tech or steel, putting American companies at a severe disadvantage. (yes, I know we subsidize our solar industry as well, but at an order of magnitude lower...) We all know about the Uighur crackdown and the genocide still happening as I write this. We know about the forced tech transfer, the outright government sponsored theft from private American companies. We now know how they are trying to bully other countries, create monopolies in important industries like the rare-earths, buy politicians all over the world, (think Hunter Biden, Australia) These are issues the average American was unaware of untilll.... Trump.
Here's a snippet from the link above.
"---as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements."
Beyond all of the above, I could give multiple specific examples where content created by conservative voices was deemed to be harassment, or threatening, but liberal voices calling for actual violence against their opponents weren't. The exact same kind of behavior on opposite sides of the political aisle, gets opposite results...
Yes, Youtube is a private company and can censor if they want to. That doesn't make it right. And no, please don't argue that demonetization isn't censorship- they are literally picking winners and losers. Along with that, they aren't allowing comments and a number of other features for many of these right wingers.
My point is simple. There is definitely evidence of bias playing out in social media- whether it is through the fact checkers or through the demonetization and restriction of users of their sites, or selective enforcement of their policies.
I know the refrain- content moderation is a b****, they are always going to get some things wrong, and I could certainly point out a few examples where the opposite is true as well, where extreme liberals were demonetized, but to argue that there isn't a clear slant seems.... willfully ignorant?
How many popular/famous left wing liberal youtubers do you hear about having to make their case in the court of public opinion in order to force the companies in question to change their restrictions/bannings? Yet somehow we mostly see it happening to right wingers? I consider myself a libertarian, so I expose myself to a number of views from both sides, (I'd highly recommend Contrapoints, for example) and so I don't believe I'm approaching this from as much of a bubble as others...
I love Techdirt. One of the reasons I love it is because it tends towards the apolitical- almost all of the posts are quite focused on the science and research and ignoring the political winds. Occasionally you can see some liberal bias such as when it is (often) claimed that conservative voices aren't being silenced on social media, which isn't nearly as settled or clean-cut as Techdirt writers like pretend it is, but overall, it's pretty neutral.
I take exception to the line about the trade war that it "isn't working, and is actually harming Americans." That's an incredible line considering that the actual article being linked specifically mentions how the trade war has caused us to rethink our global supply chains and our reliance on China. (among a few other positives) Even discounting the fact that someone needed to oppose China before they quite literally start bullying the entire world, that simple fact of rethinking global supply chains is a massive positive outcome of the trade war.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of Trump. But that paragraph is clearly designed for one thing- bashing Trump. Let's bash Trump for all the terrible, stupid crap he's actually done, and not fall into the liberal media trap of crying wolf at everything he does. Because I'd much rather have Trump's aggressive foreign policy against China (even though that means some real tough short-term consequences) than Biden's head-in-the-sand, "C'mon man, China's not our competitior..."
Saying that "Trumps real motivations lie elsewhere" is editorializing, pure and simple. I don't believe it belongs on Techdirt. Let's try and keep it clean people....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by greymatters.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
First off, I honestly have no idea how to respond with the mental contortions that must be happening in order for these arguments to make sense. I've made the evidence and links as clear as day. Your and Paul's refusal to see that I've provided actual counter-arguments is on y'all. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his argument depends upon his not understanding it.
And really, you think Crowder is reprehensible? I bet you think Shapiro, or Peterson are also just as bad. Does that mean that you're one of those people who think that every joke about racism is inherently racist? Say goodbye to comedy people, the politically correct police are here! Say goodbye to hyperbole, oh wait, unless its BLM screaming for us to fry the pigs like bacon, or that covid hasn't killed nearly enough white men. Then it's acceptable hyperbole right? Jeeze you people have ZERO consistency.
As for this little gem you left,"If a 'left wing youtuber' is acting as reprehensibly as the examples you noted then they damn well should get the hammer too."
Amazing, and here i thought the horseshoe theory of ideologies had been debunked. Whatever happened to the liberal ideal of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You. are. advocating. for. censorship. How in the holy hell can you consider that a good idea after the countless examples of how that goes horribly wrong on this blog alone? I guess neither of you agree with Masnik when he says that the solution to speech you don't like is more speech. Not very surprising, but certainly disappointing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
must be nice living in fantasy land.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Nice. To quote Jake Peralta, "Ya boring."
Still talking in circles without a hint of self-awareness, without addressing any of my rebuttals with any sort of substance, and continuing to make personal attacks. Buh bye.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
I would, but every time I bother with you, you ignore my arguments and go straight to the character attack. I've rebutted your arguments multiple times, and you have consistently deflected my responses with personal attacks. To quote Bernard Shaw, "I learned long ago to never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
If you are actually serious- feel free to reread my comments and actually respond to them at face value. For example, the study that showed Facebook fact checkers were more than twice as likely to flag content from republican sources as from democrat. Such flagging reduces the chances of that content being seen, thus, censorship. The only reason I can think that you didn't respond to that specific issue is that you believe republicans are lying far more than democrats, and if you believe that, I have some nice coastal land in Florida I'll sell you for a song.
And that's just the first article. Your response to the Crowder article was similarly asinine. Basically saying, "He's a racist and homophobe because I read quotes from other liberals calling him one, so clearly he is." Why don't you do what you keep trying to insist I'm not doing and provide EVIDENCE for your baseless character attacks.
Unfortunately your argument is: "Several conservatives claim the liberal bias based on the fact that many areas of bigotry and outright racism now falls under the umbrella of what an increasing base of "conservatives" now call "conservative values".
Anyone with half a brain can translate that to "My political view is morally correct, yours is immoral."
I could go on an on about each of your arguments and how they just don't even bother to respond to the issue, but yea, let me refer you to the GBS quote above. But if you really insist on feeling morally righteous, go ahead and call all Republicans/conservatives liars, baskets of deplorables, racists and homophobes. See how far that gets you in the next election.
What I find hilarious is that my original statement wasn't even all that controversial. I said the issue of censorship was unsettled. That it wasn't as clear cut as is often implied here. I have clearly met that goal and then some. I was NOT claiming that conservatives are being systematically discriminated against, I wasn't claiming to have evidence of some massive conspiracy, just that there is a lot of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that supports the assertion that it ISN'T SO CLEAR CUT. But yea, go ahead and launch some more straw man arguments. I'll sit here laughing at the ridiculous levels of double think and mental gymnastics required.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The trade war isn't working?
I can agree with most of your assertions. A few quibbles:
"You realize that Obama was screaming about this back in 2009?"
I wouldn't say he screamed about it. he bitched and moaned for about 5 months, and then went ahead and put little to no actual effort behind it, ensuring that the needle never moved. That way he got to have his cake and eat it too- pretend he was being tough on China without any of the actual consequences...
"Let me posit an alternative suggestion to you; That any political and financial analyst worth their salt knows that there are no good options on the US table."
I never argued otherwise, and if it reads like I did, then I was unclear. I believe that in making it an actual issue, by forcing everyone to talk about it, and staying on point about it, Trump did us a better service than Obama did, especially as he was at least willing to recognize the harmful effects of TPP and the like, whereas Hillary was calling it the "gold standard". Of course Trump has failed in terms of the actual fallout, but as you say, it was a no-win situation to begin with. But better to start taking the medicine now than wait for the leg to fall off, which is definitely the way the politicians on both sides of the aisle were headed.
"And he made people aware they were on the brink by shoving them off it. That "silver lining" really isn't helpful."
I'd argue that people are more willing to take a bullet now than they were in the previous years, as evidenced by rural (Read: farmers) support for Trumps trade war, even as they recognize the damage it is doing directly to their bottom line.
Talking about the good effects of Trump's administration is like highlighting the positive that the Zodiac killer's murder spree provided much needed public safety awareness.
to take your analogy to its logical conclusion, talking about previous administrations (Bush, Obama) as if they were really all that much better is really putting lipstick on the murderous pig. (Extralegal drone killings of American citizens anyone?) Yea... Trump and his admin sucks, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of crying wolf at every single shitty think the Trump admin is responsible for. It diminishes our arguments when he really does go over the line. I'd definitely argue that the average American perspective shift on China is a good and important outcome of this admin.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Typical liberal illiberalism. My political point of view is morally correct, you are a racist, bigot, homophobe because you disagree. Great argument bud. Keep up those ad hominem attacks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Wow. The vitriol. I guess that will teach me for trying to engage in a constructive manner. Thanks for diminishing my faith in humanity just a little bit more.
I love how you directly respond to my arguments with more personal attacks and deflections. Let's ignore the antifa's avocation of violence, BLM's fry em like bacon, and countless other examples. Ignore and nitpick the examples I provide, then claim I'm giving zero evidence. good one.
but seriously, don't bother responding. Cause I'm done with trying to have a constructive dialogue only to be shat on rather than taken seriously.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
I make a fuller reply to Paul T. but I would appreciate it if you kept your attacks to attacks on logic rather than ad hominem bullshit.
And you obviously have never seen Crowders videos. The man is a professional troll, and his homophobic "slurs" were him acting as a shock jock. Give me one video link in which he is seriously racist/homophobic slurs and not being sarcastic/bombastic to make a point. Just one. Go ahead. Do your research.
as for conservative bias- allowing conservatives to get away with crap... , I get it- with a president just itching for an excuse to try and "crackdown", who is itching to point to liberal bias, I'd be cautious as fuck too. I'd bet dollars to donuts that fear disappears once Trump is out of office, and we start seeing more blatant attempts at censorship.
frankly, you do make some acceptable points, but the problem with them is that you can't prove a negative, especially with regard to your last paragraph. The fact is that both you and Paul are requiring a burden of proof that is pretty impossible to meet without millions of dollars available to do the actual digging. Why don't we lower it to the one i asked Paul. Give me 1 anecdotal example of a prominent (read: more than 150k followers) left wing youtuber experiencing what we see happening to the conservatives.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Responding to you, and "that one guy" cause im lazy and don't want to repeat myself.
I have to say, I'd expect more reasoned criticisms from Techdirt followers, rather than a bunch of ad-hominem attacks.
I actually don't like or approve of any of those right-wing voices. But I do believe in the principles of free speech, and as Masnik has so often stated, the solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not censoring speech.
And sure, it may be stretching the definition of the term to call demonitization censorship, but it is definitely making it harder, putting up additional roadblocks to them, nudging them towards not posting at all because of the hurdles put in place. If you have to complain and fight with youtube for every video you make... How could that not be seen as attempts to limit a person's speech...
Its annoying that people assume I actually belong to that crowd just because I defend them. Again, protections for free speech aren't about protecting popular speech.. which again, Masnik also says. But in your haste to attack me, you both seem to forget these principles.
It's clear that the opinion article I cited was for the study THEY cited. The other two are just the most famous/obvious examples. Arguing that there's no clear bias unless I can point to hundreds or thousands of individual bannings is ridiculous. You are setting the burden of proof so high that it would only be met by someone funded with a grant... Those two that i did cite were POPULAR conservative voices. What matters is their view count. If you consistently cherry pick the handful of popular accounts, you're doing way more damage than if you banned a hundred youtubers who had a hundred followers each...
Please- why don't we flip the tables; you accept the burden of proof and show me a single popular liberal voice who has been targeted in a similar way.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Ok. I'm confused. Please explain how none of them prove what I hoped...
How do you figure that none of these equal liberal bias? Conservative voices being moderated despite clear evidence that their content didn't violate the companies policies?
Re: Re: The trade war isn't working?
I don't disagree with the idea that the pandemic has had more of an impact in rethinking supply chains. I suppose I worded my argument poorly.
The attitude is what's important, and supply chains are really only a small part of that equation- what we should be thinking about is the common American perception of China, ideas about how we should view its actions, and how to respond. And for that, I thank Turnip Trump's aggressive stance.
Traditional foreign political thought was that as we embraced China on the global stage, it would become more democratic. The opposite has happened. And nobody- not Republicans, not Democrats wanted to face the juggernaut that China was becoming. Because it would mean a lot of short-term pain to wean ourselves of our dependence on them. It would be a fight that none of the politicians in power had the stomach for.
The question that faced Trump was, "Do we ignore Chinese provocations- attempts to steal technology, forced tech transfers, massive subsidies, manipulation of currency, attempts at global censorship, or do we take a stand?" Trump made a clear political calculation, throwing red meat to his base so to speak, but it was also the right call. It was the right call long-term economically, politically, and morally.
Why is it that he had to be the one to take that stand? Why didn't Obama do that? (and don't even get me started at what a half-assed attempt the pivot to the east was... good idea, but again, no political stomach for that particular battle. The avoidance of tough issues like supporting Taiwan and Hong Kong was shameful. Preaching engagement towards China over tough confrontations was pure cowardice, considering that China refused to play ball on that front in any way, using North Korea like a guard dog... You simply can't engage with them. (I speak as someone having lived there 5 of the last 9 years, and negotiations in good faith will never work considering the dynamics of their politics.)
Clearly, Biden and the establishment were happy for things to keep going the way they were. This is because they are in a protected industry, like lawyers and doctors. Nobody gave two craps about the average farmer/blue collar worker, as evidenced by everyone being all for trade deals like NAFTA which accelerated the outsourcing. (Remember how Hillary was in complete support when the TPP (which was a major part of the pivot to Asia) was being pushed through while she was Secretary of State , until Trump started focusing on it, showing how it was really bad for the average manual laborer in the USA? Then suddenly, she's against it? Wow... what a turnaround!)
And yea, Trump is an opportunist, and his desire to make a deal and look good means we probably won't see much meaningful action/results, but without him, our politicians would still be trying to ignore all their bullying and abusive behaviors rather than both Republicans and Democrats now uniting in saying that they have to be confronted.
Trump shone a spotlight on an issue that was long overdue for a re-evaluation, and so i say that yes, the trade war has done wonders. Its now in the public consciousness that china provides massive subsidies to important industries like solar tech or steel, putting American companies at a severe disadvantage. (yes, I know we subsidize our solar industry as well, but at an order of magnitude lower...) We all know about the Uighur crackdown and the genocide still happening as I write this. We know about the forced tech transfer, the outright government sponsored theft from private American companies. We now know how they are trying to bully other countries, create monopolies in important industries like the rare-earths, buy politicians all over the world, (think Hunter Biden, Australia) These are issues the average American was unaware of untilll.... Trump.
Re: Hitchen's Razor
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/447145-youtube-demonetizes-conservative-commentator-after-sayi ng-he-didnt-violate
https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-prageru-first-amendm ent-2020-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact -checkers-biased-against-republicans
Here's a snippet from the link above.
"---as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements."
Beyond all of the above, I could give multiple specific examples where content created by conservative voices was deemed to be harassment, or threatening, but liberal voices calling for actual violence against their opponents weren't. The exact same kind of behavior on opposite sides of the political aisle, gets opposite results...
Yes, Youtube is a private company and can censor if they want to. That doesn't make it right. And no, please don't argue that demonetization isn't censorship- they are literally picking winners and losers. Along with that, they aren't allowing comments and a number of other features for many of these right wingers.
My point is simple. There is definitely evidence of bias playing out in social media- whether it is through the fact checkers or through the demonetization and restriction of users of their sites, or selective enforcement of their policies.
I know the refrain- content moderation is a b****, they are always going to get some things wrong, and I could certainly point out a few examples where the opposite is true as well, where extreme liberals were demonetized, but to argue that there isn't a clear slant seems.... willfully ignorant?
How many popular/famous left wing liberal youtubers do you hear about having to make their case in the court of public opinion in order to force the companies in question to change their restrictions/bannings? Yet somehow we mostly see it happening to right wingers? I consider myself a libertarian, so I expose myself to a number of views from both sides, (I'd highly recommend Contrapoints, for example) and so I don't believe I'm approaching this from as much of a bubble as others...
The trade war isn't working?
I love Techdirt. One of the reasons I love it is because it tends towards the apolitical- almost all of the posts are quite focused on the science and research and ignoring the political winds. Occasionally you can see some liberal bias such as when it is (often) claimed that conservative voices aren't being silenced on social media, which isn't nearly as settled or clean-cut as Techdirt writers like pretend it is, but overall, it's pretty neutral.
I take exception to the line about the trade war that it "isn't working, and is actually harming Americans." That's an incredible line considering that the actual article being linked specifically mentions how the trade war has caused us to rethink our global supply chains and our reliance on China. (among a few other positives) Even discounting the fact that someone needed to oppose China before they quite literally start bullying the entire world, that simple fact of rethinking global supply chains is a massive positive outcome of the trade war.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of Trump. But that paragraph is clearly designed for one thing- bashing Trump. Let's bash Trump for all the terrible, stupid crap he's actually done, and not fall into the liberal media trap of crying wolf at everything he does. Because I'd much rather have Trump's aggressive foreign policy against China (even though that means some real tough short-term consequences) than Biden's head-in-the-sand, "C'mon man, China's not our competitior..."
Saying that "Trumps real motivations lie elsewhere" is editorializing, pure and simple. I don't believe it belongs on Techdirt. Let's try and keep it clean people....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by greymatters.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt