(09-13-2018 05:46 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 05:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  How can it be against the 1st amendment for President Trump to block people from interacting with his account, but it be perfectly okay for twitter to prevent Alex Jones (or anyone else they've permanently banned) from having a twitter account?

Because Trump is the government, and Twitter is a business. There are vast and well understood differences in the application of the First Amendment between the two.

Weak argument, and I don't think you even answered the question. It was ruled that President Trump's twitter account is a public forum, and twitter is preventing people from interacting with said public forum. Period.

Quote:Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, addressing a novel issue about how the Constitution applies to social media platforms and public officials, found that the president’s Twitter feed is a public forum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/busin...block.html

(09-13-2018 06:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Weak argument, and I don't think you even answered the question. It was ruled that President Trump's twitter account is a public forum, and twitter is preventing people from interacting with said public forum. Period.

OK. Let's bring the full force of the US government down on a private business. Sounds good. We should all look forward to the results of this crackdown.

Trust the Government to protect you, Citizen.

(09-13-2018 06:07 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 06:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Weak argument, and I don't think you even answered the question. It was ruled that President Trump's twitter account is a public forum, and twitter is preventing people from interacting with said public forum. Period.

OK. Let's bring the full force of the US government down on a private business. Sounds good. We should all look forward to the results of this crackdown.

Trust the Government to protect you, Citizen.

When they're brazenly violating the law and manipulating public discourse to their political benefit, absolutely.

(09-13-2018 01:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I know why we want to do this. Yet, I am just not sure I want the government mucking around with private businesses.

I don't know why we want to do this and yes, the government should **** off and leave business alone.

(09-13-2018 04:59 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:49 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Pick one.

The most powerful word in the free market is “no”. So if we pick lawsuits then we need to be prepared to live by those rules when the tide turns.

The tide turned a long time ago and the left used lawsuits to overrule the voters.

Heck, it wasn't that long ago that state after state after state (yes, even California) voters chose to protect marriage. Judges overturned the voice of the people.

Now, the tide has turned back.

The idea of us having to live by something we might not like at some point in the future doesn't scare me. I've been living under for decades.

Your warning was more apropos for the left back when they started to govern by judicial activism.

(09-13-2018 05:46 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 05:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  How can it be against the 1st amendment for President Trump to block people from interacting with his account, but it be perfectly okay for twitter to prevent Alex Jones (or anyone else they've permanently banned) from having a twitter account?

Because Trump is the government, and Twitter is a business. There are vast and well understood differences in the application of the First Amendment between the two.

No, Trump is not the government.

You are the government. I am the government.

Of the people, by the people, for the people...

(09-13-2018 06:30 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I know why we want to do this. Yet, I am just not sure I want the government mucking around with private businesses.

I don't know why we want to do this and yes, the government should **** off and leave business alone.

They’re breaking the law.

Resident “principled conservatives” (read: suckers) don’t believe in enforcing the law if it hinders muh private companies, companies that absolutely despise you and if left alone, hope to manipulate the public discourse into destroying your way of life. Companies that produce absolutely nothing, built themselves on being free and open, and are now using the power they gained through misplaced trust to give unthinkable amounts of in-kind contributions to democrats, silence/ban their opposition, and sell all your data to the Chinese government. Lol

But you keep white knighting for them.

Alex. Donnie. Imagine my shock that now principles is a dirty word to you.

Look, if I own a forum, and have in my ToS not to post links to hate speech, terror websites or fake conspiracy websites? And you break the rules? You would get banned from the site. What Alex Jones and them have violated the ToS for years. The companies have finally caught up to them. Since Twitter did not banned or blocked people from Trump's account. It was Trump himself who actually violated the 1st Amendment rights of the people. He is the leader of this country, and as part of the government, Trump can not block or banned people, or disrupt or destroy news media like he is doing now.

(09-13-2018 09:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 04:59 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:49 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Pick one.

The most powerful word in the free market is “no”. So if we pick lawsuits then we need to be prepared to live by those rules when the tide turns.

The tide turned a long time ago and the left used lawsuits to overrule the voters.

Heck, it wasn't that long ago that state after state after state (yes, even California) voters chose to protect marriage. Judges overturned the voice of the people.

Now, the tide has turned back.

The idea of us having to live by something we might not like at some point in the future doesn't scare me. I've been living under for decades.

Your warning was more apropos for the left back when they started to govern by judicial activism.

well stated indeed...

the times.....they are a changin'....

this is fight fire with more firepower time before it becomes too late....

#keepthepussyinthebox

(09-17-2018 03:12 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Look, if I own a forum, and have in my ToS not to post links to hate speech, terror websites or fake conspiracy websites? And you break the rules? You would get banned from the site. What Alex Jones and them have violated the ToS for years. The companies have finally caught up to them. Since Twitter did not banned or blocked people from Trump's account. It was Trump himself who actually violated the 1st Amendment rights of the people. He is the leader of this country, and as part of the government, Trump can not block or banned people, or disrupt or destroy news media like he is doing now.

do you realize how pathetic that argument is.......oopsy (rhetorical)

you won't understand that either....

if you want to play on the diamond, you need to be able to swing and catch.....

only being able to catch is a serious flaw..............capiche? (rhetorical again)

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/edit...come_clean

The obvious thought of people not in the echo chamber is why this is being discussed at a business meeting. And it is clearly bullying aimed at Trump voters (maybe they presumed they had avoided hiring any).


"We always knew that progressive culture ruled the halls of big tech companies but it is still shocking to witness it in action.

A video leaked to the website Breitbart shows a meeting of Google executives and employees from 2016 shortly after the presidential election. Needless to say, the election of Donald Trump had made them very, very upset....

VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker suggested Trump voters were motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”

In a profoundly pathetic moment, a Google employee implored some of the gathered to improve themselves, saying, “Speaking to white men, there’s an opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege. Go through the bias-busting training, read about privilege, read about the real history of oppression in our country. … Discuss the issues you are passionate about during Thanksgiving dinner and don’t back down and laugh it off when you hear the voice of oppression speak through metaphors.” The room erupted in applause.

The video is very enlightening and shows the perils of progressive echo chambers in which no divergent thought is accepted."

(09-17-2018 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/edit...come_clean

The obvious thought of people not in the echo chamber is why this is being discussed at a business meeting. And it is clearly bullying aimed at Trump voters (maybe they presumed they had avoided hiring any).


"We always knew that progressive culture ruled the halls of big tech companies but it is still shocking to witness it in action.

A video leaked to the website Breitbart shows a meeting of Google executives and employees from 2016 shortly after the presidential election. Needless to say, the election of Donald Trump had made them very, very upset....

VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker suggested Trump voters were motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”

In a profoundly pathetic moment, a Google employee implored some of the gathered to improve themselves, saying, “Speaking to white men, there’s an opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege. Go through the bias-busting training, read about privilege, read about the real history of oppression in our country. … Discuss the issues you are passionate about during Thanksgiving dinner and don’t back down and laugh it off when you hear the voice of oppression speak through metaphors.” The room erupted in applause.

The video is very enlightening and shows the perils of progressive echo chambers in which no divergent thought is accepted."

What about when one of the employees came forward and asked about fake news (defined as anything they disagree with), and how it was being used to influence elections (defined as it being unacceptable if the opposition wins), and what Google can do to *fix* the problem.

And instead of rejecting it as a horrible idea, the Google CEO basically said, "Yeah, we're working on it, but the tech isn't quite there yet."

Then adds that their investments in machine learning and A.I. is the BIG OPPORTUNITY there, and once technology advances, they'll be able to control information and get the election results they want, with "real news".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlGHFvHrJSU&t=54m45s

Quote:The White House is considering a draft executive order for President Donald Trump that would instruct federal antitrust and law enforcement agencies to open probes into the practices of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc., and other social media companies.

Bloomberg News obtained a draft of the order, which a White House official said was in its early stages and hasn’t been run past other government agencies.

(09-13-2018 01:49 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I know why we want to do this. Yet, I am just not sure I want the government mucking around with private businesses.

All I'm asking for is current law to be enforced. Twitter and Facebook in particular describe themselves as neutral forums under Section 230 of the CDA, where they are allowed immunity from the content posted on their platforms.

Whenever they start shadow banning and editorializing, they become publishers and lose immunity.

They can either go back to what they were founded on (free and open), or become like the NYT and be held liable for everything that is posted on their platforms, opening them up to hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits.

Pick one.

And we need to look at anti-trust. Does Google essentially control on-line ads?

And you certainly can't be against Kronke's suggestion which is simply applying the same laws as newspapers face. If they are going to edit, then they need to edit all the way and be responsible for child porn and violent organizing and other stuff happening on their sites.

Right now they pretend to be a free carrier which exempts them from responsibility.

And they also need more transparency on their practices. Let consumers know what their rules are. That's what every responsible business and organization does.

I do not see any anti-trust issues with any of these companies. Trump is doing this as a dictator forcing free corporations to bend over to kiss his behind and do his bidding.

(09-12-2018 10:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 08:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 01:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Government over reach on Sessions Part. Google(Youtube, Google search, Google Plus), Facebook and Twitter do have competition.

Kongregate, Myspace, Armor, Reverbation, MyYearbook, Daily Motion, Twitch, Veoh, tubi.tv, Tagged, Kano Apps, Bing, Yahoo, Dogpile, DuckDuckGo, Bleckko, boardreader, ccsearch, Technorati, Reddit, and so forth. There are social media sites for adults looking for others to date, and there used to be a site called Camospace.

Whose job is it then, if not the government?

Anti-trust is like you have a company that have no competition. NCAA is like that when you do not allow some schools to compete for a FBS championship. In the Social Media world, all these online companies can compete to be number 1. MySpace was number 1, but Facebook took over. So, there are other players out there. Plus, like I said before, they banned lefties as well that used something that iolate the TOS. As it is, this forum is also considered a social network. Voyforums, Proboards, Yahoo Groups,Wordpress, Pintrist, Instagram, and others. The people that have been banned could use this and tell Sessions that the board's owner and the mods Violated their 1st Amendment Rights. This could open a big can of worms when you get feds coming in here and disrupt the business of this forum.

I understand anti-trust. I worked for one of the biggest monopolies this country has ever seen. You don't have to control 100% of something to be guilty of anti-trust violations.

You have a curious mindset...

(09-13-2018 01:33 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:55 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:02 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 01:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Government over reach on Sessions Part. Google(Youtube, Google search, Google Plus), Facebook and Twitter do have competition.

Kongregate, Myspace, Armor, Reverbation, MyYearbook, Daily Motion, Twitch, Veoh, tubi.tv, Tagged, Kano Apps, Bing, Yahoo, Dogpile, DuckDuckGo, Bleckko, boardreader, ccsearch, Technorati, Reddit, and so forth. There are social media sites for adults looking for others to date, and there used to be a site called Camospace.

Several social media sites appear to have coordinated a removal of various people.

While collusion may be legal in the Middle East, it's not legal here.

And I believe the article says they may be exploring it. If there's a valid case, then it's not over reach. If there's not a valid case, then we'll see if they take any action at all.

That is not true. These same people got banned from many sites. Not from who the feds are doing is nothing but a witch hunt.

Help me out with that last sentence.

The witch feds were hunted for nothing but who they are doing?