I'm all for giving people their chance with a good faith interpretation of their positions. But I am having trouble squaring his writings about having free and competitive ISP markets, with is his positions about reigning in tech companies.
He also complains that the FCC is a heavy-handed New Deal era agency ... but he also supports the agency nannying television and removing Section 230.
We vote them in for what they promise, and vote them out for what they deliver. To the extent a candidate has specific policies and plans, you could have a comparison.
Huge sections of the internet and entire companies would likely die off if Section 230 was removed. It would be pretty crazy if this happened. reddit for example.
If they do anything to Section 230, I assume it will be some kind of revision to handle the case of news feeds and page ranking algorithms, and potential fake users. If social media sites stopped manipulating content feeds and let things happen organically so far as provided by the First Amendment and relevant laws, no change would actually be needed. But if they want to assume a role analogous to Editor in Chief then they get to share the blame for what they push. That seems OK to me.
How about addressing the merits of my points instead of slinging mud and calling on a horde of lemmings to silence me? Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you. Do you want LGBT bakers to be forced to bake obscene cakes for Muslims who hate them? People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do. A special order item at a bakery is not the same kind of issue as getting service off a menu in a restaurant open to the public.
There is ample evidence of media lying to suit "liberals" (who really aren't). Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again. If you actually care about free speech like a true liberal then you should be singing his praises.
> People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do
Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230?
If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists?
> Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again
Using X as an example is a poor choice. Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule.
I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do.
I'm saying you can't not be an editor yet do editorial things at the same time.
>If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with?
There are multiple problems with this. For one, the government has been asking "private" companies to take stuff down. The act of asking alone is a form of intimidation. Secondly, even private companies can be public commons. The sheer scale of social media and the way that different sites seemingly coordinate to ban people they don't like (often in tandem with the government) is a threat to free speech.
>Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists?
Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? There's no conspiracy among bakers to deprive these people of cake, after all. This is a prime example of fishing for lawsuits. It's not about the cake, it's about deliberately disrespecting and offending one guy to the point where he would risk losing money in a lawsuit to fight them off.
Just as your employer cannot compel speech just because they pay you, the customer of a baker should not be able to compel speech from him either. In both cases, the employed person should be able to refuse work.
Here's another example: Should a printer be able to refuse to print some booklets he disagrees with? I'm sure he does not have to. The cake thing is very much like that.
>Using X as an example is a poor choice.
I didn't say it was an example of shining free speech. I said it was an example of government censorship exposed to the world. I know X is not perfect but it is freer than practically any other social media right now.
>Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule.
First of all, X is much freer than it has been in a long time. I know it isn't perfect but you won't find anything on that scale that is remotely as permissive for free speech. I don't think Musk is excessively promoting conservatives, despite sponsoring them in politics. Liberals simply forgot that many conservatives even existed because they were all strategically purged from the old Twitter, an action which goes against Western liberal values of free speech.
Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them. If you look for it you will find many instances of racism against every race online. Racist comments against white people (and sometimes against Asian people) are allowed on Twitter and every other social media platform. In most cases women are given carte blanche to defame and demonize men in general and in particular. The only thing that has changed with X now is people aren't being banned for most legal speech. As I said, X isn't a perfect fountain of free speech but it is at least much better than it was.
>I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do.
I don't especially enjoy seeing scummy posts either. But threats are legally actionable speech and do get taken down off of X. As for offensive things, I'm sure we all have opinions that offend someone. Free speech with all the mistakes and friction that it entails is what led our civilization to where it is. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. But if you put your thumb on the scales and gaslight everyone, eventually that will lead to huge problems.
It may come as a shock to you but the N-word was not always this absurdly charged third rail. People used to say it all the time regardless of their race. Everyone went from thinking it was slightly profane to so awful that any black person in earshot has the license to kill the speaker if they happen to be white. I am only slightly exaggerating. People are now getting in trouble for talking about the word itself. One professor got fired for simply pointing out that there was a Chinese word that sounded almost the same.
I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off, just to satisfy people like yourself. I'm not a kid or a thin-skinned adult so I want it off. People died fighting to create a system that gives us the right to say what's on our mind. Don't take that for granted.
> Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company?
Free speech doesn't work like this, money counts as free speech. Your idealism about democracy is irrelevant - courts have ruled MANY times that speech is more much than just words.
> Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them
Incorrect, conservatives don't realize that even if they say reasonable things but then follow it up with a slur then they just undid what they said. It's hard to take conservatives seriously on anything because they seem unable to speak above the level of an average middle school boy.
People "censor" conservative opinions because conservatives don't know how to say their opinion in a pleasant way.
Talk like Trump at work. Go ahead and try. He talks about women like they're dogs, he treats minorities like scum. You WILL be fired. Not because you would be conservative.
> I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off
This would disproportionately censor conservatives, for the reasons above. Trump sure as hell isn't making it past "safe search".
>>Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company?
>Free speech doesn't work like this, money counts as free speech. Your idealism about democracy is irrelevant - courts have ruled MANY times that speech is more much than just words.
Let me put it another way. If you want to pay someone to say something for you, your free speech rights don't have precedence over their right to free speech. Your desire to want to pay someone to do work does not surpass their religious convictions to not do it. My "idealism" is really pragmatism.
>Incorrect, conservatives don't realize that even if they say reasonable things but then follow it up with a slur then they just undid what they said.
Have you read anything that liberals put out? It's some of the most profane stuff out there. They overused profanity to the point that it doesn't have any punch anymore, while *choosing* to get butthurt about all kinds of other harmless words so they can get clout.
>People "censor" conservative opinions because conservatives don't know how to say their opinion in a pleasant way.
That is definitely not true. I've seen so much censorship of even the most mundane things, you can't sell me this story. Twitter was plenty unpleasant before Elon bought it. It was just leftist-leaning to an extreme and the only people who got to talk were in agreement with whatever unpleasantness was allowed there. Now that they can see a tiny bit of the real spectrum of popular opinion, they're crying about it.
>It's hard to take conservatives seriously on anything because they seem unable to speak above the level of an average middle school boy.
As with any crowd, there are smart ones and dumb ones. Don't get me started on the dumb liberals. The smart conservatives are speaking on a level exactly the same as their liberal counterparts.
>Talk like Trump at work. Go ahead and try.
If I was a billionaire like him and all my friends turned on me, I might do just that. He is actually a very nice guy and was popular in all circles before he ran for President. What changed about him? Absolutely nothing.
>He talks about women like they're dogs, he treats minorities like scum.
He talks about some women like they're dogs, because they stabbed him in the back. All of the outrage about Trump was way overblown. A celebrity known for a sharp sense of humor insulted someone he doesn't like, that must mean he's irredeemably against their demographic group! Meanwhile half the world has been calling him a Nazi or a Russian infiltrator for years with zero evidence, even after he got shot.
Many minorities are conservatives and love Trump's policies and sense of humor. He was on Oprah and she asked him if he would consider running for president. Whoopi Goldberg used to be friends with him, and Hillary said he couldn't be bought (although that is contested, she was definitely a friend of his). He did a lot for criminal justice reform and supported HBCUs during his first term. He had a black girlfriend before his current wife and she (like Stormy Daniels) said nothing negative about him until she was pressured into lying. You're not going to convince me he's a deranged racist because I know better than that. He is not against any minority, but he's not accepting lies about his own race either. This is a bit old but it's a list of 17 black celebrities that supported Trump in 2020: https://www.essence.com/celebrity/black-donald-trump-support...
>This would disproportionately censor conservatives, for the reasons above. Trump sure as hell isn't making it past "safe search".
You're wrong about this, although I don't know what kind of Puritan-grade filter you're thinking of. Liberals swear just as much as conservatives.
I'm probably done with this conversation because it's too much work to convince one person they're wrong. You're just going to have to look into things on your own. I don't expect that you will, but you'll feel a lot better if you do seek out some real context. It's not easy because the media has been smearing him for years now, but I am hopeful that the facts will become apparent soon to all the mentally ill who are freaking out about him.
> Your desire to want to pay someone to do work does not surpass their religious convictions to not do it. My "idealism" is really pragmatism.
How is this pragmatic? In all my real-world experience, money trumps all. It's trivial to pay religious people to say things they don't really believe. Pastors do it all the time, with no pressure from others.
In the real world, this is how things work. Yes it sucks and yes I wish people had more conviction. People are weak in this money driven world and I can't necessarily blame them.
> Have you read anything that liberals put out? It's some of the most profane stuff out there. They overused profanity to the point that it doesn't have any punch anymore, while choosing to get butthurt about all kinds of other harmless words so they can get clout.
I just don't think this is true at all. If you look at the democratic candidates, they were very well spoken and respectful. IMO, to their detriment. They should've been more rude, and that cost them from a populist perspective.
> As with any crowd, there are smart ones and dumb ones
It's not a matter of smart or dumb. I believe Trump is a smart person, I also believe Elon is a smart person. But in their populist endeavors, they say MANY reprehensible things.
For example, can they address immigration without racism? Certainly it's possible, but they haven't.
These aren't randos online, these are the face of the republican party and the future president. Sure, you can find dumb liberals. But does Kamala use slurs or question how black someone is? No. That's the difference. The example republicans have is a very poor one.
> He talks about some women like they're dogs, because they stabbed him in the back
Okay? This changes nothing. If your boss is rude to you and you call her a whore, you're getting fired. End of, have a nice chat with HR. This is what conservatives don't understand. You don't get a free pass to say whatever vile shit you like just because you think it's justified. That's why you get "censored".
>How is this pragmatic? In all my real-world experience, money trumps all. It's trivial to pay religious people to say things they don't really believe. Pastors do it all the time, with no pressure from others.
The original argument was about forcing someone to make a cake that offends their religious beliefs, and you're bringing in cases of people voluntarily saying things for money. Again, nobody should be able to compel you to do an act of speech (for money or otherwise) under some pretense of civil rights or their own free speech.
>If you look at the democratic candidates, they were very well spoken and respectful. IMO, to their detriment. They should've been more rude, and that cost them from a populist perspective.
You mean like when they called Trump's supporters "garbage", "Nazi", "racist", "Russian spies", "insurrectionists", and called for violence and cancel culture against them, etc.? Being rude to even moderate people is what really cost the left from a populist perspective. I had a girlfriend break up with me because she suspected I might be a Trump supporter, despite me insisting the opposite (which was true at the time). A lot of people are sick of being demonized because they're normal and not down with "trans children" or whatever other insane ideology the left has taken up.
The left routinely applies every nasty label to their critics. Got a problem with high inflation caused by current administration policies? What are you, a Trump supporter? Then you must necessarily be every -ist and -phobe they can think of, and many of them will hate your guts from then on.
Have you been censored for saying completely normal things online? For valuing second amendment rights? For wanting your kids to not be indoctrinated into various ideologies in school? Oh you must be a Trump supporter, and you deserve everything you got coming for that. This is how these "polite" leftists act. These people need to learn a lesson, not to mess with people like that.
>For example, can they address immigration without racism? Certainly it's possible, but they haven't.
The Democrats are the ones bringing race into this and denying that there is even a problem. They desperately want to flood the country with migrants because they think it favors their party, and also because various billionaires want us distracted from what they are doing to our government.
>But does Kamala use slurs or question how black someone is?
She denied being black for years, then flipped the script. They even changed the way her name was pronounced to make her sound more "black". Trump said very politely that he did not care about her race, he cared about lying. What more do you want. I've never heard him use a slur against any race. Liberals of all standing often call him a Nazi. What kind of example does that set?
>This changes nothing. If your boss is rude to you and you call her a whore, you're getting fired. End of, have a nice chat with HR. This is what conservatives don't understand.
No, conservatives understand very well and usually have to deny being conservative. Many have been fired or blocked from promotion for espousing even moderate conservative ideas politely. Leftists haven't been afraid of that kind of crap in at least 20 years, in my opinion. I remember when they were all on board with pretending to be Christian to get by, and I don't want to go back to that.
I'm not talking about merely being censored for rude comments. Again, the constitution protects rude speech, so that is irrelevant to censorship. So-called "misinformation" has been routinely censored on social media. We cannot have a free society when you can't do simple stuff like sharing news stories about presidential candidates or anything else of public interest online.
Wanna know why some Republicans are so angry and rude? Because moralizing lunatics have been attacking them for years! I don't want our political discourse to be lowered any more, but the maniacs who want to censor everybody have to be dealt with swiftly and soundly.
Kamala said none of this and was repeatedly way too nice to Trump.
In addition, some of this is just factual. Trump has said racist things. Trump supporters did attempt an insurrection. Trump supporters have used violence. Those aren't up for debate, so don't attempt to try, because I really don't care for alternative facts.
> Then you must necessarily be every -ist and -phobe they can think of, and many of them will hate your guts from then on.
When Trump is questioning how black people are and the right is running ads depicting trans women as burly men who beat up little girls (yes, real), it's hard not to see where the "ist and -phobe" comes from.
Conservatives often get very offended when you repeat policy and political speech their representatives have said back to them. It's incredibly strange to me, I've never seen such an overwhelming amount of personal shame in a population.
It's difficult to claim you're not transphobic when you vote for the people proposing anti-trans legislation. Actions speak much louder than words, and conservatives are already pretty bad at the words part. When your representatives aren't saying something racist or transphobic, they're passing laws with that ideology. Which... is worse.
If that offends you, feel free not to vote for them. But voting for them and then crying when someone simply tells you their policy or literally quotes them is nothing short of pathetic. If you don't agree with the things Trump has said, then don't put him on your ballot.
> She denied being black for years, then flipped the script
This isn't true, and I'm not gonna sit here and debate how black Kamala is. This is one of the stupidest points the conservatives have brought up. She's always been biracial, end of.
Even humoring this line of thinking displays some amount of racist rhetoric. There's absolutely zero reason you should be concerned with how black Kamala is. It's weird, it's strange, it's not normal. Please stop.
> I don't want our political discourse to be lowered any more
How rich. Instead of talking about Trump's absolutely horrible fiscal policy, we're talking about how black Kamala is. But you don't want political discourse to be lowered any further? Give me a break.
Modern conservatives couldn't articulate Trump's fiscal policy if their lives depended on it. They couldn't describe how tariffs work if you put a gun to their head. But they can tell you that kids are getting sex changes in the school nurse's office and shitting in litter boxes, and they can sit around all day and debate how black Kamala is. Trump has lowered the political discourse to an almost Neanderthal level. It's truly absurd to me that you can look at the right jumping all-in to identity politics and stuff nobody should care about and then complain about lowering the level of discourse.
>Kamala said none of this and was repeatedly way too nice to Trump.
She literally called him a Nazi after he got shot. So the "too nice" crap does not fly.
>In addition, some of this is just factual. Trump has said racist things. Trump supporters did attempt an insurrection. Trump supporters have used violence. Those aren't up for debate, so don't attempt to try, because I really don't care for alternative facts.
There were isolated riots on January 6th, which Trump tried to defuse. There is evidence that security was relaxed and people in the crowd were antagonized to make them do something. These are not violent people. Most of them are gun owners. If they wanted violence or an "insurrection" there would have been one. The truth is they were there for a peaceful protest.
Speaking of violent supporters, are you going to acknowledge that Antifa has committed a lot of violence, and that those people supported Biden/Kamala? They haven't been punished even 1/10th as much as Trump supporters. They're still arresting people on the pretense of Jan 6th today, with zero evidence. I'm not talking about some paramilitary wannabes. I'm talking about journalists, grandmothers, normal people who just happened to be there. In many cases they were let into the Capitol building by police.
Just so you know, the mainstream media tried to frame that QAnon Shaman guy. They had video evidence of him talking to and being shown around by friendly cops and tried to suppress that. We're talking about charges that could have landed him in prison for years. It took a much-contested release of video footage to get the case dropped. Now he is running for Congress.
>Conservatives often get very offended when you repeat policy and political speech their representatives have said back to them. It's incredibly strange to me, I've never seen such an overwhelming amount of personal shame in a population.
I don't care what these representatives say as long as they do the right things. Stop pushing trans crap on children. Stop flooding the country with too many foreigners.
>It's difficult to claim you're not transphobic when you vote for the people proposing anti-trans legislation. Actions speak much louder than words, and conservatives are already pretty bad at the words part. When your representatives aren't saying something racist or transphobic, they're passing laws with that ideology. Which... is worse.
Most conservatives seem to be ok with trans people existing. They do not approve of these ideas being pushed on children, especially their own children. There might be a few conservatives who go too far and want to ban this or that, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Right now we have psychos trying to get children as young as 5 to get on board with gender transitions. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest. Gay people and many trans people are horrified by these policies because they know it's a bridge too far even for liberals.
>This isn't true, and I'm not gonna sit here and debate how black Kamala is. This is one of the stupidest points the conservatives have brought up. She's always been biracial, end of.
I would point you at Wikipedia archive snapshots from years ago where all references to her race were changed. I agree with you that this doesn't matter but half of her campaign has been that you should vote for the black woman president because otherwise you're racist. F that noise. End of.
>There's absolutely zero reason you should be concerned with how black Kamala is. It's weird, it's strange, it's not normal. Please stop.
You know what's strange, telling people they're racist because they don't like a particular black woman. Please stop.
Wanna know some real reasons I didn't vote for her?
That is not the best writeup of it, but I'm in a hurry right now.
>Instead of talking about Trump's absolutely horrible fiscal policy, we're talking about how black Kamala is.
Her campaign received a billion dollars and finished $20M in debt. She would be a Marxist disaster.
Our fiscal issues are too big for any candidate to solve. Trump's economy was "good" all things considered, until the pandemic. He did support lockdowns as advised by so-called experts like Fauci, but he was in a no-win situation.
>Modern conservatives couldn't articulate Trump's fiscal policy if their lives depended on it. They couldn't describe how tariffs work if you put a gun to their head.
The left is no better than that.
>But they can tell you that kids are getting sex changes in the school nurse's office and shitting in litter boxes, and they can sit around all day and debate how black Kamala is.
They are! not in the school nurse's office but it is pushed by certain teachers and the medical industry. Furries are a real phenomenon, even if the litter box thing might have been a hoax. Kamala did market herself as Indian in one race and black in the next. She has no fiscal policy to speak of.
>It's truly absurd to me that you can look at the right jumping all-in to identity politics and stuff nobody should care about and then complain about lowering the level of discourse.
Oh but it is the left that chose to champion the crazy identity stuff and ram it down everyone's throats. Normal people are sick of it. They do want to focus on the issues but you can't focus on fiscal policy when their kid's teachers are trying to convince them that they should get a sex change.
You haven't said anything meaningful about any policy besides "Trump rude, orange man bad" like all the rest of them. You say it with more words but that doesn't change much. I hope you actually think about what you're saying and be honest with yourself about what it is you are really supporting. Trump is a fitting response to dumping on normal people and their way of life nonstop for a decade.
She literally called him a Nazi after he got shot.
She did absolutely no such thing.
Yet you've come to believe that she did, for some reason.
Why is that?
Half of her campaign has been that you should vote for the black woman president because otherwise you're racist. F that noise. End of.
Exactly none of her campaign has been that. This is just pure disinformation. The "noise" that you're so profoundly annoyed with here isn't coming from her campaign, in any case. But from whatever politically charged news outlets you've been consuming.
There's so much disinformation and just outright lies here I don't know where to start.
Kamala isn't a Marxist. Trump DID NOT try to diffuse the insurrection, he literally stoked the flames. And then you "quote" the most alt-right leaning alternative facts "news" you can. Really? Daily Mail and "arrestedbykamala.com"? Come on now, if you're going to lie you have to at least try a little.
> You haven't said anything meaningful about any policy besides "Trump rude, orange man bad" like all the rest of them.
Okay.
Trump's fiscal policy will obliterate the US GDP and send us into a recession. The US manufacturing industry simply cannot handle such severe tariffs. Sticker prices for Americans will go up dramatically.
But that's the beginning. A trade war will begin, and further plunge the US into economic depression. Consumers in other countries will slow down their consumption of US goods, further driving our GDP down. In addition, Trump's tax plans will increase the tax burden for the middle class. So while you have tariffs, which are essentially a severe tax, we will also have higher taxes.
Trump will reinstate Schedule F, crippling the bureaucracy and further enriching powerful corporations in their position. Most government agencies will be completely useless. The FTC and FDA will be deregulated, and we will get more unfair consumer practices and further health crises such as the listeria outbreak.
But those are the agencies which are lucky. Some, like the department of education, will be disbanded. Millions of Americans who rely on tools such as FAFSA for upward social and economic mobility will be harmed, further hurting the GDP and keeping many Americans in poverty.
In addition, Trump will appoint at least one new supreme court crony. The court, particularly Justice Thomas, has stated he wishes to revisit all 14th amendment cases. It's likely Obergefell will be overturned and gay marriage will no longer be federally recognized.
Further, Trump will deregulate the healthcare industry, undoing many Obama-era protections. This means insurance can, and will, drop coverage for pre-existing conditions (currently illegal due to the ACA). Many Americans will further fall into inadequate healthcare, bearing in mind the US already has the lowest quality healthcare out of all developed countries.
To add insult to injury, Trump's deregulation will also affect those seeking gender-affirming care and PrEP. It's plausible we will have another HIV epidemic, and suicides among transgender individuals will go up.
Economically, socially, and politically, all of Trump's policies are a disaster. Trump voters largely don't know this, because even they don't listen to Trump. I have no doubt you'll reply "no, no none of that will happen!" If you were listening, this has all been explicitly stated as goals under the Trump administration. You would do well to vote for someone you believe.
We're at the reply limit so I'll reply to your other comment here for my FINAL reply.
>There's so much disinformation and just outright lies here I don't know where to start.
You didn't read or watch any of it I'm sure.
>Kamala isn't a Marxist.
Her father is a Marxist professor. She talks constantly about policies like "equity" and "paying your fair share" aka redistributing wealth. It might all be fake, but considering that this crap runs in her family I think she is being honest.
>Trump DID NOT try to diffuse the insurrection, he literally stoked the flames.
He offered to have the National Guard police the situation as he expected a HUGE crowd to visit DC that day. Nancy Pelosi turned him down. He told everyone to go home peacefully on Twitter and in person, and that fact was suppressed. He was banned off of Twitter before most people could see his final plea for people to disperse.
>And then you "quote" the most alt-right leaning alternative facts "news" you can. Really? Daily Mail and "arrestedbykamala.com"? Come on now, if you're going to lie you have to at least try a little.
You can't just call every inconvenient fact a lie and be taken seriously. That is why Democrats lost. At least watch the trailer for that documentary. It is extremely eye-opening and true. If it wasn't true, Kamala would have had a case for defamation.
>Trump's fiscal policy will obliterate the US GDP and send us into a recession.
Bro I hate to break it to you but we've been in a recession all along. The numbers are cooked, and do not account for extremely high inflation that we haven't seen since like 50 years ago.
>The US manufacturing industry simply cannot handle such severe tariffs. Sticker prices for Americans will go up dramatically.
Fixing our trade imbalance requires us to institute protectionist policies, even if that costs us money and our standard of living goes down. Not taking this bitter medicine now will lead to us becoming much more deindustrialized, and possibly incapable of recovering. Nobody in the race but Trump was talking about even attempting a solution to our trade imbalance.
>But that's the beginning. A trade war will begin, and further plunge the US into economic depression. Consumers in other countries will slow down their consumption of US goods, further driving our GDP down.
What US goods? We don't make much of anything besides US dollars, and foreigners certainly aren't paying 4x the price of Chinese goods to get our stuff in general. We have been in a trade war for 30-50 years and getting our asses handed to us.
>In addition, Trump's tax plans will increase the tax burden for the middle class. So while you have tariffs, which are essentially a severe tax, we will also have higher taxes.
There is no free lunch. Our government is too big and we run deficits every single year. It is unsustainable. We need to either cut government or increase taxes. Trump may cut taxes to help out everyone who is struggling, but unless that is accompanied by austerity measures or huge domestic production we will be facing severe debt issues in the future. I think there is a stock market crash in the tank, and democrats are lucky that Trump will probably have to take the fall for it even though it's a systemic problem and not his fault.
>Trump will reinstate Schedule F, crippling the bureaucracy and further enriching powerful corporations in their position. Most government agencies will be completely useless.
They already are completely useless. As for corporations getting enriched, they exist for a reason and you retirement fund requires them to make money. Anyone who works for private industry is dependent on them making profits.
>The FTC and FDA will be deregulated, and we will get more unfair consumer practices and further health crises such as the listeria outbreak.
They're talking about going after harmful chemicals in our food. RFK has decried corporate capture of the FDA and CDC, and will bring down the hammer on the people allowing these toxins to be in our food. We need someone to deal with the PFAS and endocrine disruptors, and he is the guy to do it.
>But those are the agencies which are lucky. Some, like the department of education, will be disbanded. Millions of Americans who rely on tools such as FAFSA for upward social and economic mobility will be harmed, further hurting the GDP and keeping many Americans in poverty.
I very much doubt he will disband the Department of Education. Something like half of student loan borrowers are incapable of paying for their loans. We need accountability when it comes to outcomes for student loans. Tuition rates have exploded in response to unlimited and unconditional government-backed credit.
>In addition, Trump will appoint at least one new supreme court crony. The court, particularly Justice Thomas, has stated he wishes to revisit all 14th amendment cases. It's likely Obergefell will be overturned and gay marriage will no longer be federally recognized.
I don't think marriage should be a government issue. I don't think a gay marriage ban is on the table. If it comes up then it comes up, but it is not a critical issue for me or most people.
>Further, Trump will deregulate the healthcare industry, undoing many Obama-era protections. This means insurance can, and will, drop coverage for pre-existing conditions (currently illegal due to the ACA). Many Americans will further fall into inadequate healthcare, bearing in mind the US already has the lowest quality healthcare out of all developed countries.
I don't believe any of this, but I will look into it. I will have to refute you on one point. We have great health care here with the absolute best technology, but it costs too much.
>To add insult to injury, Trump's deregulation will also affect those seeking gender-affirming care and PrEP. It's plausible we will have another HIV epidemic, and suicides among transgender individuals will go up.
So-called "gender-affirming care" is elective and cosmetic and as such should not be covered by insurance. Doing it to a minor should be a capital offense. It is very unfortunate that these people are mentally ill but mutilating them is not the solution, and even if it helped I would not expect the government to pay for it. What's next, paying for breast implants and limb lengthening?
>Economically, socially, and politically, all of Trump's policies are a disaster. Trump voters largely don't know this, because even they don't listen to Trump. I have no doubt you'll reply "no, no none of that will happen!"
I disagree entirely. The only people not listening to Trump are leftists. Even when you give them references to critical information, they say shit like "What do you expect me to read that? It's obviously a lie because it's <Daily Mail, Fox News, anything else that's inconvenient to me>!"
>If you were listening, this has all been explicitly stated as goals under the Trump administration. You would do well to vote for someone you believe.
I believe in Trump's generally conservative and protectionist policies. Maybe tariffs will backfire somehow but doing nothing as we have been sure as hell isn't working. I don't think orange man is a miracle worker but I think we have gone way too far in one direction and now a major course correction is needed.
Yeah and as I predicted, this is the big idea. The difference between you and me is I believe Trump - you consider Trump a liar. The obvious question is - why did you vote for someone you consider a liar? Why did you vote for someone banking on the fact their policies DON'T go through?
This type of rhetoric is why people believe the republicans peddle the culture war and why you're constantly called -ists and -phobes. If your political ideology is built on a foundation of disparaging whatever minority of the day, people won't take you seriously. There are actual issues you should be addressing. The culture war as peddled by Republicans is nothing more than a distraction from their unbelievably garbage fiscal policy. And it's worked well - most Trump voters cannot articulate Trump's fiscal policy at all.
What you, and others, are missing is a sense of scale and perspective. Transgender individuals are an unbelievably small part of our society and truly mean no harm. They are Americans like you and I. They want to be happy, live and prosper. Their goals are your goals. They are not your enemy, and they couldn't be even if they wanted to. You may not understand them, and that's fine. But be wary of scapegoating such a minuscule minority for the problems of America. Such ideology veers dangerously close to fascism.
>If your political ideology is built on a foundation of disparaging whatever minority of the day, people won't take you seriously.
Pfft that's nothing. The Democrats disparage the majority! That's why they are not taken seriously.
>The culture war as peddled by Republicans is nothing more than a distraction from their unbelievably garbage fiscal policy. And it's worked well - most Trump voters cannot articulate Trump's fiscal policy at all.
Kamala's voters can't articulate a lick of fiscal policy. It boils down to "everyone gets a free pony, two if you're not a white man!" The left has been all in on culture war and everyone is sick of it.
>Transgender individuals are an unbelievably small part of our society and truly mean no harm.
Generally I think this is true. But it sure doesn't help when some of them go on a rampage and the media covers it up as has happened multiple times in the past couple of years. Conservatives are fine with these people existing but just don't want their kids indoctrinated with their delusions.
>They are Americans like you and I. They want to be happy, live and prosper. Their goals are your goals.
Most of them seem to mind their own business in my experience. But when it comes to dudes in women's spaces or "trans children" most people are absolutely disgusted and will not tolerate policies that support those notions. I think it would be a good start if the sane trans people came out and loudly condemned that stuff. But the ones that have come out and done exactly that have been vilified by their community. It's sick.
The left has painted itself into a corner. They made unpopular policies pandering to at most 1% of the population their flagship issue. How about going back to a strict policy of "Do whatever weird stuff you want in your own bedroom, but be respectful and don't talk to kids about it!"
>But be wary of scapegoating such a minuscule minority for the problems of America.
Nobody really thinks these people cause all the problems with America. They are but a distraction, and a very effective one at that.
>Such ideology veers dangerously close to fascism.
All the censorship and political prosecution of non-crimes has veered dangerously close to fascism. But yeah, let's worry about people who don't want their kids brainwashed into sex change procedures.
Emotional language, how charming. Nobody cares what disgusts you. These people exist, the sooner you get over it the better for everyone. I've been very kind but I'm getting impatient.
> Kamala's voters can't articulate a lick of fiscal policy. It boils down to "everyone gets a free pony, two if you're not a white man!"
Literally what the fuck are you talking about?
Evidently you can't articulate fiscal policy either, because you just made this up. Really? Kamala's fiscal policy is she hates white people? I mean, do you even hear how unbelievably stupid you sound?
> kids brainwashed into sex change procedures.
Conservative reactionary culture war bullshit. The right should focus less on pandering to racists and transphobes and focus more on their shit fiscal policy.
> Conservatives are fine with these people existing
Can't speak for all of them but a large percentage is NOT fine with the existence of trans people. If they were we wouldn't have so much discrimination.
> "trans children"
I too was a trans child. Not sure why the quotation marks. They want to be happy, live and prosper too.
> dudes in women's spaces
Never heard of anyone supporting this.
> Do whatever weird stuff you want in your own bedroom
That's actually disgusting. My existence is not a fetish to be hidden away.
One example of many: SB 132 in California. It has enabled men to successfully transfer into women's prisons, with terrible consequences for incarcerated women.
>Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact.
You mean the "smoking gun" that turned out to be a wet blanket of nothing topped with a heaping serving of hyperbole and self-aggrandizing?
>The fact you would say such a thing tells me you are either ignorant of what was revealed, or you agree with censorship of people you don't like.
Or it says that I read them and found them boring, hardly representative of the censorship Taibbi and Musk tried to paint them as, and ultimately not worth outrage. Simple as that.
I normally have more patience with people but I've about had it with the gaslighting and deliberate ignorance. Many of the same people blowing off the Twitter Files were freaking out when Trump suggested he might want to do the same kind of stuff. As a matter of fact, his camp did do some of the same censorship in 2020. However, the Democrats did far more of it and had more favor within the social media companies, and escalated the campaign of censorship to a whole new level during Biden's term. They tried to make a Ministry of Truth with that horrible woman who sang about it on TikTok.
I should be able to just relax about all of this, but I can't let these issues go unnoticed.
There are no principles here. They are just going to do nice things to people that were/are nice to Trump and bad things to people that weren't/aren't nice to Trump.
Section 230 is an indemnification. Removing it is removing a regulation. Section 230 not permission for the FCC to go after the web, it prevents the web from being shielded.
There are exclusions to this law, that obligates establishment of reasonable measures and adherence to take down rules. (That's why we have DMCA, that actually offers indemnity for copyright violations)
Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets. So social media as we know it is kind of a new development in technology that needs to be addressed properly.
> Modern "platforms" sponsor content and push what they want, much like magazines and TV outlets.
They aren't magazines or TV, where everything is under editorial control.
Not to mention, that magazines and TV outlets are also typically not liable when information in ads or third parties(such as pundits) is litigated against.
Social media using tens of thousands of moderators and AI to enforce extralegal policies about content sure sounds like editorial control to me. They an easily be viewed as employing content producers. Discriminating against content they don't like and promoting content that they do like (especially against user and producer preferences) is an act of editorializing. It doesn't matter to me how they justify that to themselves. Social media should be a utility, not a social engineering psyop working for government and industry "elites"...
Section 230 is safe harbor. If websites are responsible/liable for everything posted on them, there is a huge new legal burden for websites to regulate & filter every single bit of user submitted content.
It's wild how such a simple premise is totally willfully misconstrued (or maybe you happen to just be way off base, but there's huge ranks of people inventing all sorts of wild delusional fictions about Safe Harbor).
The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike.
For example: currently if someone doesn't want to see someone posting "objectionable" content - you have to identify them, then sue them. That's a problem if there's messages you don't like but you can't make illegal. But if instead you can sue the host, you can just keep suing the host, and the host eventually starts disallowing that content on its services, even if it is legal. Like they already do for adult content.
But the incoming administration has stated that content they believe should be illegal is anything that says LGBT people have the right to exist. You see this with their consistent bans on library books, their attempts to reclassify books as fiction if they can't block them on "harmful" content, etc.
We can see that this is nothing about ensuring an ability for people to hold corporations accountable to people, but specifically to enable censorship: because the proposed removals of protection from prosecution for content they host is the only place that proposed changes increase corporate liability. Every other proposed change removes the ability hold corporations accountable, removing worker protection, removing or hamstringing the agencies responsible for regulating safety, and removing or limiting the liability for any accidents, disasters, or dumping.
>The reason for this is very simple. Section 230 means you can't target a corporation that hosts content by other people, for content you dislike.
No. Section 230 means you can't target the proprietor of a website/online property (whether it's a corporation, some other sort of organization or an individual) for content posted on those properties by third parties.
Revoking/removing Section 230 would allow the biggest corporations to continue hosting third-party speech, but would stop pretty much everyone else from doing so, as they likely can't afford to be sued by every crackpot who doesn't like what other folks say.
>It's not even that. You can host third-party speech without Section 230, you just also gain liability from moderating that content.
And if you don't moderate, your site turns into a cesspit of spam, illegal and disgusting stuff. Like the chans/kuns. Although even those sites are moderated to remove illegal stuff like CSAM.
So no. Not moderating isn't really a viable option if you want folks to actually post relevant/reasonable third-party content on your internet property.
I tell you what. Go ahead and implement a Pixelfed or Mastodon (or Lemmy or whatever) instance and open it up for anyone to sign up and use. Then don't moderate it in any way and see what becomes of it.
Assuming you aren't arrested for hosting CSAM, you'll likely find that your site is filled with spam and offensive garbage. So much so that the normal folks won't want to use it.
If they overreach, which most parties do when given the opportunity, there are elections in 2 years and then 4 where they can be reprimanded and power can be reallocated. If it’s truly bad policy it can be changed.
With republicans in power and the gerrymandering that will be allowed by the SCOTUS, and with a president who will never admit defeat and order his VP to not certify an election that doesn't go his way - in what world do you see democrats ever having power in America again? It's 100% over. We've become Russia. EDIT: a word
The opposition party gained power after his previous reign and the electorate decided to give it back to him. It will be ok. The Constitution is quite strong.
You forgot the part where social media companies are fully on board with extreme conservative agenda, and more people will be brainwashed. IMO Trump would have never won if it wasn't for Rogan, Elmo and his xitter. It's completely over.
The only thing I hope happens - to prevent this country from being a 1 party system in perpetuity - is inner conflicts within the republican party that ends up dividing them and help create a new party to help recalibrate. But it will just be "extreme right" vs "very extreme right".
I think good social media companies promote freedom of expression. Twitter claimed to be the “free speech wing of the free speech party” and then departed from that until Musk bought it. Similarly, Rogan invites a variety of people and is more interested in conversations than making moral claims. He invited Harris who declined.
Trump won a majority across a variety of demographics. He won every meaningful contest. The Democrats will regroup and rethink their strategy. What they’ve been doing lately is clearly not working.
> If they overreach, which most parties do when given the opportunity, there are elections in 2 years and then 4 where they can be reprimanded and power can be reallocated.
Except that the US Supreme Court, the majority of whose members have a similar worldview, cannot be reprimanded in any meaningful way: just look at all the 'gifts' that Thomas has received and that nothing has been done about.
I mean Trump is pretty old so even if he’s somehow a dictator (he’s not, he’s just a demagogue that’s very disagreeable - 2 traits that often lead to success if used well) he won’t around that long, lol.
I believe it’s the opposite. His personality cult makes him singular, irreplaceable. When he’s gone, it’s over. The movement will just be left with its policies, which were an afterthought for most voters and might not even give favourable results.
As I interpret this thread people aren’t so much worried about Trump as they are about the Republican leadership. Particularly the American justice system will get packed with powerful conservative judges. The US is likely going to have a Supreme Court which will be far more conservative than the average citizen for the lifetime of most of us.
Similarly the FCC chair wouldn’t magically become “better” just because it wasn’t Trump. As crazy as Trump is in my opinion, he still comes off as rather progressive compared to much of the Republican Party he is the president for. A party which will again make the most out of Trumps wild ride, like they did last time.
These things will far outlast Trump and his followers. Followers who are probably also much more progressive than large parts of the Republican Party they elected.
With vast swathes of people who DGAF about freedom of speech and just want to punish the other side - midterm elections aren't likely to produce any sort of a counterbalance.
Hopefully this regime is doing a fantastic job and the electorate votes to give them more power. But that’s doubtful. They will likely make mistakes that will be easily critiqued and balance will be sought. Always this way.
Yeah, while it's sort of far afield from FCC regulation discussion, the previous Trump administration pushed "norm breaking" about as far as it can conceivably be pushed without actually destroying the system. And he "got away with it". There will be no hesitation this time around. The question is only in what direction the whims and attention will turn, not what can be done to constrain it.
But wait, I thought Project 2025 wasn't Trump's plan!
More generally and with less snark, get ready for high scale clientelism with Musk and Petroleum in general and generally policy based on people who were "nice to Trump" based on any sort of measure of its importance to rank and file citizens.
Ha! That's pretty good. Just like Santa was my Christmas list's plan. I always added things I knew were a stretch; always in the thought that Santa might surprise me.
The chair does not have unlimited power, of course. Congress can expand or reduce the FCC's authority by passing new laws or eliminating existing ones. FCC decisions are routinely challenged in court, and a recent Supreme Court ruling limited the regulatory authority of federal agencies.
This is one of those moments where I'm disappointed that HN doesn't have support for GIFs, as I think the Jennifer Lawrence "OK" meme would be perfect in response to this.
Until suits are settled, it's uncommon for courts to intervene on an undecided issue in government control. This is immediately obvious. Anyone being able to subvert the power of an appointment or elected position by filing a court case, would lead to increased and rampant dysfunction. The official FCC chair's statements have a chilling effect, on their own.
There should be no surprise how any of this plays out - they were abundantly clear what their goals were. But these two parts next to each other are pretty funny:
> "The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes"
..
> The FCC should have four primary goals, Carr wrote. Those goals are "reining in Big Tech, promoting national security, unleashing economic prosperity, and ensuring FCC accountability and good governance."
> On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.
It’s more apt to say that people don’t want their online hangouts to be infested with the other team’s brainworms. This is a fair want! And it’s the basis of the free market, the reason we have many commercial options for online speech, not just one.
Somehow I don't think the Trump admin is gonna crack down on his own collusion with Twitter nor the crackdown on free speech on college campuses in response to antiwar protests
I know right - can you believe that the billionaire owner one of the social media companies was actively campaigning for one of the candidates and making sure every user saw every post they made in support of that candidate. Including several outright lies that ended up with community notes, but only hours after posting and being seen by millions of people?
Right, I'm sure the new FCC will crack down hard on Twitter and the owner's legally dubious election interference. This is a party of principles after all! At least that's what I keep hearing from them.
However, you're describing what the "basket of deplorables[0]" and half of America have experienced for the last 3+ years: tilted views on all major social media platforms in concert with the federal government as exposed in the Twitter Files[1].
Don't stay glued to your computer forecasting his future office picks. There were several candidates last time with Trump who seemed certain to hold offices that got permanently dumped closer to January. Chris Christie was the most notable example but there were others.
True, but it's not like any of the alternatives to this guy are going to be a crusader for consumer rights and a free open internet. The party has been pretty clear about how they feel about these kinds of issues, and that vengence and cronyism are topline goals.
Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?
I see those as slightly related, but not really in agreement. Right side is more "control what the media can say". Left is more "control what effects media has". The second involves more responsibility, but not necessarily less protection. There's nuance in that.
Meta being responsible for lack of moderation is not the same as Meta being responsible for the specific content people post.
I saw a Techdirt comment related to this (specifically on Section 230) which I thought was rather insightful [0].
To summarize with my own Don Quixote analogy: The politicians are tilting at windmills to create the appearance of Doing Something. Their followers perceive them as successful because the illusory opposition (Dragons) seem to be gone, and they're merely confused when you tell them about the "unrelated" vandalism of local windmills.
Both parties are in the pockets of billionaires. The only astounding part is how Trump, whose personal business history includes illegal labor rights violations and has always had a vitriol for unions, is sometimes preferred over Biden, who's been the best president for labor in over 100 years
"It's the economy, stupid" is an old and tired cliché. Really its "the vibe of the economy"
The thing that I still haven't grasped—and this isn't snark, I truly haven't wrapped my head around it—is why people think "things cost more" (1) is the direct result of government rather than a coordinated effort from retailers raising prices, and (2) why the GOP is the party to fix this when they're the ones historically opposed to both business regulation and minimum wage increases.
Right, I'm not disputing that. What I'm questioning is whether people understand why that happened, or how to actually fix it. Because they should care how, and it won't get fixed unless we have actual solutions.
Because the places that these people get their "news" have been harping almost nonstop that high prices are Biden's fault. Fox News and its brethren exist solely to make its audience mad about things, and then explain why those things are the current Democratic leadership's fault.
Yeah, I'll definitely grant that both parties are in the pockets of billionaires, although one seems to more than the other. There's a reason so many of them flock to one side.
The only explanation I can think of for the constituency is that people like a confident but far-fetched proposal more than an undramatic but feasible one. Slowly chipping away economic inequality and strengthening labor protections and introducing social benefits actually works, it just doesn't sound as impressive as "I will quickly and singlehandedly fix the cost of living (source: trust me)."
My point was, both parties supposedly agreed on the TikTok ban. Yet the candidate for one of them suddenly did a 180 after it passed, and will in all likelihood prevent it from having any effect.
So I wouldn't really assume they have similar desires for protections (or lack thereof) for social media companies just because similar words come out of their mouths at some point in time.
If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you.
But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation.
Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.
I asked you if they should be allowed to do something like classify gore. If your answer is no, then you are dictating that they can't do something beneficial to their business.
I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms).
Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to.
I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.
At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs.
It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises).
> it seems like the left and right might really agree
What difference would that make if they do? The last time around the public hated Ajit Pai's running of the FCC. If that didn't change anything back then, what makes you think what the public thinks will impact a Trump led FCC this time around?
I'm not sure we have to. If you just make a company responsible for what they've posted, then the civil court system will probably figure that out, won't it?
You want to make the civil court system responsible for litigating the truth or falsehood of every comment, post and claim made on the internet?
Why not just make a separate court system instead of tying up the existing one? We couldn't call it the Ministry of Truth because it's the US, but maybe Bureau of Truth?
Even better, there can be no law at all and the government (Office of the President) and law enforcement (FBI) can covertly apply pressure directly to the C-suite to have the “wrong” information suppressed on each platform.
If you forgo the rule of law, and suspend the 14th amendment. But not a democratic society, under a dictatorship it's a given... I guess you get what your society votes for though.
> "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?"
No. This is one of those questions that sounds easy but is hard in practice.
Sure, it's bad for society if a lot of people promote an obviously false idea such as flat earth.
But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!")
And you can't really automate that, because then you could inadvertently block e.g. people discussing history about ancient cultures and their views of the earth.
So humans have to be involved.
Now throw politics and money into the mix and it gets murkier still. Was it misinformation when people said the state of Georgia elected President Trump even before all the votes were counted? (And the inverse: was it misinformation that CNN refused to call Georgia for President Trump even when it became mathematically impossible for Senator Harris to win it?)
It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory.
Too often tech folks try to think in binary here: either misinformation or factual information. But reality isn't always so clear cut. I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true.
>But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!")
I don't think that's the question. Companies like Meta are already allowed to "suppress" that information by moderating content. But that isn't an enforcement of universal "truth," since a platform can only moderate itself.
I think the question is whether the government should be allowed to determine what is and isn't truth and force all platforms to either suppress or publish based on that determination alone. That's what repealing Section 230 would lead to.
>It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory.
OK? And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it? Did it even hinder popular discussion of the lab leak theory in any significant way? From what I recall, it didn't.
>I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true.
They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true, and that seems worse to me. Yes, mistakes can be made where attempts to adjudicate truth and misinformation are concerned, but between being banned from Facebook or having men with guns knock down my door for publishing illegal facts, I'd rather have the former.
It is, though. The parent asked, "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?"
I am responding to that question, so yes, that is the question.
> "And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it?"
Must there be gulags involved for free speech to be suppressed?
And yes, it did hinder discussion of the lab leak theory. Dozens of news outlets suppressed this theory, even mislabeling it as a conspiracy theory and ostracizing those who held it.
> "They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true"
Wow, either there is a serious miscommunication here or you are deliberately misreading my post. I don't want government or social media companies to be the arbiters of what's true. I don't want the current or future administration mislabeling critiques of the government as "hateful" or "misinformation". Nor do I want Zuck, Pichai, or any other tech company suppressing speech because it is unpopular, hateful, or misinformation. We cannot entrust government or corporations with guarding our rights to free speech.
What human rights people are allowed to have is a difference of opinion?? Who gets thrown in jail for being "the enemy within" is a difference of opinion? Which media outlets get closed down for airing Pumpkin Spice Palpatine's dirty laundry is a difference of opinion?
Kindly quit turning down the lights and telling us it's our imagination.
I see that we have moved on from Denial to the second D of avoiding accountability: Deflection. I wonder if Attacking will be next in a pivot to DARVO, or Diffusal?
It's not my imagination, it'd Donald Dump's own words:
"I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age. [...] I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female and they are assigned at birth."
"I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And I think… and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary by the military"
“It’s so bad they should lose their license, and they should take ’60 Minutes’ off the air”
And frankly, I'm glad that I care about things that may affect people other than me. It means I'm probably not a narcissist.
You both broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. We have to ban accounts that do that, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Not cool.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. That includes not getting involved in flamewars and certainly not attacking other users.
You both broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. We have to ban accounts that do that, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Not cool.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. That includes not getting involved in flamewars and certainly not attacking other users.
It's not ridiculous at all, or koolaid, to quote Trump on his own policies.
People aren't fear mongering about Trump dissolving the department of education, for example. He said he would.
People are also not fear mongering about Trump deploying the military on US soil to clean out immigrants and naturalized citizens. He said he would.
People are also not fear mongering about Trump surveilling and punishing women who go out of state to get an abortion. He said he would.
People are not fear mongering when they say Trump will remove insurance protections that grant access to gender affirming care and PrEP. He said he would.
This will directly result in many women dying, many homosexuals dying, and many trans people dying. This isn't up for debate, so don't bother trying.
If you won't even listen to Trump on the things HE'S saying, why did you vote for him? This isn't rhetorical - if you don't agree with the things I've just said, why did you vote for him?
The fact that statements that are well documented as being uttered, with corroborated evidence and also no denial that they indeed were, is that also part of the everything that's up for debate in your post-truth world?
May you not see the day when you're on the wrong side of that logic. I suspect that if you live long enough and need costly help that's not profitable to the now-improved US plutocracy, I fear that you will.
In line with the other reply, it's simply a matter of cause and effect. If you are unable to come to terms with cause and effect, then you are the closed minded one.
For example, if you remove low-cost PrEP more homosexuals WILL get HIV. WILL. Not might. Not may. WILL. It is really that simple.
Okay, so therefore if you have policy, which many conservatives do, that insurance should not be mandated to provide affordable PrEP than you MUST support more homosexuals getting HIV.
The problem here is people are cowards and weasels. They support things, knowing full well of the consequences of it, and then will proclaim they don't support the consequences. That's impossible, it doesn't work that way. That's true closed-mindedness.
If I support adding bottomless pits all over the road, then I support some drivers diving in them. That's how the world works, cause and effect, and even small children learn this quickly. It's only when the adults start to weasel that there's room for "debate".
I would have much more tolerance for conservative opinions if they would just outright say they want more homosexuals to get HIV, as a punishment. Or say they want more women to die. But they don't, because they're cowards before conservatives. I cannot respect a coward.
This isn’t a matter of perspectives, it’s a matter of consequences.
Consequences which are already happening. Women are dying from abortion laws. Trans individuals are dying due to anti trans laws. The data is out there proving it.
There have been a dozen stories about "Trump's likely X" and "Trump eyeing Y for Z" with absolutely no interesting information or evidence other than their own personal fantasies.
This one is entirely based on an accusation that Carr made publicly about NBC violating the Equal Time rule which was absolutely true, and resulted in an immediate offer of time to Harris and Kaine's opponents, likely because Lorne Michaels had said explicitly in an interview a few months ago that he wouldn't be having any of the candidates on because of that rule.
> Carr was wrong about the Equal Time rule, media advocacy group Free Press said on November 3. The group pointed to an FCC fact sheet that says the rule "does not require a station to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate."
Carr didn't say that a station was required to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate.
> "Despite Carr's claim, there is no evidence that the network was trying to avoid the rules," Free Press said. "Broadcasters have no legal obligation to set aside broadcast time for opposing candidates, unless the candidates request it. Equal-opportunity requests are commonplace in the final days of a national election, and broadcasters typically honor them."
There's a "7 day rule" within the regulation, and the only reason for it is to thwart giving a favored candidate time immediately before the election so that the opposing candidates don't have time to react. This rule, repeatedly mentioned by Carr, goes completely unmentioned in this article.
> NBC did honor a request for equal time from the Trump campaign, giving him two free 60-second messages during NASCAR and NFL coverage.
NBC almost immediately reached out after Carr posted, and offered Trump and Cao time. This is how things are supposed to work. The "7 day rule" was still violated, but at least the NASCAR audience was an comparable audience. But the fact that Harris (and Kaine) got a completely produced and scripted segment on a comedy show meant to humanize them, and Trump (and underdog candidate Cao who had started to poll within a few points of Kaine in the last days of the campaign) had to whip together a pretaped ad a day before their respective elections is exactly what that rule was meant to avoid.
I'm sure Carr is shit, all Republicans who have been on the FCC have been shit, and most of the Democrats. But this is garbage, mostly recycled from some outfit called "Free Press" who I'm supposed to trust for no particular reason, and is not even meant to be read. It's meant to be a headline in social media feeds.
edit: please don't be suckered by the stream of garbage that's going to target you over the next few months. When Trump inevitably starts doing awful things, they're going to be completely obscured by the fact that people will have been shrieking for months about things they pretended he did.
"Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule," and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr's claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign."
Didn't NBC provide the NFL and NASCAR commercials under duress ?
>On Big Tech, Carr wants to implement Trump's 2020 plan to crack down on social media websites for alleged anti-conservative bias. At the time, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms' legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.
I don't like the other parts, but reading this section, it's wild to me that this isn't already the case and that it's not wildly bipartisan!
Why? This reads like a blatant First Amendment violation.
The platforms are not required to carry any content and moderation is a form of speech. Eg Fox News has no obligation to report on good news for liberals and vice versa for CNN. There’s nothing the government can do there unless they can pass strict scrutiny (they almost certainly wont).
Trying to remove Section 230 protections for exercising First Amendment rights isn’t going to fly. Revoking 230 entirely is fine, but doing targeted removal of 230 protections based on speech isn’t going to go anywhere.
Conservatives are more than welcome to make their own social networks with opposing moderation, and they have. They just don’t get to try to force other platforms to moderate differently because no one wants to use Truth Social or whatever.
You seem to be under the impression that this generation of courts holds itself to a set of principles, rather than just motivated reasoning to do whatever they want. There will be no consistency. The Chevron decision will matter when they want it to and it won't when they don't.
Respectfully disagree. I would argue that the court has been fairly consistent - in nearly every case they have sided against federal organizations in favor of states, with a couple of exceptions where they held constitutional questions.
It is easily arguable that this court is more consistent than previous courts. Like them or not, decisions like Sebelius and Obergefell were based on much, much more wild interpretations of constitutionality ("legalistic argle-bargle") and were much more driven by a court using the ends to justify the means.
SCOTUS has been ignoring or re-interpreting precident when convinent for advancing conservative agenda items. If it advances the cause, the lawsuits will go the way they prefer, not with any consistency for established precident.
Respectfully,
This doesnt track with what we are seeing in very-recent history.
SCOTUS is broadly drawing criticism for picking and choosing winners and losers.
We cannot expect there to be any consistency anymore when the only means of determining legal success looks to be whoever is favored by the most powerful judge in the room.
He also complains that the FCC is a heavy-handed New Deal era agency ... but he also supports the agency nannying television and removing Section 230.
You can't really have it both ways.