This game is already over. Just claim (from the EU) the thing you want to ban is your copyright and it'll have to be removed nearly instantly.
And no penalty for repeated malicious claims.
The Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission have pushed back against US President Trump's proposal to put them in charge of policing social media firms he claims are biased against right-wingers. The draft executive order, titled "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship", aims to restrict the ability …
The EU can legislate however it likes. but nothing - not congress, not the president, nor a treaty they sign, can eclipse the constitution. Nothing.
It's one reason why treaties with the US take a while to negotiate (certain countries might want to note that). Because they are still subject to the constitution, and any citizen is free to challenge them up to SCOTUS if needs be.
Trump thinks he is bigger than the Constitution. He is 'the chosen one' after all.
We can only hope that come November 2020 the US population wakes up and realises that he is not the new messiah but just a naughty boy and kicks him out.
The last thing we need here is a Trade deal with Trump's USA that involves us having to import their rank chicken and other foodstufs especially anything with more than a trace of HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)
I guess he'll try to Buy Scotland next. After all, he owns a bit of it already.
He's going to get re-elected because the democrats are moving so far left of where centrists want to be. They have no viable candidate as a result, he'll walk it.
I say that as someone who is far from a fan of his, but people will keep him in rather than vote for an unknown quantity or someone who seems too much of a shift left. America is not a socialist country after all.
Dislike this all you want, but if you do then you are arguably part of the problem and need to wake up - there's nobody in the democrats line up who stands a chance against him as they are all leaning increasingly left.. away from a majority of US voters.
Most of what you cal "leaning left" is approximately 1950s Eisenhower Republicanism: Strong unions, 70%(+) marginal tax rates on high earners and corporations, large-scale federal infrastructure spending, strong federal civil rights protection...
It's just that the Republican party and its radical offshoots have repeated the big lie that they are just what they ALWAYS were and the liberals have been moving left long enough that they've convinced what passes for the center that the lie is the truth and dragged them to the right without their noticing.
Nah, the right has moved further somewhere, just not sure where. The left has moved way out to the warning track in far left-field. The right, well, that's hard to say. They sure seem dug-in on their core issues of abortion, immigration, and opposing anything a Liberal would suggest. Yet they somehow think a pussy-grabbing yankee from NYC is practically the Messiah, and the greatest President ever in the history of Presidents. That's the part that doesn't make sense - why do the stolid, hard-working, church-going right think so highly of a man so deeply flawed? It sure doesn't seem like a move further right, into bible-thumping witch-hunts, but neither does it seem like they've stayed static.
I voted for him in 16 and will probably vote for him again next year, but I know he's a scumbag. He's just pretending to be a Conservative scumbag right now, instead of pretending to be a Liberal scumbag.
Man, I miss Reagan sometimes.
"That you are willing to vote for a known lying, adulterous, narcissistic, egomaniac, xenophobic "scum bag"."
Well, to vote for Hillary, I'd have had to be willing to vote for a known lying, adulterous, narcissistic, egomaniac, possibly murderous "scum bag".
And Mommy says I'm really smart, thanks.
And Jesus said he who is without sin cast the first stone. The problem is that no matter who is in office, they are going to have some flaw or flaws because nobody is perfect. I have been on this earth for almost 50 years and I have never seen our politics like this before. It's a fucking circus. Now I am right of center, and I don't like Trump either. However, the amount of insanity that I see coming from the left is astonishing. The left is being taken over by these fascists who will try to silence you by any means necessary if you disagree with them (AntiFA). Unfortunately, this does extend into the news media and the social media platforms. So yes, they do need to be regulated. The U.S. Constitution needs to be applied to corporations, not just to government. Then all this nonsense might end, maybe.
I want to see Trump out of office, but I don't want a democrat in there either. So either the Republican Party will field a more viable candidate, or stick with Trump. And let's not forget the whole Russia collusion thing that wasted 25 million of the taxpayer's money, and the fact that two of the most anti-semantic congress women (both are Muslim) getting banned from Israel because of their active support of the Boycott Israel thing.
It's chaos, utter chaos, and I fear that I will not end soon.
One thing that makes commenters look particularly clueless is when they imply that people who call themselves "anti-fascist" can't themselves be fascistic.
Personally I don't think that's the right word for them, but I do think "antifa" has something to answer for in the present state of US politics.
What? The president doesn't regulate them, the law does. And I disagree with your little comment about accusing anti-fascists of fascism, because I have experienced it for myself. Now before you post your drivel about me being stupid, why don't you consider the fact that I am speaking from experience here...or are you one of those anti-fascists who are trying to silence all conservative voices?
Trump was and is a NY democrat who took over the shambles that was the republican party, for crying out loud. He's hated by the media and the real powers that be for managing somehow to skip the "selection process" candidates normally have to go through such that those in actual power don't have to care who wins - it's a matter of principle - and for the media - click bait.
Doesn't everyone already know that the powerful who lobby for this and that already pay both sides?
Yes, Tim Pool, Rogan, and quite a few others nominally thought of as on the left here (well, everywhere but SanFran, the most hypocritical "progressive" city in the US - home of poop and needles and streets with people sleeping on their square meter like India *was* - due to their "progressive" policies) in the commentary biz have been de-ranked despite the authors editorializing as though stating facts that there is no evidence of violating the principles of section 230 and censoring "free speech" by these platforms - the law as is is currently not able to handle properly the distinctions involved between publisher and platform.
And these guys are trying to save the "left" here by identifying and pushing away the real nut jobs.
Thing is, those big tech outfits to which this applies already own our government, and yours too. So even our government "objects" to anything that might inconvenience their paymasters.
Observe and learn truth. The bad guys have already destroyed the meanings of words like "woke", "progressive", "equality" and so on. You have to pay sharp attention to not be fooled by these useful idiots.
The left is anything but liberal - contradict their spew and get beaten up by guys wearing masks.
The left are the intolerant ones when it comes to "Wrong think" and you know it.
The right is anything but conservative - they have become their own flavor of nut jobs.
We've destroyed our ability to even discuss this civilly by wrecking the meanings of the words used for it.
I bet Mike didn't live through the Eisenhower era as I did. Zero people paid those tax rates (as now) - the biggest lawyers and accountants win, Yes, instead of just saying it, we did spend on infrastructure, unlike today's left who is all talk (Flint and the rest of Michigan, most of California's homeless...it's a long list of shovel ready jobs that never materialize even when the left has a super-majority - pay attention). Unions worked for awhile after WWII because we had all the money and production...and could pass the costs of their corruption on to consumers. We don't have those things now.
No, the OP is right. When you have calls to abolish ICE, not merely reforming it or keeping it from abusing immigrants, that’s gonna be a problem. Open borders? Also a problem. If people want legal immigration they can vote for it.
Universal health care? I’m all for it. But I live in Canada. Obamacare, which doesn’t go far enough, barely squeaked by. A wise strategy would be to let Reps go on the record to nuke Obamacare, like Magaman did. Even die hard Rep voters, if they’re poor, probably want some coverage. But, rip it all out and go universal? A _good idea in practice_, but it won’t fly at the polls, not in the US. Oh, it will poll very well... during the Dem primaries.
Green New Deal? Climate change is a big problem, but it's also very partisan in the US. So, how to screw that up some more? Lather it up with all sorts of social policies and then put a trillion $ price tag on it.
Does it seem like I am down on AOC? Maybe a bit. But she seems like a decent person and she's young. The problem is that the policies that get a senator elected in NYC are not the policies that are going to get someone into POTUS. The Dems desperately need to swing to the center and suck up all the people who voted for Trump last time and are having second thoughts. If they did that, Trump has no defence as he's just not a credible centrist.
But they are confusing Trump's gambit to hark to a hard base as being a good idea for them in 2020, with the handicap that the electoral college, _by design_, grants disproportionate representation to rural areas and smaller states. They need to win some of those rural areas and red states.
I.e. they need a Beto, or a Bill Clinton equivalent, not a Bernie.
"Trump has no defence as he's just not a credible centrist."
Are there any true centrists left? Any Conservative who looks centrist is considered weak, and would be a drag on the number of conservatives showing up at the polls. Look at how the common folk on the right are already crucifying Dan Crenshaw for his meager support of the Red Flag laws, whereas a few months ago, when he was ripping AOC a new one, he was the Bright New Hope of the Republican party.
At the same time, the Liberals all seem to be falling over themselves to prove how whacky and far-out (of touch?) they are.
I doubt any Republican but Trump (or one like him) could energize enough support on the Republican side to get elected. Milquetoast centrist guys like Jeb or Kasich or even John McCain, don't get enough people fired-up to win nationally. They don't get all the splinter groups glowing with latent intent and marching to the polls. Then too, the frenzy around Trump was amplified because his opponent was Evil Hillary. A lot of people disliked her enough to vote for Trump, even if they didn't really like Trump. (Guilty here...)
But that’s precisely my point. The Dems don’t have to play by the Reps’ book. They don’t need to “energize the base” because Trump does it for them - not too many people with any kind of leftward drift are going to stay home in November cuz their candidate is “not lefty enough”. Not when the alternative they’re facing is 4 more yrs of Orange Buffoonery and random unpresidential tweets.
All they need is a credible alternative who can’t credibly be painted as a “Socialist” to people who are not fully pro-Trump but are not committed Dems, those at the center.
To paraphrase a past quip (not addressed at you, btw):
“It’s not about the primaries, stupid”.
Yeah, both sides seem to be playing at the edges while trying to seduce the center at the last possible moment. Whoever does that slightly better will win the next election.
But I disagree about the primaries. That's going to be Peak Crazy for the Dems, because they don't have to play to the center then, they can play to their most extreme. My guess is that they will tone things waaay down once the primaries are over. They'll practically be reading from 1950's Reader's Digests...
I used the term open borders loosely. Yet, not everyone thinks its a total exaggeration
Nope, that wasn’t, quite, Fox news, was it?
Again, if voters generally favor a more open immigration policy it ought to come together organically, like say gay marriage where there is a massive, and welcome, consensus towards tolerance. At least in my country, Canada, I would cautiously support greater immigration. But it’s very much of a nation-level, long-term, decision. European experience is also that administrative intake ahead of actual consensual and popular welcome, acceptance & integration and allowing immigrants to _succeed_ is foolish (the US and Canada are much better than France, for example).
Pushing ahead of majority opinion to a much more welcoming policy towards immigrants, esp illegal ones, because it’s good for primaries is a foolish idea. It lacks legitimacy towards the electorate so it will get shot down. Immigrant bashing and child separation is one thing, letting everyone in and never deporting anyone is another. Obama mostly seemed to get that, although one could be concerned if Deporter in Chief was reluctantly arrived at or whether engaged in for political expediency. I’ll be nice and assume the first.
P.s, am sure all the donors to Hillary last election _never_ intended to call in any favors.
Problem with your theory- Eisenhower wasn’t a Republican. He was a non-partisan war hero who was so popular from the war days that BOTH parties asked him to accept their nomination, and he took the republican one basically just as a change of pace after 5 straight terms of Democrat control. Dems also had supermajorities in Congress, which they had held for over 20 years (with the exception of the 2-year term immediately after the death of FDR).
Assigning anything that happened in the 50’s as a “Republican” policy is just fiction.
Nixon was more or less the definition of the Republican Party (for his day- it’s changed somewhat since then).
Bush1 and Bush2 also pretty closely aligned with “the party”.
Now Reagan...you are aware that, like Trump, he was a Democrat most of his life? And, like Trump, his policies were pretty drastically different than what EITHER party had been doing up to that point. Reagan and Trump both kind of just did their own thing.
What Reagan did have going for him is that, AFTER implementing new policies, he became popular enough that the Republican Party was sort of dragged kicking and screaming into adopting many of them. But the party leaders certainly didn’t LIKE Reagan’s politics.
Time will tell if Trump plays out the same way or not.
They need that system or else California, Texas and Florida will decide it all...
California (Population: 39,747,267)
Texas (Population: 29,087,070)
Florida (Population: 21,646,155)
New York (Population: 19,491,339)
Pennsylvania (Population: 12,813,969)
Illinois (Population: 12,700,381)
Ohio (Population: 11,718,568)
Georgia (Population: 10,627,767)
North Carolina (Population: 10,497,741)
Michigan (Population: 10,020,472)
In a federation type of government, there's always a tension between a straight-out majority rule and the risk that states/provinces having a very large population get to decide everything for everyone else (which kinda defeats the purpose of a federation-type government).
So some of these systems have a 2-tier approach, like the US. Now, you could argue that the federation is protected by devolving sufficient powers to the states that the overall majority-chosen central government doesn't in fact decide everything for the people in the smaller states. That's also why the senate has 2 senators/state, regardless of population.
Living in BC, I can tell you that, without such an arrangement, it can be frustrating in Canada when the Western provinces and the Maritimes figure that whatever we vote, everything in still decided by Ontario and Quebec. Is it a big deal? No, not as long as Albertans don't get to decide ;-) But there's still a bit of friction.
Electoral systems can't really be perfect. The Electoral college is a kludge, but it has its reasons. Regardless, good or bad, it's the game in 2020, baby. Deal with it. And deal with it in such a way that the Orange Buffoon gets kicked out.
I wonder if you're aware that "over 40 years" dovetails quite nicely with the Republicans' switch to the "Southern strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy.
The electoral college rule is what it is. Until it gets reformed, deal with it, rather than complaining that it exists. Pretending it doesn't exist and then acting all surprised when you lose is... a loser's game. Rightly or wrongly, POTUS elections are not decided on a head count basis, so winning the popular vote is not enough. That's not to say I approve of it, not that it matters, but there are all sorts of glitches and flaws in many countries' electoral systems (I can think of one country that has an un-elected leader right now, for example).
You play with the hand you're dealt, not the one you wish you had and I'd be willing to bet that that rule will remain for the foreseeable future.
Extremely partisan gerrymandering on the other hand seems to have a flimsier legal basis so might be a better aim for reform. Not that I expect that to happen either, with the recent nominees to SCOTUS guarding the roost.
He's going to get re-elected because the democrats are moving so far left of where centrists want to be. They have no viable candidate as a result
Hillary is a extremely right-wing in all but social/gender politics. Important note: Trump beat Hillary. All the polls showed candidate Bernie Sanders (openly socialist) had far better numbers against Trump, but he couldn't win the primary against Hillary.
The early primaries are always where the extremists come out of the woodwork. Things normalize later on.
Trump won on populism. He said his tax cuts, eliminating regulations (coal) and aggressive negotiations with China would improve things for the poor and lower-middle class that weren't much of that as the economy gradually recovered. The fact that Trump actually made the economy far worse, and the tax breaks only went to billionaires and corporations who lined their pockets and didn't create any new jobs is irrelevant. He won adopting left-wing ideals, which isn't so far-fetched as he was a registered Democrat. Of course it was idiotic to buy the sales pitch, but people did. Somebody like Bernie can out-trump Trump on the popular bits of his campaign rhetoric, without all the insane, self-service, pathologically lying cheeto mannequin baggage.
" ... Important note: Trump beat Hillary. ... "
Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
So let's do some math here .............
That's a difference of 2,864,903 votes for ...........
OH GOD NO!! Hillary Clinton!!! WTF? Clinton actually won?
Isn't the person that who gets the most votes SUPPOSED to win?
So no, actually he didn't.
EFF the E.C..
Oh, and by the way 8.810.884 more Americans voted AGAINST Trump, then voted for Trump.
So .................................. ?
> Isn't the person that who gets the most votes SUPPOSED to win?
Is that a rhetorical question? Are you not from the US and don't know its election rules?
Whether its a good system or not is another question - it’s not as simple as it sounds, I am familiar with some other systems and they also involve tradeoffs and problems. But it is the system used in the US for 2016 and 2020. Did you not know that?
You mean "leftist" ideas like ...
Not locking up children in cages, indifferently?
Sane gun laws ( NO! We NO NOT WANT TO TAKE YOU GUNS AWAY! )? ( The VAST majority of Americans back universal background checks and a ban on military type weapons )
Not going bankrupt because of catastrophic illness.
Help for those with mental health issues?
And you know, other "social" ( socialists? ) issues?
" ... there's nobody in the democrats line up who stands a chance against him ... "
Do you know that of the top 4 Democrats, the polls show that all of them lead him by at least 7%? At least two of them by double digits ( 20% )? You mean THOSE Democrats?
Finally, the more enlightened progressives are getting stronger, but the democratic party are still beholden to corporate donors, and in the rest of the sane world would be considered more right wing than most right wing parties.
Damn those progressives and their socialised healthcare, right?, but never mind the republican socialist bailouts to the banks, and the socialist pay off to farmers, and the socialist subsidies given to oil and gas, and of course, the biggest socialist project, the military.
Don't even mention the downright communist laws allowing pharma to price-fix drugs.
Still, don't call the police if you're attacked, or the fire service if your house is on fire, or even drive down public roads.. You wouldn't want to be branded socialist, would you?
>there's nobody in the democrats line up who stands a chance against him
Yet the polls show that any one of Warren, Biden or Sanders would swamp Trump.
These 'leftists' would have been centrists, throughout the 20th cent. Only the GOP's lurch to the far right makes common sense look 'left-wing'.
He's probably going to get Crowned in three years because of the leftist going Marxist.
The unsound hate towards Trump is enough to make any Centrist or center right vote for him.
The Dems are toast, this is all planned though.
The Puppet strings all lead to the same people.
And all the stuff Ed Snowden, William Binney, and Julian Assange noted, the Russa collusion hoax (sedition isn't legal) and on and one - all you have to do is just ignore the laws. And let unelected officials actually wind up with all the power.
The rest of the world doesn't give two fucks about your constitution.
It's a shit excuse to do nothing when another child gets an assualt rifle and goes to school to massacre.
And the way your president is behaving (using his position to make himself richer) proves that it doesn't mean shit in your country either.
"On the other hand, if I did that there's a chance that you would be too dead to have an emotion."
Eh, the last shooting spree killed 29 people out of 327,000,000. So he'd have roughly a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of you killing him during your gun-toting killing spree. So it's a tiny, tiny chance that if you did that, he'd be too dead to have an emotion. Just so you know...
"From who or what?"
If he knew that, he probably wouldn't need the gun. Guns are good tools to have handy when tackling the unknown.
It's a well-known fact that some women are attracted to manly men who have a safe full of firearms. Some women are not. To each his/her own.
"So that they can protect themselves from ..........
Who, or what exactly?"
For a start:
Some aren't as much of a problem anymore, others still are, some never were a problem to the Big-City Folks.
Absolutely no shooters in the US have used assault rifles - those are fully automatic military weapons that have been illegal (without a class III federal license) for decades. The shooters have used so-called "assault weapons" which are nothing more than semi-auto hunting rifles that look like assault rifles. I have no issue with effective gun control but I haven't seen any such thing in at least 20 years proposed in the US. Outlawing "assault weapons" does absolutely nothing without outlawing other rifles with the same characteristics (primarily other semi-auto rifles with the same magazine capacity). It's similar to the law that went through after the Las Vegas shooting - it outlawed bump stocks but did nothing for the other 2-4 devices that do the same thing.
The term Assult rifle may have your knickers in a twist. No they may not be Milatary wepons but by GOD thay surly kill a lot of people.
Keep talking about Wepons saving lives, but how many lives do they ACTUALLY save?
IT must be make Americans feel very powerfull to have a garage full or guns! Just if you look at statistics it saeems like they DO NOT WORK.
Compare the number of gun deaths (Any sort) in the USA compared to most other countries. (try her UK) you probably have more gun deaths in a day that we have in a YEAR in the UK. (Per head of popoulation).
I guess that because "everyone" carries a gun then everyone need to carry a gun because of all the people carry guns. (MAD) is the Abbreviation you are looking for.
Sometimes weapons save lives, sometimes they don't. Sometimes seatbelts save lives, sometimes they don't. In both cases, it's better to have one than to need one.
We like guns, here in the US. It's a fundamental part of our culture. We realize that the rest of the world does not feel that way, and that's OK. We're going to keep our guns, regardless.
I'm waiting for someone to just up and say ink on a page and ignore the whole thing and have the power to actually back it up. If Trump's radical base decides enough is enough and pick up their guns, we could be seeing a new Civil War here.
"If Trump's radical base decides enough is enough and pick up their guns,"
Doubtful. Facebook is full of lots of tough-talk like that, but the truth is, 90% of the population is too soft and pampered to be worth a damn in any Civil War, and the other 10% is too busy to worry about it. Nobody really REALLY wants to go to all that trouble - they want to keep watching stupid shit on YouTube, and eating fast food, and playing Halo. Sadly, we are unable to mount another actual Civil War in this country, the best we could manage would be to keyboard-warrior it to death.
"aims to restrict the ability of platforms to remove content" while simultaneously criticising platforms for not removing content quickly enough.
I'm surprised Trump has pointed this at the FCC and FTC, I'd have thought a new Ministry of Information would be the sort of organisation a Dictator appoints to manage the distribution of news.
Since the Twitter in chief is the biggest purveyor of lies and misleading crap on his feed, he should have been banned a long time ago.
He is always insulting, misleading or just plain lying about his rivals and calls them out by name. I thought this was contrary to the T&C / rules of engagement of Twitter. It would have gotten many people banned for less.
Don't judge a book by the cover - that is exactly what he wants you to do.
Boris is well educated (Eton and Oxford) and highly politicised. Even at Oxford he wormed his way to President of the Union by hiding his true colours.
He knows that by playing the buffoon he can disarm opponents and he plays it well. That makes him a lot more dangerous than people imagine. Trump looks like an idiot and thinks like one - Boris may look like one but underestimate him at your peril!
Trump is clever, but he's not intelligent.
He's a poor judge of people and has very few interpersonal skills. His main strategy seems to be intimidation and then stonewalling if he meets with any objections. He claims to be a "dealmaker", but doesn't understand compromise.
His only real skills appear to be:
1. Losing money through poor investments
2. Surrounding himself with others like him
Does he really lose money or are they just clever tax write offs while his true wealth is funnelled through some off shore bank accounts? I seem to remember reading about some clever manoeuvring with regards to a museum.
The best way to get away with naughty stuff is to surround yourself with people who are just as naughty.
I don't know to be honest, the juries out on whether he is intelligent/lucky or just a common or garden orange basket case with small grabby hands.
Sure it does. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. The Discworld was round AND had an edge. And the secret is kept by the planet itself (a genius locus) by secretly brainwashing anyone who tries. After all, why else hasn't anyone tried to fly south around the world?
>At least Boris is intelligent.
He's not that smart.
A few years ago, he appeared on a BBC politics prgram (Leviathan), where he sat a GCSE level exam (the prog was examining the myth of 'grade inflation').
He embarrassed himself, and was out-done - by Toyah Wilcox.
One of the important lessons taught at Eton and other 'top' schools, is how to busk through, appearing to know what you're talking about. Throw in a few latin tags and an air of confidence and you can get away with a lot.
I think he was joking... but Greenland might be interesting _IF_ it has useful resources on it that left-wingers won't mine/drill/whatever for, like stopping oil drilling in Alaska for so many years because of whatever excuse they could come up with (like polar bears). Polar bears are just fine, even with the oil pipelines and drilling rigs. They don't need a gazillion acres to mate in . Sorta reminds me of that spotted owl nonsense a while back that was used to stop logging activity, put a bunch of people out of work even.
But yeah, 'Greenland Gold Rush' comes to mind. Or maybe diamonds. Or rare earths. Or OIL. Has anyone bothered looking there? If it were a U.S. Territory, while Trump is President, you BET people would look! And they'd probably FIND, too.
more like biased against non-left-wingers...
'conservative' by definition is not an extreme position, because it seeks to 'conserve' rather than 'radically change' things.
And THAT is what the social media bias is against! At least, from the evidence I have seen presented on multiple occasions, INCLUDING the way 'Diamond and Silk' were treated...
The concern here is the left-wing-biased social media and their tendency to "let pass" any left-wing extremism content they find, but then SIMULTANEOUSLY ban conservative (not so much right-wing) content. including "shadow bans" (where your followers stop seeing your new content without you knowing about it, that sort of thing), that this would MEDDLE IN THE ELECTIONS. You know, ACTUAL meddling, not just a bunch of made-up convenience stories based on lies that are known to have been paid for by the D.N.C. that get passed off as "intelligence" and are THEN used as a basis for getting FISA warrants...
In any case, wouldn't we ALL agree that Faceb[itch,ook] and Tw[a,i]tter and Google have TOO MUCH POWER in their hands? They're in a position to literally TAKE OVER THE WORLD by manipulating the 'sheeple'. That is NOT a good thing.
Instead, if we love freedom, these social media platforms need to remain NEUTRAL in the way they handle EVERYTHING. At least SOME oversight is needed.
These lefties call people like Jordan Peterson (NDP!) and James Damore "right wing" even though what they say is simply well documented truth in psychology- accepted for decades and with good backing in real science of how things work.
But it tears their narrative to shreds. Therefore, it's right-wing wrong think. "If you're not with us..." - they borrowed that line from somewhere else.
Along with "always accuse your enemy of what you're actually doing".
The basic flaw in all this is that the extreme right has seized the label "conservatives" and also had it thrust upon them by the extreme left as if it's a bad thing. It used to be that conservatives were the middle ground. At this point, I'm not seeing any middle ground only the extremes fighting each other.
"'conservative' by definition is not an extreme position, because it seeks to 'conserve' rather than 'radically change' things."
In some cases this is true. "Radical" conservatism actually seeks to wind back the clock or deny that change is happening at all. At its most benign, conservatism asks us to be careful about our changes, less they cause too much disruption, but political conservatives seem to be willing at present to bed down with a great number of noxious fellow-travelers, e.g. white nationalists, anti-science fanatics, and even foreign agents. In general, when a "conservative" viewpoint is blocked on a forum or social network, it's not because the conservative in question is making a reasoned defense of, e.g. small government or non-interventionist foreign policy, it's because he is being an asshole, often to an entire class of people.
There's a saying about freedom: "Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my nose."
Freedoms inevitably clash. Thus you have limits on freedom like the Schenck ("Fire in a Crowded Theater") decision.
Some speech or print is inherently inciteful ("Them's fightin' words!"). The government can't help but put a check on that to protect the innocent. This requires them to impose SOME standard of morality or you end up with amorality by default.
ALL agree that Faceb[itch,ook] and Tw[a,i]tter and Google have TOO MUCH POWER in their hands? They're in a position to literally TAKE OVER THE WORLD by manipulating the 'sheeple'. That is NOT a good thing.
It's not always a shadowy agenda that drives these things. Yes, I agree that the likes of Facebook are often misleading and manipulative of their masses of users, but corporations are paranoid about bad press potentially impacting their business.
Their platforms are driven by on the engines of human drivel, the mundane to the scandalous. However, it's a find line, and too much outrage or controversy they fear will lead users to abandon them, and they pull the source and try to look contrite and as outraged as everyone else.
If they are pulling more 'right-wing' nonsense than left, it's because the masses of their users are closer to pitchforks and torches over it than they are the 'left-wing' nonsense.
If you are noticing more content being pulled you agree with, you should be worried about potentially being groomed by extremists.
Their platforms are driven by on the engines of human drivel,
This also includes most of the news media. A quick look around them and much of their content is human drivel or totally out of wack. For example, why should my news feed from say Yahoo, Google, etc. contain stories about auto accidents in cities a thousand miles from me?
Im very concerned that Twitter censors researchers human rights activists and civilians reporting the news in conflict zones as in Syria and others, I've been on Twitter since 2011 and o er 400,000 tweets have added my name to dozens of appeals to reinstate their accounts including in recent months and on June 27 two from my network were suspended including myself for vague unspecified reasons the same general statement ( your account has been suspended for repeated or multiple violations) as last March suspended for 3 weeks then Twitter says sorry for the inconvenience my account was caught up with a group that were suspended. Interesting that Jack now is supporting and donating to Tulsi Gabbard an apologist appeaser and supporter of the brutal dictator Assad documented proven war criminal and suspends 2 human rights activists who support the Syrian peoples rights and governments responsibility to protect and criticize Gabbard a non-interventionist and Assad documented proven war crimes denier and several other dictators. It seems like a phone company trying to control the conversations and the Twitter platform is trying to control the narrative access to news information and justified criticism and promote their conspiracy theorists and documented proven war crimes denialist politicians and exclude all others, Jack says Gabbard is the only one for climate change reforms, as she is also for dictators and war crimes atrocities which could lead to WWIII, I'm more concerned with the safety security and protection of civilians accountability and the rule of law.
And stop it sith the paranoia. "leftist" sites are regularly shut down or demonitised. It's all to do with money - what the advertisers want. If they don't approve of some bigoted racist liar who breaks laws, - but you do - then your problem is with them.
A fairer conclusion is companies tend to ban "more risky" stuff. You only think it's only right wing stuff because you don't notice the rest.
I would love to see the US return to some form of sanity. The "far left" are what used to be called centrists. The middle has moved so far right it's not funny. Way too many people are (somehow) convinced to vote against their own self-interest (ex many people who benefit from the ACA have been convinced to vote for politicians that want to get rid of it). Only in the US do we have health care that is getting more and more expensive with quality getting worse and worse (we now have the highest prices with the worst quality of care in all categories among first-world countries).
Re: Healthcare costs, keep in mind the US is the third most-populous country in the world and highly heterogeneous: both strikes against affordable healthcare (after all, you don't see India's or China's systems being praised, either, and who else has to deal with major culture clash). Frankly, one key element to solving a lot of social problems is also practically tsboo: reduce the population first.
Hardly. In truth, he really hasn't royally fucked anything up yet. Yeah, he's pissed a bunch of people off, and done things that aren't considered "Presidential", and overstepped his bounds a few times. But none of that really damaged the core of the Republic. That part is still strong. We still have an electoral college that works, and Congress and the SCOTUS still have their full powers. Nothing important has really changed, and he's done nothing that can't be undone by a future administration with the same "stroke of a pen" that he used to do it. Looking back in 20-30 years, Trump's current buffoonery will have made little if any difference, unless Congress and the States choose to make drastic changes to the Constitution to prevent this in the future. THAT's the really scary part, IMHO - people trying to muck around with the Constitution for knee-jerk reasons.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019