The Next President is...

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Twitter isn't an ISP...

Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T blocking or prioritizing packets of data based on where they come from or are going to would violate the net neutrality concept. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from cutting deals to favor certain businesses or ideals/opinions. And this is necessary because they are common carriers for information: ISPs are *infrastructure*.

Apple and Google both are well within their rights to remove any app they believe violates their terms of service (or for any reason): it's their walled garden, and the blocking of an app on an app store has no bearing on the transmission of data. This is just the free market. People can still get unapproved or blocked apps, but have to do it via a third party (side loading). This is not a violation of net neutrality principles. Sure, it's harder to get a blocked app because you don't have the benefit of using the default app store, but the app developer can still publish and distribute their app through other means, and net neutrality allows the same priority of the data packets regardless of the source, whether it's Apple's app store server or a private, third party server.

Twitter, Facebook, app stores, websites, etc aren't common carriers or infrastructure. Being blocked on Twitter does not limit your free speech. You can switch to another service, or build/host your own website/discussion forum to get your message out in the internet. And with net neutrality, packets of data moving to/from your website have the same priority as packets of data from Twitter, and prevents the ISP from blocking out your small service in favor of business interests (like faster connections to business partners).

Net neutrality has zero to do with content or opinions, or ensuring "balanced" viewpoints are represented online, and everything to do with ensuring infrastructure is shared equally and no one gets priority access to the infrastructure.

Separately, section 230 protects online *platforms* (such as twitter or Facebook) from being considered a *publisher*. This distinction prevents twitter/Facebook/discussion boards/etc from having to moderate all content before it is published on their platform. Essentially, without section 230, it breaks how we conduct discussions on the internet. Imagine if the mods on BaseOps had to approve ("publish") every post, because the forum owner was legally liable for any content that appeared on the forum instead of the individual poster. Removing section 230 would completely stifle any discussion, slows down the internet, and would break the fundamental model of social media. But that's not to say that moderation or enforcement of rules can't happen, just that someone can't sue the platform based on a opinion posted by an individual on that platform. It's just like phone companies (infrastructure) not being liable for the text messages you send, but for internet communication.

Section 230 is good, it protects internet businesses from frivolous lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than an individual. For example, it prevents Democrats from suing Twitter for allowing Trump to tweet anything they disagree with. Got an issue with what is said on the platform by an individual? Take it up with the individual.

If the Terms of Service and Community Standards were applied evenly and equally yes.. but as we see now in our Brave New World it is some rules for thee and little or different rules for me

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/10/watch-high-profile-leftists-incite-violence-social-media-accounts-still-intact-n307606

Trump and other wealthy Nationalists, Populists, Patriots, etc... need to put their money where their mouth is and form a constellation of alternative technology, finance, retail, entertainment, telecommunications, services etc... to concentrate and strengthen the other side of the political divide to answer back as they are all coalescing to silence, bully and marginalize their political opponents.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[jazzdude]

If the Terms of Service and Community Standards were applied evenly and equally yes.. but as we see now in our Brave New World it is some rules for thee and little or different rules for me
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/10/watch-high-profile-leftists-incite-violence-social-media-accounts-still-intact-n307606
Trump and other wealthy Nationalists, Populists, Patriots, etc... need to put their money where their mouth is and form a constellation of alternative technology, finance, retail, entertainment, telecommunications, services etc... to concentrate and strengthen the other side of the political divide to answer back as they are all coalescing to silence, bully and marginalize their political opponents.  

As unfair as it seems or is in practice, it's still their sandbox to play in. Part of the challenge is just the sheer volume of posts to moderate, so most moderation is retroactive after something has been posted, subsequently reported, and adjudicated. Automatic takedowns create other problems (like DCMA takedowns on YouTube against original content or fair use content).

So yes, if one political leaning doesn't like a platform, make your own.

[ThreeHoler]

It’s a pretty well known fact that sites like Parler and BitChute have become repositories for people and groups that have been kicked off more mainstream social media. 
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/right-wing-social-media-finalizes-its-divorce-reality/617177/

From the article: 
“A different type of influencer, however, was active on Parler: accounts that had been kicked off mainstream social communities because of assorted forms of bad behavior and terms-of-service violations. These included Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, and leading QAnon acolytes.”

I see that article and pile on:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/trump-rioters-wanted-more-violence-worse/617614/

The alternative social media sites are being used to coordinate these activities.

How does one explain the videos of capitol police letting people in to the capitol?

[slackline]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Still doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision for the country. Seriously, you can hate Trump for a lot of things. Please do not hate him for getting us out of all the quagmires Bush and Obama entangled us into. It was the one thing I strongly supported about his Presidency. 

Flea and I don't often agree.  Who cares about the reason, I don't even care if he did it to literally say he fulfilled a promise that he doesn't care about.  It is over a decade past the time we should have left that hole.  Blatant politicking on his part, but still good for our country.  We've wasted way too many lives and national treasure on a lost cause. Leave, and don't look back. Drop some pointee talkees on the way out saying we won't come back except with some JDAMs if they allow their territories to be used for training terrorists again.  

I've lost too many friends over there to care about the right vs wrong reason to leave a place we should have left forever ago.  

[Prozac]

58 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

If the Terms of Service and Community Standards were applied evenly and equally yes.. but as we see now in our Brave New World it is some rules for thee and little or different rules for me

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/10/watch-high-profile-leftists-incite-violence-social-media-accounts-still-intact-n307606

Trump and other wealthy Nationalists, Populists, Patriots, etc... need to put their money where their mouth is and form a constellation of alternative technology, finance, retail, entertainment, telecommunications, services etc... to concentrate and strengthen the other side of the political divide to answer back as they are all coalescing to silence, bully and marginalize their political opponents.  

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT. 

[Clark Griswold]

As unfair as it seems or is in practice, it's still their sandbox to play in. Part of the challenge is just the sheer volume of posts to moderate, so most moderation is retroactive after something has been posted, subsequently reported, and adjudicated. Automatic takedowns create other problems (like DCMA takedowns on YouTube against original content or fair use content).

So yes, if one political leaning doesn't like a platform, make your own.

All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT. 

No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazzdude]

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT. 

If that's what they want to do... Then yeah, it's fine. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others have to listen to you, nor do you have to listen to others.

Is it a good plan to live in an echo chamber you build around yourself? I don't think so. It reinforces blindspots, and prevents growth of critical analysis of what's going on in and around your life. But if you wanted to do so, it's a free country, so long as you're not breaking any laws.

There's no way to force people to listen to other points of view, at least not in a free country.

But this does put our nation in a precarious situation. People are free to say what they want, and to organize, no matter how vile others may view their ideas. And generally, our government can't limit that, or at least not until there's clear intent to conduct harm or violate the rights of others. So the price we pay for the our freedom is the potential for violence, with justice coming after violence has already occurred. It's built on the assumption of mutual trust and respect for fellow citizens to prevent things from getting violent. Unfortunately for an individual affected, the damage done by others can't always be undone, but as a society/country, it's an acceptable consequence of our system. So there's always going to be a trade-off between liberty/freedom and security.

[jazzdude]

All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get your sentiment. And I think generally, social media tries to be careful and walk a fine line. Because again, there's a business case to be made for having as wide of a user base as possible to increase their revenue.

But Jan 6 crossed a line for many companies who felt that the violent actions were organized using their services, so they blocked people they believe we're inciting that violence to prevent future acts using their services. The president's speech isn't limited by being blocked by twitter; he literally has a press room for official communications, and his campaign to get out political messages.

Plus the argument that 1st amendment principles doesn't apply to modern communications isn't a strong one. Government can't restrict an individual's speech, but businesses can control what they publish. For publishers, they don't have to publish opinion columns that they don't like. For platforms, they generally aren't held responsible for the opinions of those speaking on their platform (a theater isn't liable for the opinions expressed by a performer or speaker who performs on the stage). Those concepts can be directly applied to new communications technology since the underlying principles remain true, and have been codified in section 230.

Which is why Trump and the Republicans have been adamant about repealing section 230, and tied increasing Covid stimulus payments to repealing section 230. Repealing it allows people or organizations to sue a platform such as twitter for perceived unfairness. Which sounds good at a surface level, but opens the door for continuous frivolous lawsuits, especially from political agents, against the platform, rendering the business model unviable for social media platforms. So then everyone loses that platform due to political views of a few well connected and wealthy individuals.

[Prozac]

55 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your fellow Americans are your enemy? Because they espouse a different viewpoint? Isn’t this this the same position that you criticize radical leftists for taking? Is the answer to the radical left an even more radical tack from the right? That seems to be the position of a lot of my countrymen at the moment and it’s what concerns me most for the future of our republic. 

[jazzdude]

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term.

It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters.

Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term.

It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters.

Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

No one but thru our everyday economic actions and choices we must support institutions that support the people and organizations that affirm and reflect our values, beliefs and existence

You should not trade with your enemy beyond what is absolutely necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact that we view people with a different political opinion as "enemies" is a big part of the problem.

[slackline]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

All true but it is sheer enraging lying hypocrisy of it all while using a law designed for a different purpose in frankly a different time (nascent beginning of widespread commercial and personal use of the internet) for a purpose no one would want have happen to them if the roles were reversed

At some point those on the right must realize the current form of the left doesn’t believe they have a right to exist or to exist without being oppressed and attacked using any means at their disposal inside and outside the political sphere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If this isn't a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what would be🤣

[17D_guy]

11 hours ago, Pooter said:

The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC.

This is perfect.

[jazzdude]

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

The GOP didn't want to let go of them in the name of keeping a solid voting block against the Democrats, and gave in to a lot of what the tea party wanted.

But in return, the GOP started selling out it's ideals out to their fringe, and probably led to Trump becoming the GOP nominee in 2016.

Hopefully the GOP learned it's lesson about catering to the fringe and cuts the "patriots" loose before they lose what remaining credibility they have left.

[Negatory]

8 minutes ago, pawnman said:

People thought the same thing about the Tea party.  How'd that work out?

True that. It’s not going to do jack.

Moderate dems still have to vote with full up communists. Just like moderate reps will still have to vote with full up Nazis.

Ranked choice voting and a transition towards a parliamentary system is the solution. But that would require the nation to admit that the two party system (which is great for those currently in power) isn’t working.

[pbar]

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by pbar

[jazzdude]

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

That control will be exerted by someone. It could be pushed down to states. And large businesses hold lots of influence, and to some extent, power and control. It may not be a formal, defined power or control, but may exist in practice (see the whole discussion about twitter).

You're right, power and control doesn't necessarily have to be at the federal level, but stripping it from the federal government doesn't magically solve the problem, just shifts the issues.

Unless we are willing to return to a largely agricultural society and don't allow power to accumulate in private organizations such as businesses. But that'd require figuring out what to do with the much larger population we have and giving up many modern conveniences we take for granted. As well as reducing our influence in the world.

You could push power (and responsibility) back down to the states (arguably the original intent), but that'll never happen now because many smaller, less productive states would never allow it since it will cause then to lose funding. What happens when everyone leaves say North Dakota for better opportunities elsewhere, and the state loses any real economic power, reducing tax revenue, and preventing the state from providing basic government services? Does the state default? Get annexed? Who takes care of the citizens for basic services (like vital records or courts)?

Does a state like California then get more say at the federal level because it contributes more to the federal government? And if not, what is it's incentive to stay when money flows out of state without a perceived return in value?

[N730]

Doesn't Trump still have the POTUS Twitter account? It's not twitters fault that he always insisted on using his personal account and still isn't using that one.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, pbar said:

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

Get rid of 90% of our military then, because the strong, overreaching federal government and its ability to impose broad sweeping taxes is the only way we as a group were able to procure 20 B-2s.

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, pbar said:

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control.  If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress.  With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.  

I'd rather the federal gov't have this power, that is buffeted by elections and the judicial branch, than unanswerable corporations whose only motivation is profit.

[Negatory]

Lol at some people saying the free market is anti conservative now. The hypocrisy is reaching critical levels.

[slackline]

Collin Powell explains why he can't be GOP anymore

For all those pseudo Patriots, here's a real one.  If you've never seen him speak live, you've missed out. I'm not a fan of his wife at all because she forbade him from seeking public office. I understand it, but we needed him, and she wouldn't let him.

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, jazzdude said:

I get your sentiment. And I think generally, social media tries to be careful and walk a fine line. Because again, there's a business case to be made for having as wide of a user base as possible to increase their revenue.

But Jan 6 crossed a line for many companies who felt that the violent actions were organized using their services, so they blocked people they believe we're inciting that violence to prevent future acts using their services. The president's speech isn't limited by being blocked by twitter; he literally has a press room for official communications, and his campaign to get out political messages.

Plus the argument that 1st amendment principles doesn't apply to modern communications isn't a strong one. Government can't restrict an individual's speech, but businesses can control what they publish. For publishers, they don't have to publish opinion columns that they don't like. For platforms, they generally aren't held responsible for the opinions of those speaking on their platform (a theater isn't liable for the opinions expressed by a performer or speaker who performs on the stage). Those concepts can be directly applied to new communications technology since the underlying principles remain true, and have been codified in section 230.

Which is why Trump and the Republicans have been adamant about repealing section 230, and tied increasing Covid stimulus payments to repealing section 230. Repealing it allows people or organizations to sue a platform such as twitter for perceived unfairness. Which sounds good at a surface level, but opens the door for continuous frivolous lawsuits, especially from political agents, against the platform, rendering the business model unviable for social media platforms. So then everyone loses that platform due to political views of a few well connected and wealthy individuals.

Will respectfully disagree with you, if they cared so much about preventing users organizing violent activities, preventing organizing and the promotion of violent / false information they would have cracked down very hard sts during last summer's riots/lootings/assults on gov buildings, police departments, etc... but those brave SJWs were fighting systemic racism by looting the Walgreens, burning down a Wendy's, crashing thru private gates on to private property threatening home owners who were the wrong skin color so that's ok.  

As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed.

They say they are a neutral platform but they act like a publisher selectively, my and others' two cents.

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

So your fellow Americans are your enemy? Because they espouse a different viewpoint? Isn’t this this the same position that you criticize radical leftists for taking? Is the answer to the radical left an even more radical tack from the right? That seems to be the position of a lot of my countrymen at the moment and it’s what concerns me most for the future of our republic. 

They are acting like I'm their enemy because I espouse a different viewpoint so why is it unreasonable to view them the way they view me?  To quote Spies Like Us:  "Naive wishing for peace is the surest possible way to encourage an aggressor". I would extend that sentiment to the current political fight and argue that is you don't fight back with them with similar weapons and vigor you only encourage further conflict as they will interpret that not as character but as weakness.

I'm not cynical nor sentimental, things change and we have to change with the times.  I'm for change not because I hate my country, the people in it who think differently than me or any other reason, I'm for change because we need it.  It is obvious that we have grown apart and keeping us under a system that requires an enormous amount of national  consensus to function as designed that we can no longer generate is insane.

The republic as it exists currently may not be the best form of the American country, you only move forward and never go back to what was and we may need to move to a new political arrangement on the North American continent.  Still a united political entity but something different with a vastly more autonomous political units.

As they say the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is perverted by some now to dominate and take advantage of others in ways that disregard their fundamental sovereignty over local affairs, their personal choices and has changed into over reach that abuses them while claiming they are morally reprehensible for who they are and who their ancestors were.  

The Republic as it was intended to be, majority rule with minority rights along with fundamental unalienable rights, it is not delivering that anymore.  

It's not likely to happen but a Constitutional Convention is necessary.

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

The fact that we view people with a different political opinion as "enemies" is a big part of the problem.

Ref my above statement but I would offer that the Left of late is more guilty of this than the Right.  

When you frame your enemies as morally reprehensible or deplorable, with both sides holding irreconcilable positions this is inevitable.

4 hours ago, slackline said:

If this isn't a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what would be🤣

Everyone's guilty, everyone's innocent.  You just have to fight for yours and your side and the other side does the same.