The Next President is...

[ViperMan]

12 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Congress doesn't really directly let it continue-the political parties allow it to continue. Either because they: a. support the action (maybe not personally, but to retain good standing and support from the party for continued reelection), b. because they can't get enough traction to do anything because option a., or c. They don't want to challenge the power so it's there when they can take control of that power because option a.

It's because it's their turn now. That's all it is. Next time, it'll be someone else's turn.

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

End 230...period DOT.

I think that's a mistake - it would destroy the internet as we know it. This message board, and others like it would likely be collateral damage, as now the owners, administrators would be liable for whatever gets posted up here - legal or illegal.

A much cleaner kill, and IMO the right move, would be to regulate portions of Amazon's business (i.e. AWS, etc)...ala AT&T and their phone business.

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Understood.  However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim.  My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right?  They should just state that they are conservatives and own it.

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats.

It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind.

And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

[Negatory]

I don't see how ending 230 is actually going to help. In my eyes, ending 230 protections would have one of two effects:

1) Companies are more wary of being sued, and they actually censor a lot more stuff based on their opinions of what is right and wrong

2) Companies try to maintain neutrality by allowing literally anything and everything, turning the whole internet into 4chan

[Pooter]

15 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

That is very true.  Anyone can develop a social media platform.  If you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy to build a great platform, you'll succeed. If not, well, thems the breaks in the free-market innovation economy.   

The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.

But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.  

[pbar]

On 1/17/2021 at 12:11 PM, nsplayr said:

I actual have a personal jihad against self checkout at stores, especially grocery stores when I always seem to have a ton of items in the cart. I do not work at the grocery store, nor do I want to!

 

Who the hell at Walmart decided that was a good idea?  I mean seriously, have they ever been to a buffet line!?!  Same fools that are loading their plate one kernel of corn at a time now are gonna self-checkout in an expeditious manner?  YGBSM.  Now going to Walmart takes 3 times as long.   <rant switch off>

 

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I think that's a mistake - it would destroy the internet as we know it. This message board, and others like it would likely be collateral damage, as now the owners, administrators would be liable for whatever gets posted up here - legal or illegal.

A much cleaner kill, and IMO the right move, would be to regulate portions of Amazon's business (i.e. AWS, etc)...ala AT&T and their phone business.

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pbar said:

Who the hell at Walmart decided that was a good idea?  I mean seriously, have they ever been to a buffet line!?!  Same fools that are loading their plate one kernel of corn at a time now are gonna self-checkout in an expeditious manner?  YGBSM.  Now going to Walmart takes 3 times as long.   <rant switch off>

 

I really like it for running into a grocery story to just buy 1-3 things. It is a great option over having to wait in line behind families with cart fulls of groceries. They probably need to put an item limit on it, but grocery stores are probably unlikely to do that. 

[FLEA]

55 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

I think this is my issue. It's not neccessarily that they are censoring, but the FCC has special rules and provisions that giveany tech and telecom companies de facto monopolies. Telling conservatives to build their own social network is near impossible, as they need all the infrastructure and cloud behind it as well, plus a search engine and everything else that brings traffic. 

[jazzdude]

The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.
But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.  

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...

Getting kicked off Facebook or twitter is not being kicked off the internet. You still have options to express yourself-build a website, forums, etc. Using a phone example, someone or some business blocking your number in their phone because they think you're annoying does not mean your ability to communicate by phone has been restricted.

Getting kicked off AWS or Azure because Amazon or Microsoft do not support your business is not the same as being kicked off the internet. You can use your own computer to host your website, and then scale up to bigger and better servers if it becomes popular. It's like losing phone voicemail hosted by a third party-you can still make and receive calls, but you lost a service you wanted that makes your ability to communicate with incoming calls easier. You can always buy an answering machine if you want that voicemail service.

Comcast or Verizon blocking your internet service based on the the traffic they see on your home network, or your opinions expressed elsewhere, is what being kicked off the internet means. This would be getting cut off from using the phone.

[Swamp Yankee]

5 hours ago, Pooter said:

The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.

But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.  

Well stated.  That's the rub that it seems like no one can get past.  'Free speech only applies to things I agree with'.   Many of those complaining about Twitter's decision with Trump likely supported removal of artwork considered offensive to Christianity. In fact, I know two people with this perspective, who can't (or aren't willing) to note the inconsistency.  And there are equal examples from the opposite political perspective. 

You also bring up a good point. For years, and maybe still now, minorities were refused mortgages to keep them out of the suburbs.  All those nice moms didn't want their little darlings sharing classrooms with brown people.  So the reality is free speech has its limits, particularly where it impedes someone else's liberty. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

I seem to remember a great deal of social media and news coverage regarding complaints about BLM, Kathy Griffin, and Hunter Biden.  Lots of coverage of the details and the reaction from the right.  Not sure what media you consume.  

Even if social media exerts bias on what does and doesn't get posted on their platforms, there are many other currently-available avenues to communicate via the internet.  Also, I mentioned in another post that if you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy you can start your own social media platform.  You're not beholden to anyone. Go for it! 

You are absolutely right! My oath was to defend the constitution, not a flag, political party or specific person.  It is a really complicated situation. You've got the issue of a private company having the ability to control its destiny. You've got public accommodation laws to prevent things like minorities not being able to get mortgages. Then you've got the issue of very partisan people like a Hawley, Schumer, McConnell, or Pelosi having a direct say in what a private company can or can't discuss.  If I had the answers, I wouldn't be doing this. 

On a related topic: Fox, Newsmax, talk radio and other right leaning news outlets ARE part of mainstream media.  They have global reach and huge, growing viewer/readership. The tired old "liberal mainstream media" whining is obsolete.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

Disagree here, I think your point is extremely overblown. You could replace “they” and “them” in your post with Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook are not the internet. Let me repeat. Twitter and Facebook are not “the internet.”

Now if you’re talking about the sensible regulation of over reaching, monopolistic large tech companies, I’m all ears. But that’s not your post. Instead, you’re mad that a company has a political leaning. Newsflash: all companies do. Find a different company.

The internet in its current form is a worldwide international marvel, not just an American free speech machine. And if you go on it and actually look outside Twitter and Facebook, you can find literally every group of people still has their place and their voice. I’m not keen to make the American internet into the Chinese version anytime soon.

Also, they don’t control your access to information. YOU control your access to information, and, sure, the fact that a bunch of dumbasses get their news from Facebook is a huge contributing factor to the problem. But that’s not facebooks fault. That’s your great Aunt Kay being an idiot who doesn’t look at multiple sources.

I don’t see Twitter or Facebook limiting the ability for Fox or MSNBC or CNN or the Washington Post to put out their own stories. I don’t see Facebook shutting down 4chan. It’s not like Twitter took Parler off the web.

My rub with a lot of this is you could just as easily argue that former president Trump getting online and spouting lies and misinformation is as destructive or even more destructive to the country. Yet there’s no discussion there? Hell, I think you’d be hard pressed to argue against that. Here’s just a few of the gems of falsehood and disinformation Trump has produced and spread using Twitter and Facebook that have helped us get to where we are today:

1) President Obama isn’t born in the US and isn’t a US citizen. YGBSM.

2) “Just stay calm, it will go away” in reference to COVID. Turned out his plan isn’t working so great, maybe should have followed science/his own advisors.

3) “VOTER FRAUD IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT IS FACT” - thousands of bipartisan government workers have argued that there is no meaningful amount of fraud. The other side has failed to prevent any actual evidence. Yet this is the speech you are trying to protect?

4) “Republicans will always protect people with pre-existing conditions” while stripping away protections

5) “Tarrifs are making us rich” in 2018 as economic experts showed that we were and still are the people who pay the lions share of the costs

6) Single payer healthcare is a “radical left socialist” movement that Dems are using to turn America into Venezuela. When 90% of first world democratic nations have something like it.

7) “We’ve pulled off an economic turnaround of historic proportions” in 2018 when the economy was doing just fine coming out of Obama’s second term.

8: “There was no crime” in the Mueller probe, which resulted in charges brought down on nearly 50 people close to Trump. Oh, and it still has the words in there about “individual #1,” if you ever actually read it

9) “We’re building the wall as we speak” in 2018, as they were not in fact doing so

10) Hell, choose between the 30,000 false or misleading claims that the Washington post found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4

At what point do straight lies and misinformation from the president no longer deserve coverage? At what point does lying lose its “press protections?” At what point can a sitting US presidents misinformation cause a threat to America. Because there is a point. And there is not a good political way to reign it in.

And I’ll use your overblown oath example. You’re an officer who swore an oath to the constitution to defend from all enemies, including domestic. This bro tore our country apart and made enough people think that the election results were deliberately and simultaneously faked across 6 different states that he got a mob to legitimately invade the legislative branch of our government. And you think that should be protected? He’s off his rocker, and why should companies be required to host his lies?

What I got out of this is, actually, those in office should have to be held accountable for anything they say. If they say things that are provably false at the time they say them, then that should be illegal. Free speech and free press doesn’t equal politicians getting to lie to our faces on every platform that exists.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Negatory

[jazzdude]

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech. 
...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

We haven't abdicated control of the press to a few tech giants-it's never been easier for an individual to express themselves and communicate (or publish) with wider audiences, even if you're blocked from using Facebook/Twitter/Google/AWS. I mean, the fact that we're having this conversation on BaseOps.net and not Facebook shows that Facebook doesn't control everything. But I do agree that there may be a problem, though I don't think it's a free speech problem, rather a business monopoly problem.

A lot of the problems you point to are really problems with monopolies; maybe the big tech companies should be broken apart for being anti competitive (Facebook's strategy after all was to buy up any potential competitors such as instagram, whatsapp, and a while host of small startups). Hard to say twitter is a monopoly though, because other options exist, just not as popular (namely, the open source mastodon). Fortunately, we're starting to see some legal action on this front (FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization)

Apple brings up other interesting conversations. What rights do you have on a device you purchased? Should you be able to repair your own devices instead of having to use an Apple approved repair company and some approved parts (though this argument is being hard fought, primarily farmers against John Deere https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/03/its-payback-time-right-to-repair-movement-targets-john-deere/ )?

Apple always had a walled garden in their ecosystem, and heavily curate what they allow in. The apple app store has never been a free market-it's a captive market that they fully control in a closed environment. You can't even side load apps onto apple devices without jailbreaking the device first, which comes with consequences and lost features. So if that's what you want to do, their are other phone brands you can buy. Even being kicked off Google Play store is not a problem; you can side load apps on Android, because it's built on an open architecture.

This leads to the following questions: does apple have a right to block a competitive app store from being installed on their phone (keep their walled garden), or is that a anti-competitive, monopolistic action? Free market would point to the former. I believe it's the latter (and why I haven't made the jump to iPhone)

That being said, apple doesn't really make money selling iPhones, they make their money taking a large cut off revenue from every app that runs on iPhone. An iphone app developer can get kicked off the app store if apple feels like they aren't getting their cut. This one is going to court (Epic Games vs Apple https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/24/21531873/epic-apple-fortnite-app-store-lawsuit ), so we'll see how it'll pan out. If apple loses that case, good chance their stock will take a hit, since that case attacks their core money maker.

Unfortunately, Republicans generally have been soft on breaking up monopolies (FTC suing Facebook last year was surprising), so we'll see how the new administration moves on these issues.

[ClearedHot]

37 minutes ago, Negatory said:

And I’ll use your overblown oath example. You’re an officer who swore an oath to the constitution to defend from all enemies, including domestic. This bro tore our country apart and made enough people think that the election results were deliberately and simultaneously faked across 6 different states that he got a mob to legitimately invade the legislative branch of our government. And you think that should be protected? He’s off his rocker, and why should companies be required to host his lies?

Overblown...thanks for proving my point...there is no longer civil discussion.  Free speech is free only when you agree with it.  I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie?  You have completely walked past the fact that Twitter locked the account of the NY Post because they deemed the story to be false information when in fact it has proven to be 100% true...the laptop is Hunter's.  Facebook then attempted to purge the story as well.  That should be frightening to everyone...this has nothing to do with Trump.  Two of the major controllers of information to the American public stepped in to silence negative information that proved to be true about the Biden family and used the cloak of 230 as protection.  Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

[ClearedHot]

47 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I seem to remember a great deal of social media and news coverage regarding complaints about BLM, Kathy Griffin, and Hunter Biden.  Lots of coverage of the details and the reaction from the right.  Not sure what media you consume.  

Even if social media exerts bias on what does and doesn't get posted on their platforms, there are many other currently-available avenues to communicate via the internet.  Also, I mentioned in another post that if you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy you can start your own social media platform.  You're not beholden to anyone. Go for it! 

You are absolutely right! My oath was to defend the constitution, not a flag, political party or specific person.  It is a really complicated situation. You've got the issue of a private company having the ability to control its destiny. You've got public accommodation laws to prevent things like minorities not being able to get mortgages. Then you've got the issue of very partisan people like a Hawley, Schumer, McConnell, or Pelosi having a direct say in what a private company can or can't discuss.  If I had the answers, I wouldn't be doing this. 

On a related topic: Fox, Newsmax, talk radio and other right leaning news outlets ARE part of mainstream media.  They have global reach and huge, growing viewer/readership. The tired old "liberal mainstream media" whining is obsolete.  

Yes, there was a lot of coverage about those events and organizations, thanks for pointing that out...and they all still have active social media accounts...even the leader of Iran has an active Twitter account which he uses to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States...how is that possible using the logic employed against Trump?

The "go start your own company" argument is trash, the monopolies given by 230 serve to block any real competition and when a company (Parler), does try to offer an alternative the tech monopolies immediately shut them down (Amazon and Apple), using the they don't police content argument...a double standard that says we get 230 protections but they don't.

Interesting you bring up Fox and Newsmax...the cancel culture is so strong that other outlets like CNN are ACTIVELY calling for both of these networks to be shutdown.

[Negatory]

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Overblown...thanks for proving my point...there is no longer civil discussion.  Free speech is free only when you agree with it.  I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie?  You have completely walked past the fact that Twitter locked the account of the NY Post because they deemed the story to be false information when in fact it has proven to be 100% true...the laptop is Hunter's.  Facebook then attempted to purge the story as well.  That should be frightening to everyone...this has nothing to do with Trump.  Two of the major controllers of information to the American public stepped in to silence negative information that proved to be true about the Biden family and used the cloak of 230 as protection.  Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

Not at all. I don't agree with a lot of free speech, but I still want it protected. But there is a different between an opinion I don't agree with and an actual mistruth. Have any opinion in the world, that's fine. But I don't think lying about facts deserves a pass.

And brother, what do you mean the 100% truth about the laptop? What was hidden precisely? A last minute hail mary to smear Joe Biden based off of circumstantial evidence presented by Rudy Giuliani? What you actually have to prove is that a 50 year old drug addict's dealings directly are tied to his father's finances. There has never been even an iota of proof that Joe Biden has been involved with anything related to Hunter Biden's tax problems or foreign business. Yes, there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. No, there is no substance into investigating Joe Biden, like OANN and Tucker Carlson try to insinuate.

You do realize that in late October 2020, FOX news even decided not to run the story based on the extreme lack of evidence. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-passed-on-chance-to-break-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns-report

This one's not a giant conspiracy against conservative voices, give me a break. Every news outlet from Antifa to Fox agreed that running a circumstantial story with no substance was not real press.

Also, because we're all about maxims, how about "innocent until proven guilty?" You defending the ability for anyone to throw any political attacks they want, regardless of veracity/evidence and without accountability, is not something that I think I'm going to agree with you about.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Negatory

[ClearedHot]

15 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Not at all. I don't agree with a lot of free speech, but I still want it protected. But there is a different between an opinion I don't agree with and an actual mistruth. Have any opinion in the world, that's fine. But I don't think lying about facts deserves a pass.

And brother, what do you mean the 100% truth about the laptop? What was hidden precisely? A last minute hail mary to smear Joe Biden based off of circumstantial evidence presented by Rudy Giuliani? What you actually have to prove is that a 50 year old drug addict's dealings directly are tied to his father's finances. There has never been even an iota of proof that Joe Biden has been involved with anything related to Hunter Biden's tax problems or foreign business. Yes, there is an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden. No, there is no substance into investigating Joe Biden, like OANN and Tucker Carlson try to insinuate.

You do realize that in late October 2020, FOX news even decided not to run the story based on the extreme lack of evidence. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-passed-on-chance-to-break-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns-report

This one's not a giant conspiracy against conservative voices, give me a break. Every news outlet from Antifa to Fox agreed that running a circumstantial story with no substance was not real press.

Also, because we're all about maxims, how about "innocent until proven guilty?" You defending the ability for anyone to throw any political attacks they want, regardless of veracity/evidence and without accountability, is not something that I think I'm going to agree with you about.

Again, who determines the truth....a Facebook fact checker...Snopes...gimmie a break.  Again, i don't support Trump but I never saw him call for violence as opposed to Madonna, BLM, Antifa, the leader of Iran who have all called for violence yet their accounts remain active.

Is 100% of the laptop story true, that remains to be seen, but there are frightening portions that appear to be valid and MUST be investigated.   What is true and proven so far:

1.  It was Hunter's laptop - he asked for it back.

2.  The Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski has gone on record and validated the shady dealings...yet the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

3.  The counter email accounts have been validated...the sent emails are real.  There should be great concern that there is mention of "10% for the big guy."  Now is that just Hunter talking...no idea but certainly worth an real investigation.

4.  The suggested business dealings are not just shady, they impact national security.  Assisting the Chinese government is acquiring interest in companies that have a direct impact on U.S. National security...again MUST be investigated.

if you investigate over what has been proven to be a fake dossier that was paid for by Hillary why don't you investigate this???  COMPLETE BIAS....what was your comment about innocent until proven guilty? Come on man.

Interestingly the laptop repair shop owner is now suing Twitter and others...he has a strong case and will likely win big like Nick Sandmann who was similarly smeared by a host of new organizations like CNN that are now paying big bucks to settle.

I have a small amount of faith that a small group of dedicated Justice Department and FBI folks are following the rats nest...sadly the result would be to install the most radical former member of the Senate in the Oval office.

[FLEA]

17 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Again, who determines the truth....a Facebook fact checker...Snopes...gimmie a break.  Again, i don't support Trump but I never saw him call for violence as opposed to Madonna, BLM, Antifa, the leader of Iran who have all called for violence yet their accounts remain active.

Is 100% of the laptop story true, that remains to be seen, but there are frightening portions that appear to be valid and MUST be investigated.   What is true and proven so far:

1.  It was Hunter's laptop - he asked for it back.

2.  The Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski has gone on record and validated the shady dealings...yet the mainstream press turns a blind eye.

3.  The counter email accounts have been validated...the sent emails are real.  There should be great concern that there is mention of "10% for the big guy."  Now is that just Hunter talking...no idea but certainly worth an real investigation.

4.  The suggested business dealings are not just shady, they impact national security.  Assisting the Chinese government is acquiring interest in companies that have a direct impact on U.S. National security...again MUST be investigated.

if you investigate over what has been proven to be a fake dossier that was paid for by Hillary why don't you investigate this???  COMPLETE BIAS....what was your comment about innocent until proven guilty? Come on man.

Interestingly the laptop repair shop owner is now suing Twitter and others...he has a strong case and will likely win big like Nick Sandmann who was similarly smeared by a host of new organizations like CNN that are now paying big bucks to settle.

I have a small amount of faith that a small group of dedicated Justice Department and FBI folks are following the rats nest...sadly the result would be to install the most radical former member of the Senate in the Oval office.

Say nothing to the fact that tech companies did nothing to censor the 3 years of lies politicians told about Russia-gate and the Trump dossier. 

[Swamp Yankee]

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats.

It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind.

And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

I agree with most of what you said.  The initial incident that brought Weinstein to awareness was a classic example of liberal college ridiculousness.  Overall, I enjoy listening to folks like Rogan, Harris, Weinsteins, and Peterson.  The long-form discussion on the IDW has transformed media and shows that the average citizen is capable of in-depth, nuanced thought.  The simpleminded Fox News and MSNBC 30-sec soundbites are frankly insulting to all of us.  However, I do think that once some of the supposed moderates and liberals get a taste of IDW attention, they maintain their iconoclast image by railing against the left and NEVER criticizing the right.  The IDW audience skews right and hey, there are books to sell and podcasts listenerships to grow.  However, you'd think they'd have at least something to criticize.... The left is not always wrong and the right is not always right. 

I disagree that the left doesn't want to engage in terms of considering the other side's arguments.  For example, Sam Harris is much more willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint.  Ben Shapiro just goes on the attack in order to win the argument.  There's a difference between defending your position at all costs vs. listening to understand and arrive at the best possible solution.  The former is for war and court cases.  The latter helps shape the best mutual results in a shared society. 

On a separate note, I now have a child at one of those "elite northeast liberal colleges". While that initially made me groan and gave me agita, I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.  

[jazzdude]

I don't care for Trump, but who decides what is truth or a lie? 

Who do you propose should be the arbiter of truth? Should a private entity be compelled to host opinions they disagree with by the government?

Previous to this event these things only happen in places like Russia and North Korea.

Those examples have government exerting direct control on information.

[Negatory]

This is all somewhat ironic, because fairness issues up until very recently were primarily based around the extremely conservative talk radio bias that has existed for decades.

Rules that would force private entities to protect political speech existed before under the fairness doctrine, which was repealed during the Reagan presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Opposition

Many have attempted to revive it, but attempts have almost been unilaterally opposed by conservatives up until this point because it was politically in their favor to maintain a monopoly on things like radio messaging. Now that one private entity is showing an obvious anti-far-right bias, conservatives cry foul and say "not fair!" The hypocrisy is glaring.

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Yes, there was a lot of coverage about those events and organizations, thanks for pointing that out...and they all still have active social media accounts...even the leader of Iran has an active Twitter account which he uses to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States...how is that possible using the logic employed against Trump?

The "go start your own company" argument is trash, the monopolies given by 230 serve to block any real competition and when a company (Parler), does try to offer an alternative the tech monopolies immediately shut them down (Amazon and Apple), using the they don't police content argument...a double standard that says we get 230 protections but they don't.

Interesting you bring up Fox and Newsmax...the cancel culture is so strong that other outlets like CNN are ACTIVELY calling for both of these networks to be shutdown.

So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks.   But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes.  Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either.  What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?  

Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry.  In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla.  Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well).  Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies. 

[jazzdude]

So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks.   But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes.  Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either.  What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?  
Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry.  In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla.  Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well).  Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies. 

Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.

[Swamp Yankee]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.

So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.

The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.

 

True.  Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.