The Next President is...

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, cause tech companies give a fuck what the Feds want all the time. It’s also not censoring when you’re free to go to another platform and say whatever you want. You know, for the six minutes you guys were on Parler and learned that the tech giants also own all the major cloud hosting services.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/fbi-and-apple-are-poised-for-another-privacy-disagreement.html

Precisely. Because what tech companies give a fuck about absolves the government from adhering to their constitutionally mandated restrictions. /S

And just because you can "go to a different platform" doesn't mean you're not being censored. There is a difference between censorship and silencing.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

You can’t get past the fact it’s not a First Amendment violation because the government isn’t directly doing the censoring.

You are declaring this as if it were fact, in the face of actual legal jurisprudence that has been quoted for you in separate posts in this thread. You aren't arguing in good faith, and in fact, you're just plain wrong, from a legal standpoint. You're side-stepping the fact that our government - through the court system - has determined that governmental "persuasion" of private entities to enact policy or act on their behalf to accomplish "things" that the government couldn't do on its own otherwise (because constitution), makes that action governmental (not private).

Read: When the government pressures a company to do something, it is government action - directly.

Let's get to your question.

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Where did the government say they were going to levy legal action against the tech giants if they didn’t “censor” free speech?

It was Cedric Richmond and Jerry Nadler in April 2019. Another poster quoted Diane Feinstein for you.

Here's the source (https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-tech-11610387105).

In any case, here's another quote for you to ignore, or call an echo chamber or whatever. Not expecting actual engagement: 

"In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”

Hopefully you can let this one rest.

 

[hockeydork]

The underlying issue is while the internet has allowed man-kind unprecedented access to information with a few clicks, it has also allowed the rapid manufacture of information. To “make something up” 60 years ago, you’d have to what, spend money printing a book and then try to convince people to buy it? Or convince someone to risk their reputation and publish you in a newspaper or magazine? Those are pretty good deterrents to going out of your way to fabricate some BS.

Now anybody can just click and write whatever. We’ve given ignorant people the same megaphone as our most highly informed/experienced professionals. Anybody who can critically think isn’t going to be affected, they will filter out the BS, deduce their own logical insights with whatever credible facts they source (i.e let me ask a scientist about the vaccine, not Bob down at the Donut shop).

Then there’s the half that doesn’t have that capability. Just like how some of the population just ends up being really short, some people don’t get the horsepower in the dome up top, and it’s not their fault. They’ll believe anything. The half that thinks the earth is flat, that thinks they’ve been chipped by the feds, the half that is willing to shove a couple Tide pods down the hatch for dinner.  Does the government have an obligation to protect these people? I say no. Humans have interrupted evolution to much as it is, you used to have to be either smart or strong or both to survive, now you can be bottom of the barrel and procreate as much as you want. Lysol injections? Inject away….

[Boomer6]

Gents, feeding the troll is counterproductive. Don’t waste your time trying to convince a spade not to be a spade. 

[brickhistory]

7 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

I don’t really read your echo chamber comments. I’m honestly surprised you don’t just post a meme without any rebuttal.

I shall try to get through my day knowing this is your opinion...

[HeloDude]

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Standard

Is someone refusing to bake a cake because they’re being discriminatory over a protected class or someone or is someone just refusing to bake a cake due to it violating their own protected class? The SCOTUS didn’t take a broad interpretation in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission for good reason.

Well, your arguments are usually weak, so I wasn’t expecting this one to be much different.  

[M2]

10 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

She can say, and try, to pass as much legislation as she wants and it’ll be legally challenged in the SCOTUS.

You mean like gun laws?!?

C'mon, be smarter than that!

[Prozac]

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

[hockeydork]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

That's a good counter. But at the end of the day we still let people buy cigarettes, do we not? We just force the company to say "this can cause cancer". What happens when the product isn't cigarettes, but the information itself? The US population would probably be better off with smoking abolished, but you have to draw the line at "people are allowed to hurt themselves so long as that action does not hurt others". Second hand smoking laws are a good line. Same deal with speed limits. Nobody has the right to give me lung cancer just because they want to give it to themselves. But I still cannot restrict them from making that choice for themselves, anymore than I want people restricting me from getting a Bigmac every Saturday. If I want to know if Bigmacs are bad for me, I'll go find an independent study and make my decision. Me dying from clogged arteries only impacts me. I wear my seatbelt everyday because I'm not an idiot, but would argue mandated seatbelt laws are an overreach, especially since you can legally ride motorcycles which certainly don't have them.

Let's just use global warming as an example. And whether you believe in it or not does not matter for this arguments sake. Coal Company Suchnsuch sells a product. They FUND and publish a study that says global warming is insignificant with the use of their product. If the American citizen chooses to trust that report instead of an independent one, just like some chose to trust Tobaccos doctors, isn't that on them? It gets messier when the issue is something that affects everyone, but at the end of the day we go by "majority rules". If we send Florida under water in 100 years because we melted the ice caps, well, that's what the majority wanted. It's up to the American consumer to say "yea if I start a fire in a room in my house, gee the temperature seems to go up. I don't want to buy your product anymore, I'm going to have solar panels installed".

Now it may be inefficient when the government doesn't mandate certain things. We are inherently inefficient compared to a country where the state makes swift decisions, for better or worse. But that is the cost of freedom. It makes us vulnerable to being outpaced by a country where the state has considerable power and makes good decisions quickly and decisively, but said country will be vulnerable to eventually ending up with a government that makes poor decisions. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by hockeydork

[Negatory]

You guys are all smart people. Many of you even have security clearances and access to more detailed reports on weaponized misinformation and it’s effects on the U-S-of-A. You know that there are concerted attacks on the Information sector of America designed to cause turmoil, polarize folks, or get people elected who are in the best interests of our adversaries. From that standpoint, I’d hope you wouldn’t take such a black and white view on how to combat this adversarial disinformation, because it’s not helpful in making our nation strong or unified.

From a grand strategy DIME perspective, many will even argue that the I (information) is becoming the most impactful way to fight the US for many adversaries. This is because many in the US will, ironically, fight to freely allow and maintain misinformation under the guise of liberty. It’s a tough problem, because it really is a Liberty vs security discussion.

Maybe we should bring back the feel good official government propaganda machine that made people in the fifties to 2000 hate things like the concept of socialism so much?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency

You think it’s a coincidence that the US disbanded its official information propaganda around the same time that those ideals started picking up more (1998)?

The pragmatic truth is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you embrace free information - regardless of veracity - you open up a giant attack vector. And for almost no benefit other than the dumbing of society. People just don’t have the time or effort to trudge through misinformation, so we’re left with it having a profound impact on us at a national scale. This includes those from every spectrum: those that blindly call things socialism, q-anon folks, people who think it’s racist to require a voter ID just cause they’ve heard it is, people who think that Trump won the election, folks that think there is significant evidence of surface transmission of COVID, people who think that COVID isn’t real, people who think it is extremely deadly, etc.

Disinformation is bad in our society and for our nations national security. If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

[kaputt]

49 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

Ridiculous comparison. Tobacco restrictions are specifically related to advertising and advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Companies can be held liable for knowingly selling an unsafe product.
 

Individual speech on social media is not advertising and does not fall under any government regulatory guidelines. The government in today’s case is involving itself in policing individual speech. That is an overstep and likely violation of the 1st amendment. 

[Lord Ratner]

3 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Now it may be inefficient when the government doesn't mandate certain things. We are inherently inefficient compared to a country where the state makes swift decisions, for better or worse. But that is the cost of freedom. It makes us vulnerable to being outpaced by a country where the state has considerable power and makes good decisions quickly and decisively, but said country will be vulnerable to eventually ending up with a government that makes poor decisions. 

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting.

 

The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming.

 

That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

[Negatory]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting.

 

The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming.

 

That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

This is called resting on your laurels. We had significant government propaganda and government persecution of socialists/communists/Nazis/black rights (MLK??) for the whole time period that actually made us a superpower (essentially the whole 20th century). Literally, free citizens were regularly jailed, fired, fined, or alienated for ideas. This was a government backed campaign.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Lets not pretend that government controlling the information narrative isn’t a real facet of our recent history and rise to power.

[hockeydork]

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Jury is still out tho, 1776 was like yesterday in terms of history's sake. Powerful empires have come and gone, we cannot take this one for granted and assume that if we leave it on autopilot we'll stay on top just because of our love for freedom and moral compass. 

At my school in college, which lets just call an MIT for dummies, you know who the top performers were a lot of the time? The kids from China. We watch football and grill our burgers and play beer pong, they're trying to figure out how to build a jet that can maul an F-35. They want the podium, how close they are getting is above my pay grade, but I don't see them letting up any time soon. 

[Lord Ratner]

22 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You guys are all smart people. Many of you even have security clearances and access to more detailed reports on weaponized misinformation and it’s effects on the U-S-of-A. You know that there are concerted attacks on the Information sector of America designed to cause turmoil, polarize folks, or get people elected who are in the best interests of our adversaries. From that standpoint, I’d hope you wouldn’t take such a black and white view on how to combat this adversarial disinformation, because it’s not helpful in making our nation strong or unified.

From a grand strategy DIME perspective, many will even argue that the I (information) is becoming the most impactful way to fight the US for many adversaries. This is because many in the US will, ironically, fight to freely allow and maintain misinformation under the guise of liberty. It’s a tough problem, because it really is a Liberty vs security discussion.

Maybe we should bring back the feel good official government propaganda machine that made people in the fifties to 2000 hate things like the concept of socialism so much?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency

You think it’s a coincidence that the US disbanded its official information propaganda around the same time that those ideals started picking up more (1998)?

The pragmatic truth is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you embrace free information - regardless of veracity - you open up a giant attack vector. And for almost no benefit other than the dumbing of society. People just don’t have the time or effort to trudge through misinformation, so we’re left with it having a profound impact on us at a national scale. This includes those from every spectrum: those that blindly call things socialism, q-anon folks, people who think it’s racist to require a voter ID just cause they’ve heard it is, people who think that Trump won the election, folks that think there is significant evidence of surface transmission of COVID, people who think that COVID isn’t real, people who think it is extremely deadly, etc.

Disinformation is bad in our society and for our nations national security. If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

Again, theory, not practice.

 

In practice, the Progressives are arguing for a reality that cannot be accepted by many, many people. The systemic racism argument. Trans women/men *are* women/men. Gender confused children should be given hormones against their parents wishes. Your business should be compelled to violate your mainstream religious beliefs. Reparations. Gun control (literally a constitutional issue). Hate speech should be illegal. Defund the police. 

 

And the common response to these issues from the left is something akin to "well you're just taking that cause too literally... It means something different." Defund the police. Systemic racism. Patriarchy. Rape culture. Either name your movements in a way that reflects their true purpose, or so whining when you get called out on being insane based on your own words. But really we all know it's just a defense. When a movement like Defund the Police becomes obviously and incredibly unpopular with the normal voters out there, the extremists/activists scramble to repackage and redefine the movement using double speak and jargon. Slightly modifying the great Groucho Marx... What're ya going to believe, me or your own ears? It's not "misinformation" to accurately describe a toxic movement to the American people. Or the origins of a novel virus. Remember how well the bipartisan experts did on the lab leak story?

 

Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[Negatory]

7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.

I understand you don’t like the point I brought up because it’s hard to refute. If you read it, you’ll also note that it wasn’t “progressive,” it tied in everybody!

What specifically are you mad I haven’t responded to?

EDIT: Also, I don’t spend that much time on this forum. I check it about once a week, say my piece, and leave. I don’t have an emotional attachment to my arguments, and I won’t change that. If you want my actual thoughts on a specific issue (I doubt you do), message me and I’ll make sure to give em to you (sts).

Edited July 17, 2021 by Negatory

[Prozac]

13 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Ridiculous comparison. Tobacco restrictions are specifically related to advertising and advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Companies can be held liable for knowingly selling an unsafe product.
 

Individual speech on social media is not advertising and does not fall under any government regulatory guidelines. The government in today’s case is involving itself in policing individual speech. That is an overstep and likely violation of the 1st amendment. 

Nor is anything on social media subject to, or protected by the first amendment. The government is engaging with private companies to get its own messaging out to the public. People will always have freedom to spew whatever bullshit they want from rooftops, street corners, and/or whatever media outlets are willing to host their content. Why should our government not be free to counter speech that is harmful to public health? Why shouldn’t our government encourage social media, as well as other outlets to spin its own agenda? Government officials have been appearing on Sunday morning talk shows for as long as I can remember doing exactly that. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

Nor is anything on social media subject to, or protected by the first amendment. The government is engaging with private companies to get its own messaging out to the public. People will always have freedom to spew whatever bullshit they want from rooftops, street corners, and/or whatever media outlets are willing to host their content. Why should our government not be free to counter speech that is harmful to public health? Why shouldn’t our government encourage social media, as well as other outlets to spin its own agenda? Government officials have been appearing on Sunday morning talk shows for as long as I can remember doing exactly that. 

That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies.

 

Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it.

 

Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration. 

[Lord Ratner]

7 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I understand you don’t like the point I brought up because it’s hard to refute. If you read it, you’ll also note that it wasn’t “progressive,” it tied in everybody!

What specifically are you mad I haven’t responded to?

 

Hard to refute? You refuted it yourself. Examples of past censorship are exactly why we shouldn't be doing it now. You think propaganda and racist policy is why the US is a global superpower? Not personal and economic freedom? Let's do a little comparison... Which countries have racism and propaganda? All of them. So that's obviously not what made us different. But our system of limited government and unique conception of individual liberty are quite different.

 

As for your many dodges, we can start with your fixed-wealth formulation for billionaire economics. You might have to go back a few pages since Sua Sponte vomited all over the thread.

[Prozac]

17 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies.

 

Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it.

 

Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration. 

I’m sorry but I must’ve missed it. What action, exactly is the federal government threatening against social media platforms? 

[hockeydork]

52 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Disinformation is bad in our society and for our nations national security. If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

The government is a reflection of the people tho, not the other way around. If the people in America are caring less and less about their government, getting dumber, not valuing education and science, and becoming so lazy as to get there news off some social media stream, than trying to stop it via government is a lost cause. The crazies can also band together now and find other crazies who will affirm whatever unfounded belief they have. The government is chosen by those same people, so you can't expect the government to be any more capable than they are.

This is a problem that needs to be solved at the local level. If you have a buddy who tells you the earth is flat, it cannot be let go. It needs to be shunned in the immediate vicinity. That person needs to be told by the 9 out of 10 people who know it isn't flat, why it isn't flat, and than be shunned until they figure it out. 

[ViperMan]

56 minutes ago, Negatory said:

From that standpoint, I’d hope you wouldn’t take such a black and white view on how to combat this adversarial disinformation, because it’s not helpful in making our nation strong or unified.

The best counter to disinformation is truth. The suggestion you're making, that the government should control what people read, hear, or see, is control that isn't possible, and will only serve to undermine and erode further trust in it as an institution. Do you not see that?

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

The pragmatic truth is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you embrace free information - regardless of veracity - you open up a giant attack vector. And for almost no benefit other than the dumbing of society. People just don’t have the time or effort to trudge through misinformation, so we’re left with it having a profound impact on us at a national scale.

That is an inherent part of the US system of liberal government. Every rose has it's thorn. The US is full of dumb people, but so is every other country.  And the proposition that because a certain group of people exists (i.e those who are unintelligent or uninformed), should somehow affect the information other people are "allowed" to consume is anti-American.

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

Messages that are provably false stop themselves. Duh. You nailed everyone's main concern about determining what truth is, however, but your idea that there should be an attempt to stop the flow of information vs providing the truth is not a viable solution.

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’m sorry but I must’ve missed it. What action, exactly is the federal government threatening against social media platforms? 

It's in this very thread. Two examples of legislators threatening government control in the absence of desired actions, which in this case, the desired action is the suppression of speech.

 

The associated supreme court case that lays out the concept is also cited.

[hockeydork]

8 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Messages that are provably false stop themselves. Duh. You nailed everyone's main concern about determining what truth is, however, but your idea that there should be an attempt to stop the flow of information vs providing the truth is not a viable solution.

Agree with your stance except this. Hitler convinced the German people that the Jews were causing all their problems, and than convinced them to slaughter them. They do not always stop themselves and often times get out of control and can result in serious consequences. But it's the German people who bear the responsibility for succumbing to such a lie, they could have stopped it the second the roundups started happening. From my understanding from friends who have been there they are still ashamed of it to this day. And they will forever be remembered as the country that let it happen. Unrecoverable. Just like how slavery will always be a thorn in this countries back. People will be talking about it 1000 years from now when all of us are dead. 

The mere fact that people of differing opinions are willing to talk in this forum (somewhat) respectfully tho is a good sign. 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Nor is anything on social media subject to, or protected by the first amendment. The government is engaging with private companies to get its own messaging out to the public. People will always have freedom to spew whatever bullshit they want from rooftops, street corners, and/or whatever media outlets are willing to host their content. Why should our government not be free to counter speech that is harmful to public health? Why shouldn’t our government encourage social media, as well as other outlets to spin its own agenda? Government officials have been appearing on Sunday morning talk shows for as long as I can remember doing exactly that. 

The internet is the new public square. 
 

comparing Sunday talk shows to the internet is apples to oranges. Government is limiting the flow of free information they just happen to be doing it online instead of in the physical world. 
 

the better example is government taking people off the street corner who are holding signs or yelling information government doesn’t approve of. same difference just doing it online 
 

Edited July 17, 2021 by BashiChuni