Thomas L. Friedman is the author of quite a few books including "The World Is Flat" and "Thank You For Being Late." He's also a Pulitzer Prize-wining opinion columnist whose latest column has just been published in the New York Times. Reasoning that Trump's own words are Trump's worst enemy, Tom Friedman implicitly invoked "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" when he opened an on-air interview with MSNBC anchor Brian Williams by suggesting that Twitter should restore Trump's access to his notorious @realDonaldTrump Twitter account.
"Here's your mobile phone, Mr President. Your @realDonaldTrump account on Twitter has been reactivated for you. Knock yourself out."
Dorsey is what a heroine user looks like. And since Twitter and big tech is part of the oligarchy that rules America they can't have a populist mucking about.
Dorsey is what a heroine user looks like. And since Twitter and big tech is part of the oligarchy that rules America they can't have a populist mucking about.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I will withhold my opinion until Mary Jane tells me how I should feel about this.
You will be waiting a very very VERY long time.
I think the video is on par with most of the rest of the contemporary conservative videos of this genre, tho I think he has strayed a bit from the usual presentation. Most have some form of an American flag in the background, and a patriotic motto of some sort, like "Come and Take It' or "Shall not be Infringed Upon" or a large copy the 1st amendment or even the preamble to the Declaration of Independence visible. This is to set the tone and 'warmth' as well as to give the scene some sort of legitimacy to the viewer. In this case tho, 'they' have chosen to do it by the little test stating the speaker is a former active duty US Army Ranger. The woodstove, more or less a prop to make the viewer comfortable and harken back to the old 40s/50s fireside chats. "A man of the people' visual. Aren't we all.....
As for the body of the presentation, beginning around 1:30, he tells you (us) how you (we) are supposed to feel, so neither myself or anyone else has to and then goes on to explain to us all, what the constitution and it's amendments say. Stuff most of us learned many many decades ago, while he was still in knee pants. Then, "Good ol fashioned patriots" he says. "I remind you". "God given Rights". All the usual and obligatory talking points of the conservative version of social justice wargaming.
"They're winning the battle of ideas". He then says "Guys, speak" "Don't be afraid to ruffle anyone's feathers" .
I'm not and never have been, whether in regards to gun ownership or Covid19. But evidently, I have indeed ruffled a few feathers because I won't be led by rhetoric and hyperbole. Show me the beef. Show me the proof.
These videos used to be in competition against their opposite on the other side of the aisle. Negating the talking points of the left and the socialists.
Nowadays tho, as subscribers, likes, followers become all important, they are all in competition with each other, competing with each other on the right for the attention of fellow conservatives, but the basic 'message' really hasn't changed at all. If you see one of these in the last 12 months, you've basically seen them all. Everything he said, we all learned before we ever got out of jr high school, and very very few of us have forgotten any of it. So, what's the real purpose behind these videos?
It's: "Look At Me while I tell you how you are supposed to feel or think." (and don't forget to subscribe, like and share so others can look at me too.)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-15-2021).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Didn't even have to wait a second, apparently?
Oh, I didn't tell you how YOU should interpret the video. I just said how I did. But perhaps 2.5 can find you a video that explains how time lapse works, since you think approx 24 hrs = 1 second.
Ironic, how so many that go on and on about the 'loss of freedom of speech' get so upset when anyone voices an opinion that differs from their own. That also helps to explain why so many here have 'politics' disabled.
Point taken, kind of. How long it took you to read it versus how long it took me to create it are 2 completely different things.
You will find, that the task you appear to have undertaken, that is, to curb me from posting my opinions to be a bit more daunting than you have previously experienced with others that disagreed with your own opinions. Good luck with it tho, and do let me know if you need a tissue.
Why do people keep saying that Social Media sites would suddenly start censoring people if 230 is repealed... We are already heavily censored, taking 230 away would simply mean everyone would be censored, not just one group.
There are things I cannot post without being put in "Facebook Jail", or my post simply being removed. There are also many people who are "shadowbanned" on Twitter simply because of their political leanings.
They already govern our speech and remove anything they don't agree with. I don't see how anything would change for us.
...that the task you appear to have undertaken, that is, to curb me from posting my opinions
ABSOLUTELY NOT... you misunderstand completely. I find your method of response lately, particularly in the past year has been one of sheer arrogance... to the point that you seem to give an air of everyone else is completely retarded and beneath you, that you are the only sound and reasonable thinking person on here. That... nothing anyone says is even remotely close to logical if it doesn't meet with your views.
Alternately, I find "bdub's" method of response to be significantly better. I may not agree with him on several things, and I may get testy from time to time... but I have enormous respect for the way he responds and makes an effort to think analytically. I also don't agree with Rinselberg, but I like the guy, I genuinely do, and while his responses are unique... I don't find him to be insulting or full of arrogance, perhaps a bit more playful.
The past year, you've changed... as if perhaps you've had some kind of life-change, medical scare, or who-knows-what that's made you somewhat fragile ... which has led you to act (fakely) arrogant in your response.
Originally posted by maryjane: Everything he said, we all learned before we ever got out of jr high school, and very very few of us have forgotten any of it.
Being that his audience is anyone anywhere with access to youtube, I believe you are giving folks entirely too much credit.
Why do people keep saying that Social Media sites would suddenly start censoring people if 230 is repealed... We are already heavily censored, taking 230 away would simply mean everyone would be censored, not just one group.
There are things I cannot post without being put in "Facebook Jail", or my post simply being removed. There are also many people who are "shadowbanned" on Twitter simply because of their political leanings.
They already govern our speech and remove anything they don't agree with. I don't see how anything would change for us.
Oddly enough, had we actually allowed Net Neutrality to pass (which was just a clever name that really had nothing to do with what it says), it would have allowed the Government to regulate the internet (and providers, and companies) like a utility. Several people have suggested that this would have given Trump the ability to regulate what these companies would have been allowed to do on their own platforms. Of course, it would have given Biden the authority to do so as well. With the FCC at a 2/2 current staffing for the commission (with Adjit Pai leaving), the 5th individual appointed will be a Democrat and confirmed... so we may end up seeing "Net Neutrality" again, in whatever crazy instantiation they come up with...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ABSOLUTELY NOT... you misunderstand completely. I find your method of response lately, particularly in the past year has been one of sheer arrogance... to the point that you seem to give an air of everyone else is completely retarded and beneath you, that you are the only sound and reasonable thinking person on here. That... nothing anyone says is even remotely close to logical if it doesn't meet with your views.
Alternately, I find "bdub's" method of response to be significantly better. I may not agree with him on several things, and I may get testy from time to time... but I have enormous respect for the way he responds and makes an effort to think analytically. I also don't agree with Rinselberg, but I like the guy, I genuinely do, and while his responses are unique... I don't find him to be insulting or full of arrogance, perhaps a bit more playful.
The past year, you've changed... as if perhaps you've had some kind of life-change, medical scare, or who-knows-what that's made you somewhat fragile ... which has led you to act (fakely) arrogant in your response.
How anyone infers any given post, from any given member is completely on them. I'm not much on conspiracy theories or mob mentality and I never have been.
How anyone infers any given post, from any given member is completely on them. I'm not much on conspiracy theories or mob mentality and I never have been.
You've read what I said, so you can do with it what you like. Just letting you know...
Why do people keep saying that Social Media sites would suddenly start censoring people if 230 is repealed... We are already heavily censored, taking 230 away would simply mean everyone would be censored, not just one group.
There are things I cannot post without being put in "Facebook Jail", or my post simply being removed. There are also many people who are "shadowbanned" on Twitter simply because of their political leanings.
They already govern our speech and remove anything they don't agree with. I don't see how anything would change for us.
Any forum hosted in the U.S. would change to require approval before your comment goes through. In other words, since Twitter would be responsible for a Tweet that you post, when you click "send," it would actually go to their backlog for approval, not directly posted. They'd likely have a human interpret the message (maybe AI if they trusted it well enough--they're on the line for it in the end), then approve your Tweet to post.
Given how many users there are vs. approvers/administrators, I wouldn't expect any posts, comments, Tweets, Facebook photos, etc. to post in less than a week if a human is to interpret them.
So when people say the sites will suddenly start censoring, that's what they mean. It will mean everyone has to wait for some arbitrator to decide if their post meets the host's legal threshold. Most sites would likely go offshore, if I were to guess, vs. hiring all the manpower required for manual approvals.
I do believe that at least Facebook is blocking people with conservative leanings. I know that I am blocked from posting comments on political topics.. All my posts get an error message that: you cannot post at this time, try later. Other non political topics, I can post comments. I never had a twitter account. Facebook for me, just has advertisement after advertisement which I try to block, and will not support any Facebook advertisers. The only way for Facebook to stop "free speech" is to hit them in the pocket book. When advertisers leave, the Facebook money stream dries up.
First of all, it is incumbent upon you to prove that "any' (meaning all) dissent is being silenced. It isn't.
I don't follow. How does any mean all? Prove to whom? Any being silenced is anti 1st amendment, and anti American.
It is happening, an individual would likley have to use those platforms to notice on their own however. If someone actually thinks they are not, they are not paying attention, don't care, or like the fact they are being silenced.
I do believe that at least Facebook is blocking people with conservative leanings. I know that I am blocked from posting comments on political topics.. All my posts get an error message that: you cannot post at this time, try later. Other non political topics, I can post comments. I never had a twitter account. Facebook for me, just has advertisement after advertisement which I try to block, and will not support any Facebook advertisers. The only way for Facebook to stop "free speech" is to hit them in the pocket book. When advertisers leave, the Facebook money stream dries up.
The vid I just posted a few posts up mentions among other things how this is what they are attempting to do on youtube. But it is far from the only way. 1st thing they did was make a video incapable of supporting paying ads if it talked about something they didnt want it talking about, even if it gets tons of views. Another simple way facebook does it is they choose words and things that are talked about and decide they are unacceptable (I'm not talking about profanity). AI acts on it 1st. They determine what they think is inaccurate as well, mark it on the post, or drop the post, or temporarily limit your ability to post.
*Like I mentioned before. It seems it is legal for these social media corps to do this because they arent the gov, but the gov can make sure they are successful, back them, set up systems to keep them on top. Many folks left Facebook for Parler, then Parler was shut down.
"Parler was booted offline a week ago after Amazon Web Services cut its services, a move that followed decisions by Apple and Google to stop distributing the social network's mobile apps. The conservative microblogging site has sued to have its service restored."
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-19-2021).]
Any forum hosted in the U.S. would change to require approval before your comment goes through. In other words, since Twitter would be responsible for a Tweet that you post, when you click "send," it would actually go to their backlog for approval, not directly posted. They'd likely have a human interpret the message (maybe AI if they trusted it well enough--they're on the line for it in the end), then approve your Tweet to post.
Given how many users there are vs. approvers/administrators, I wouldn't expect any posts, comments, Tweets, Facebook photos, etc. to post in less than a week if a human is to interpret them.
So when people say the sites will suddenly start censoring, that's what they mean. It will mean everyone has to wait for some arbitrator to decide if their post meets the host's legal threshold. Most sites would likely go offshore, if I were to guess, vs. hiring all the manpower required for manual approvals.
I'm not entirely sure. There's lots of parallels to things in the rest of the world that we could compare it to. I suspect there would need to just be some sort of agreement that you accept digitally... something like, you waive your right to sue by using this platform... or something to that effect.
If I go to the junkyard / pic-n-pull, by paying the admission, I waive my right to sue if I'm injured while working on a car. So, I think something like that could apply...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm not entirely sure. There's lots of parallels to things in the rest of the world that we could compare it to. I suspect there would need to just be some sort of agreement that you accept digitally... something like, you waive your right to sue by using this platform... or something to that effect.
If I go to the junkyard / pic-n-pull, by paying the admission, I waive my right to sue if I'm injured while working on a car. So, I think something like that could apply...
But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.
Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.
You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.
Edit: autocorrect from my phone...
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 01-19-2021).]
But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.
Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.
You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.
Edit: autocorrect from my phone...
I would have the right to sue you for libel... but not necessarily Twitter. But I see what you're saying... I haven't agreed to the EULA... but I'm not sure that there's a precedence for suing anyway... with or without section 230.
I don't follow. How does any mean all?* Prove to whom? **
* You placed no minimum or maximum limit or other quantitative measure on your statement. I'm on various other boards similar to PFF. A couple forbid any posting or discussion of any religious or political topics and issues. Any, without a limit, is all inclusive.
Not related to this post or thread, in Cliff's Forum Rules, one of the things he states is " In fact, I can ban anyone at my discretion if I deem it in the best interest of the forum.". That means, IF he so desired, he could ban ALL members that he deemed put the best interest of the forum in jeopardy. For that matter, all members at his discretion if he wanted to.
** The readers upon whom you (via the video) are attempting to push that particular narrative.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-19-2021).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I would have the right to sue you for libel... but not necessarily Twitter. But I see what you're saying... I haven't agreed to the EULA... but I'm not sure that there's a precedence for suing anyway... with or without section 230.
It has been attempted more than once, tho the following article doesn't go into detail regarding the grounds for dismissal.
Washington — California Rep. Devin Nunes is suing Twitter — again — and a man who previously lived in his district, alleging a widespread stalking and harassment campaign against Nunes that he says was conducted on Twitter.
The complaint by Nunes provides almost no specific examples to support his stalking and harassment accusations. The man he is suing has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which discourages frivolous lawsuits. Nunes has been on a legal mission to find out the identity of the DevinCow Twitter account for nearly two years. He sued the account, as well as Twitter, in March 2019, trying to use discovery to find the identity of whoever was running the account. The account’s followers went from around 1,000 people to well over 600,000 people after that lawsuit was filed.
Nunes has filed a total of nine lawsuits in the past two years. He has sued media outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN, the owners of Esquire Magazine and McClatchy, the owner of the largest newspaper in Nunes’ district, The Fresno Bee. He also has sued political operatives, his own constituents and anonymous people on Twitter.
All of his lawsuits have been dismissed by judges, withdrawn by him or have dismissal motions pending. He has appealed or re-filed in cases where judges dismissed his lawsuits.
"ACalifornia man is suing Twitter and two progressive congresswomen in connection with President Donald Trump's suspension from the social media platform, citing "overbearing pain and suffering."
In the complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in California on Tuesday, Erik Estavillo argued that he and every "follower that was, without a doubt, emotionally and mentally damaged as a result of the Presidents' ban" is entitled to $88.7 million each.
Estavillo, who is representing himself, is also seeking the reinstatement of Trump's account and a retaliatory Twitter ban on Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who, he argues, promote "Eastern communist philosophies." https://www.newsweek.com/ao...ue-trump-ban-1561917
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I would have the right to sue you for libel... but not necessarily Twitter. But I see what you're saying... I haven't agreed to the EULA... but I'm not sure that there's a precedence for suing anyway... with or without section 230.
The precedent is what created 230 in the first place. I don’t remember the cases in detail, but there were two cases that were treated differently, both basically forums that were sued for the content.
The precedent is what created 230 in the first place. I don’t remember the cases in detail, but there were two cases that were treated differently, both basically forums that were sued for the content.
Wolf of Wall Street lawsuit.
quote
Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm, sued Prodigy Services, an internet service provider, for defamation in the 1990s. Stratton was founded by Jordan Belfort, who was convicted of securities fraud and was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the Martin Scorsese film about financial excess. An anonymous user wrote on Prodigy’s online message board that the brokerage had engaged in criminal and fraudulent acts.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy was “a publisher” and therefore liable because it had exercised editorial control by moderating some posts and establishing guidelines for impermissible content. If Prodigy had not done any moderation, it might have been granted free speech protections afforded to some distributors of content, like bookstores and newsstands.
There were 2 lawsuits after the regulations were implemented that involved (allegedly) pornography.
One of the tenets of free speech is that everyone and anyone also has the right NOT to speak, and that is the tact Twitter, FB etc take.
Here's one that I think is particularly interesting. About the Trump-friendly Mike Lindell. (I'm not going to call him a "conservative" because that's too dignified a word.) Banning of MyPillow products from retailer store shelves and on-line shopping websites. https://www.nbcnews.com/new...referral_taboolafeed
Just last week (the last few days) Mike Lindell was photographed outside the White House after he visited with some of Trump's ranking staff in the National Security adviser portfolio (so to speak.) I'd have to look for the reports to say who exactly the media thought that Lindelll was talking to at the White House. The photographs revealed that he had some handwritten notes, one being to the effect of an "11th hour" maneuver to install a Trump political appointee, Kash Patel, as--was it the director of the CIA? To replace Gina Haspel, who I see just resigned at the last possible moment before Biden is inaugurated?
As I said when I was talking about pardons, "Don't sleep on Mike Lindell."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-20-2021).]
But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.
Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.
You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.
Edit: autocorrect from my phone...
Twitter, et all, brought this on themselves by censoring or editing posts on their services.
If they do not edit or censor, they are entitled to Sec. 230 protection.
* You placed no minimum or maximum limit or other quantitative measure on your statement. I'm on various other boards similar to PFF. A couple forbid any posting or discussion of any religious or political topics and issues. Any, without a limit, is all inclusive.
** The readers upon whom you (via the video) are attempting to push that particular narrative.
"To pressure the silencing of any dissent" To pressure into happening, the silencing of any dissent. Sure the end goal may be to leave some dissent, I couldn't confirm that. No not all dissent is currently being silenced. Yes I could have left the word "any" out. Any comment on what he says is happening? The letter he mentions?
Yes there is no numerical value to the people who see a video, well, youtube has some analytics maybe... This is information, its not incumbent upon me or the speaker to prove anything. If the person who hears doesnt care enough to do some research, or even just open their eyes, thats their own doing or undoing. Try and find out if the speaker is lying, see how he gets funding, etc. This is normal procedure when one hears information or watches "news".
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-20-2021).]
You said 'any' dissent'. There are tons of dissenting voices from the left that are heard on social media everyday, and still nearly as much from the right. If the right wants social media (and other media as well) to stop the current undesirable moderation, they need to cease the proclamation of all these conspiracy theories that help lead to stupid acts.
The days of things like publicly stated "Somebody needs to kill that......." are gone and for good reason.
The GOP didn't lose the Presidency and Senate because of what social media deleted. Lost, because the majority of the public did not believe much of what the right was saying on social media.
'deep state' 'lizardheads' 'The Plan' 'covid19 is under control, it's not real, it's just another flu, the numbers are hugely exaggerated''
That, is how much of the nation (and the world) sees the contemporary right. Why? Because that, is how the right has recently, LOUDLY and OFTEN presented itself thru the media and it's social counterpart and still is to only a slightly lesser degree today. The DC debacle was just the culmination of a full year of the right shooting themselves in the foot.
The DC debacle was just the culmination of a full year of the right shooting themselves in the foot.
And that irks me as much, if not more than anything the left has done. We are doing a terrible job of policing our own. If there is a crowd of a hundred people, and two are wearing swastikas, you know who is going to get noticed by the reporters and cameras.
You got to admit, breaking into congress and several dead in the process is kind of hard to go un-noticed, no matter how many thousands were outside peacefully protesting within their constitutional authority.
I'm not sure when the last time it happened in this country, if ever. The 1814 occupation and subsequent fire being the only big exception tho there were about 3 bombings over the years since then.
In 1915, as the United States asserted its neutrality during the early months of World War I, a German sympathizer detonated a bomb in the Senate Reception Room to protest America’s evident sympathies toward Great Britain. Again, in 1971 and 1983, protestors of American foreign policies set off explosives that caused significant damage to the Capitol. The '71 bomb was placed in a Senate bathroom by weather underground members.
Of current interest, On January 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of Evans and Rosenberg, 2 members of the resistance group that bombed the Senate in '83.
But it’s not necessarily the user that would be suing the platform.
Let’s say Section 230 is revised, Twitter is now a publisher. I log into Twitter, click “I AGREE” to their legal mumbo jumbo, Tweet out “Todd stole a pencil from me in 5th grade.” It is a lie, but I tweet it anyway. You don’t use Twitter and haven’t agreed to their EULA. Brad then screenshots that Tweet and posts it on PFF. Your boss sees the screenshot and fires you.
You can now sue Twitter for damages because it was on their platform.
Edit: autocorrect from my phone...
And now Twitter is being sued in Canada by a Canadian who was defamed by another Twitter user. And Canada has no Section 230 for Twitter to hide behind.
Twitter, et all, brought this on themselves by censoring or editing posts on their services.
If they do not edit or censor, they are entitled to Sec. 230 protection.
Their choice to push the limits.
That is the actual crux of the issue. Social Media cannot have it both ways, censoring certain speech while claiming they are just a platform like AT&T.
