|
Post by Optimus on Jan 12, 2021 10:09:15 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, the author said that they agreed with what was done "in this case." I haven't read through the rest of the article, but on its face that implies that the author doesn't think this should be applied as some Kantian imperative.
I also hate the power that the big tech companies have over speech and that they are now the de facto gatekeepers of public discourse but there also needs to be a rubicon drawn somewhere. Free speech laws do not apply to things like incitement and defamation, so I'm totally fine with social media companies banning people for such things. However, they need to apply the rules evenly (which, of course, they never do).
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 12, 2021 9:56:40 GMT -5
Despite the fact that I find Hawley and Marshall detestable (especially Hawley), they should reject based on principle alone. Once you donate money, it's no longer yours. You have no right to ask for it to be returned, other than a public display of fake virtuousness.
Companies should give more thought to whom they donate money before signing that check. I believe a few other companies declared over the past two days that they were no longer donating to republicans. Here's a novel idea, how about companies stop donating to political candidates PERIOD? I hate to sound like one of those, "there oughta be a law" guys, but really there ought to be a law against direct donations to politicians (or their Super PACs) from corporations. It should be limited to private citizens with the $2000 cap.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 11, 2021 18:05:29 GMT -5
I'd imagine it's the only program that brings in decent revenue for CC, so they just kind of ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 11, 2021 14:43:39 GMT -5
I ran across this video on YouTube. Apparently this dude goes to lots of political rallies (on both sides of the political aisle) and interviews people there to see if they even know anything about the issue. That is, are they just raving ideological lunatics or do they actually know what they're talking about. Seems like most of the time it's the former rather than the latter (how unshocking).
Anyway, he happened to be at the rally and interviewed people both before and after the riot. He interviewed crazy face-paint and furry horns dude (that interview is totally bonkers) before the riot and was able to interview pot bellied hillbilly who put his feet on Pelosi's desk and stole her mail after the riot.
Really fascinating (in a disturbing kind of way) stuff:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 11, 2021 14:31:57 GMT -5
Parler is now officially offline (for now): www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/parler-drops-offline-after-amazon-withdraws-support.htmlIn terms of radicalization and fomenting anger, these types of things could potentially make things worse. It's basically pouring gasoline on a conspiracy theory forest fire. I'm not at all defending the kind of bigoted, lunatic trash that far-right radicals believe. Parler was definitely used to help plan the insurrection and there were multiple posts planning violence and harm. A big part of me is saying, "good riddance to bad rubbish." But I really wonder if this is a good approach to quelling the insanity. I think it may wind up having the opposite effect for a lot of the less rational people out there. These broad measures will likely punish non-radical people who are expressing their 1st amendment rights but are caught up in the wake of bannings, and when they see they're being punished and attacked online just like the radical wackos are, some of them will likely join the wackos as "oppressed brothers-in-arms." I think at least some of the motivation behind a lot of these big tech restrictions is to punish their political enemies rather than simply trying to tamp down on harmful and violent rhetoric. Whether I like the outcome or not (e.g., I fully support getting extremist disinformation off social media), I question whether this is a good way to achieve it in the long term. This type of stuff may very well help (if not ensure) the GOP take Congress over again in 2022, and I have little doubt that the GOP will then engage in these same types of tactics (possibly worse) to people on the left. EDITED TO ADD: I just now saw all of Rob's posts on this, lol. I hadn't clicked over to the last page of posts in this thread before I posted. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 10, 2021 18:57:00 GMT -5
So, it seems the all of the people charged so far are being charged with weak stuff like "disorderly conduct."
Why are they not being charged with seditious conspiracy (i.e., "sedition)? What would that require in terms of overt acts? I'm not sure what technically or legally qualifies for sedition, but was hoping one of the lawyers here might have a bit more insight for me.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 10, 2021 17:02:34 GMT -5
Given how much of progressivism is obsessed with policing language, it's sadly not surprising that media companies think it's newsworthy when someone breaks that ideological "law."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 9, 2021 23:02:20 GMT -5
We seem to be starting to slide down that slippery slope I keep hearing about: thehill.com/homenews/news/533512-amazon-suspends-parler-off-web-hosting-service-reportsApple and Google have also removed the Parler app from their app stores: www.politico.com/news/2021/01/09/apple-removes-parler-app-store-456918Seems like there's a growing risk that liberal-leaning tech companies will jump on this "silence the conservatives" bandwagon and just find any flimsy excuse they can to snuff out voices on the right or perceived to be on the right. Granted, Parler comes across as mostly trash to me and definitely appeals to farther-right trolls (though I'm sure not everyone on there is awful), but this sets a very bad precedent. And the risk includes voices on the left who are "anti-woke," because in the SJW's eyes, being an anti-woke center-left liberal is tantamount to being an alt-right Nazi (the view from the "left pole," as Steven Pinker has put it). For example, Red Scare Podcast, which is run by two anti-woke Russian-American Bernie supporters, had their Twitter banned today with no explanation given. Even far-left grifter Nathan J. Robinson finds this troubling:
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 9, 2021 17:03:51 GMT -5
Parler is a little different. Apple seems to be taking the 'if you don't do things our way, you're out of here' jumping on the ban wagon. To me, as long as Parler isn't allowing posts that violate the law (Go kill someone, here's some nice kiddie porn, how about a slice of pizza with pineapple on it) then they should be left to their own devices. The place is pretty much a ghost town anyway. If Trump goes there in full force, I imagine Parler will get a significant boost in popularity (for all the wrong reasons).
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 9, 2021 13:25:54 GMT -5
I have little problem with these bans (because all of those people are garbage and their misinformation is detrimental to society). Apparently Rush Limbaugh voluntarily deactivated his account which, to me, is basically the trash taking itself out. BUT...Twitter needs to be more even-handed in their bannings. There's plenty of trash on the far-left that waste oxygen on Twitter spreading hate and misinformation who need to go, as well as anti-semitic human garbage like Louis Farakhan who some far-lefties like to cozy up to, if not fully endorse. I have little realistic hope that tree-hugging Jack or his partisan acolytes will actually be more fair with the bannings in the future, but a boy can dream.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 8, 2021 21:23:24 GMT -5
Not sure how they'll ever enforce bans on private communication.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 8, 2021 19:19:56 GMT -5
Seems not enough attention is being given to Mayor Bowser's actions that contributed to this clusterfuck: thehill.com/homenews/administration/532739-bowser-to-doj-pentagon-dc-isnt-requesting-federal-law-enforcement-toShe specifically told federal agencies that she didn't want additional help from them and that MPD could handle any protests. If they did need help, then she said the official request would have to come through/from the MPD. Seems to me that at least a little hubris on her part and that of the MPD played into this, as this comes off to me the same way a bratty child with a jar that they're not strong enough to open snatches it away from a parent trying to help, whining that "I can do it MYSELF!" They had 340 members of the National Guard activated but it appears they were under the direction of the MPD (at least logistically), who obviously dropped the ball in the most incompetent way possible in terms of utilizing them. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like Bowswer somewhat petulantly put everything in the hands of MPD, who obviously was not competent enough to handle things, and then just sat back while everything went to shit. A better/actual leader would've stepped in and made some tough calls a lot earlier. Bowswer didn't really say or do anything until the day after this shit show.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 8, 2021 10:57:05 GMT -5
Seems like people like Devos (i.e., cabinet members) might be quitting because they're too chicken to invoke the 25th. Others, as you said, are likely just trying to save their future employability by publicly distancing themselves from Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 8, 2021 10:52:48 GMT -5
Chickens coming home to roost? Reaping what one sows?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 7, 2021 14:30:34 GMT -5
|
|