541–550 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah I'm sure this had nothing to do with the attempted coup
Genuine request as I've seem this framing a lot and cannot understand it: Can you point to the specific things that occurred which you believe were part of an attempted coup, and why you believe they were?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah I'm sure this had nothing to do with the attempted coup
I don't think there is any reason to exaggerate. People have a will and a right to protest against their perceived injustice at a state or federal level. A coup also usually involves the military and a taking of government by force, neither of which happened yesterday. If this were a coup then the BLM "protests" over the summer were also a coup, and they were causing significantly more damage to small business with d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the fairness doctrine hadn't been eliminated administratively, it's very plausible it'd have been overturned by SCOTUS anyway. Not that'd I agree with that, but given the way the court has gone on corporate "free speech"...
The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum). Cable TV, newspapers were not affected and the internet likely wouldn’t have been affected either.
When people say anonymity online is bad and that having people use their real names would make people more polite, I point them to facebook comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it matters what “speech” exists on a platform then that platform probably has gotten too big for societal good. Ie it doesn’t matter what balls or strikes they call. Just leave the platform if you disagree with it and go with a competitor. If you can’t do that then we’re in monopoly power situation. Break em up. The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth. Anything else is not free speec…
> The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US Constitution explicitly says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "of the pres…
Facebook, Twitter and the rest shouldn't act like arbiters of truth. I think this is just plain wrong and a slippery slope for the entire industry.
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
So uh, who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes intolerant or harmful speech? You? Me? Facebook? The government? Twitter? Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their incentives will always remain pure?
Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.
But yes, these are hard to predict times.
What is unbelievable about that? It's completely reasonable. People were pissed about lack of election transparency. All they wanted were real audits of the election, but all they got was "Shut up, go home, there's no evidence, stop looking into things."
Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I live in Fulton county. My wife worked the polls. We're engaged in the democratic process here. This was audited to hell and back. It was checked, and checked again. It was checked by both parties. It was checked by the courts. It was checked by the governor, by the secretary of state, by the media, it was even checked by the fucking companies who made the ballot machines. So when you sa…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA
Also keep in mind Georgia never did re-canvasing and when they did a re-count, they recounted the IMAGES of the ballots, not the paper ballots. Georgia has also refused to release the images of the ballots. Give me a data dump of images so we can go through and make sure they all have different serial numbers. If they really didn't run the same ballots through over and over, it would be easy to prove. Why are they not releasing them?
Finally, that "leaked" call between Trump and the GA sectary of state everyone went ape shit over, did you know that was literally illegal. It was a Settlement Call, lawyers on both side were present (and named) and all of that was privileged. The GA Sec of State should be in jail right now. He won't be.
There are no consequences for breaking the law if you're on the right side.
All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
So uh, who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes intolerant or harmful speech? You? Me? Facebook? The government? Twitter? Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their incentives will always remain pure?
Facebook makes rules for what, above and beyond that, is not allowed on Facebook.
Twitter makes rules for what, above and beyond the government's rules, is not allowed on Twitter.
This...really isn't hard.