91–100 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you think people disagree with you because they are evil, any action is justfiable (internally).
It's even worse when you think people are evil simply because they disagree with you!
We argue about how it's okay for private companies to censor whatever they feel like, but what if it's the government pressuring them to do so? They themselves in this letter mention that 50% of Americans get their news from TV, and many American's have one choice of Cable provider, and even if they have 2 or 3, that's just 2 or 3 companies you have to pressure into delisting news sources of your choosing to make them essentially unreachable for the vast majority of the population.
The next step I feel is obviously blocking websites, again Americans only have 1 or 2 options of internet providers, and in this case they'd already have pressured them into censoring cable, so why not ask the same companies to censor the internet?
Steps like this just make me think that one side clearly doesn't plan on ever being able to lose an election again, and with actions available such as adding new states, adding 12-20 million new voters (illegal immigrants), I can see why they feel that way. Any authoritarian steps taken in democracy are usually balanced by the fact the other side could do the same when in power. If you simply never lose power, that's not an issue.
Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people. Never the hands of authorities whether those be government or corporate. Why must fight all censorship. Because once you allow "a thing" to be censored, it becomes possible to censor "any thing". Things in the past which were labeled misinformation and would have been suppressed for even longer (or forever) under current social attit…
"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" i…
And that is key.
PREEMPTIVE censorship is always a mistake because it only relies on power ideologies.
"How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel ." Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move?
Scary stuff, I feel like I'm slowly watching as the U.S turns into a one party state, and enforced by the government itself. We argue about how it's okay for private companies to censor whatever they feel like, but what if it's the government pressuring them to do so? They themselves in this letter mention that 50% of Americans get their news from TV, and many American's have one choice of Cable provider, and even if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you think people disagree with you because they are evil, any action is justfiable (internally).
It's even worse when you think people are evil simply because they disagree with you!
No discussion what so ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws. Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" i…
Yes but we have made the judiciary the judge of what goes further than free speech, not the legislative. And that is key. PREEMPTIVE censorship is always a mistake because it only relies on power ideologies.
"How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel ." Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move?
And it is very very very easy to take it.
That a congressperson makes this kind of question speaks volumes about him. Unbelievable.
Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I have no expertise in law, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that. > Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally fo…
They can't legally force the companies to comply and they know that but it doesn't matter. This is a threat: "If you don't do what we tell you to do, we'll make your life miserable". If the companies don't willingly comply, then they can launch a FUD PR campaign through activist non-profits orgs and claim that these companies are hosting hate speech. Too cynical?