271–278 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Colbert is not a CBS employee. He runs Spartina Productions which, along with Busboy Productions, produces The Late Show for CBS. It's a coordinated project of the three companies, he's not their employee and likely can't just cancel the show except for very specific circumstances.
> likely can't just cancel the show Because they already have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or is there possible an implied message there? None of these antitrust cases were dropped for doing what was in their mutual interest. You're grasping at straws. > Well everyone did what they were 'politely asked Zuckerberg said Meta didn't do everything they were asked.
> None of these antitrust cases were dropped for doing what was in their mutual interest. I'm not understanding either what you're claiming or why you believe it. Keep in mind that I don't believe in always taking what the government says at face value. > You're grasping at straws. Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and cen…
There was no punishment for not following the government's recommendation or reward for following it.
> Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and censored.
You're desperate because you claimed that the government had censored COVID speech, and I showed that it had not, which makes it difficult for you to advance your nonsensical "both sides" narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Pressured." They merely suggested that it was better for the country and for business, and most of the companies agreed. There were no threats of fines or lawsuits, and none were levied.
This is exactly how the current CBS censorship works. The FCC said they "may" revise a rule, so CBS complied in advance by removing the political speech that the admin wanted to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not what I said. I said it isn't cowardice you can blame on the network instead of the FCC, which is what the parent comment did by saying the fault lies "more with CBS." CBS deserves blame. The administration wielding the threat deserves more. That's fair, this lines up with where I am mostly coming from - we shouldn't absolve blame from one group by focusing it on another. But your second paragraph then go…
We mostly agree. I'm really just making the point that focusing blame on the capitulators lets the people wielding state power off the hook. I suppose you could take the position that the industrialists who capitulated to the Nazis (I mean, those who didn't actively support them to begin with) were more at fault than the Nazis. Personally, I don't believe that. And to be clear, I'm not saying fiduciary duty requires…
FWIW your post nudged me to focus on Costco again. I had signed up for a membership to buy some appliances, but I haven't really incorporated it my day to day household purchases. A bit of activation energy because their warehouse is somewhat far away, the parking lot is always swamped, their website experience is clunky and hostile, etc. But I should at least be able to add them to the rotation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> None of these antitrust cases were dropped for doing what was in their mutual interest. I'm not understanding either what you're claiming or why you believe it. Keep in mind that I don't believe in always taking what the government says at face value. > You're grasping at straws. Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and cen…
> I'm not understanding either what you're claiming or why you believe it. Keep in mind that I don't believe in always taking what the government says at face value. There was no punishment for not following the government's recommendation or reward for following it. > Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and censored. You're…
You don't know that, and it's not reasonable to assume that. They all mostly caved, hence the letters of regret and the Twitter files etc.
> You're desperate because you claimed that the government had censored COVID speech, and I showed that it had not
You certainly did not. You showed that you don't even know what happened, couldn't be bothered looking into it, and yet are happy to pronounce 'the truth' as if it didn't contradict well known and documented reality.
That's called 'arguing in bad faith' and it's highly discouraged here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird, cause I remember there being a very lengthy and involved debate about COVID. I remember hearing a ton of dissent and disagreement with the government positions... almost like... they weren't being censored. There are hundreds of thousands of discussions about the lab leak hypothesis, and there were hundreds of those discussions at the time. There was also plenty of conflicting advice given, including "injectin…
Certainly at the beginning, the tools weren't 100% in place, at least in the west. Famously, China silenced one of the very first COVID reporters and forced him to recant, before he himself died from the virus.[1] As the pandemic wore on, we began to see a fight over "fact-checking". Mostly, it played out on Facebook and YouTube, not in traditional media. At the height, I saw a lot of channels self-censoring by avoid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shift from democracy to dictatorship isn't a cliff that a lot of people imagine it to be. It's a gradual slide with no abrupt changes in between. If you're waiting for a signal, you'll get it at the bottom of the ramp.
When does a pile become a heap? When they come for YOU. Seriously this is why people use to take every government transgression and overreach so seriously. Now multiple times a day it's something that would have been a straight SCANDAL in the past. It's happening right now y'all because it was always happening and will always happen without constant push back. Don't wait!
Right now they're 'flooding the zone' - a Steve Bannon slang for confusing and causing fatigue among people with far too many scandals far too often. I hope history will will remember him and his ilk with the reputation they deserve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not understanding either what you're claiming or why you believe it. Keep in mind that I don't believe in always taking what the government says at face value. There was no punishment for not following the government's recommendation or reward for following it. > Why would I be desperate? I've no skin in this game, beyond a general wish not to have legitimate and important speech suppressed and censored. You're…
> There was no punishment for not following the government's recommendation or reward for following it. You don't know that, and it's not reasonable to assume that. They all mostly caved, hence the letters of regret and the Twitter files etc. > You're desperate because you claimed that the government had censored COVID speech, and I showed that it had not You certainly did not. You showed that you don't even know wha…
I do know that, and what's more, I assert that you know that too. Hence, why you wrote "mostly" and why you have so far been unable to show any punishment for the "some" who didn't "cave" to the suggestions given without any threat of punishment.
The Twitter files also did not show any threat of punishment. The letters of regret came from Zuckerberg, who, as we have already seen, did not claim any punishment was threatened or meted when he did not agree with some claimed recommendations.
> That's called 'arguing in bad faith' and it's highly discouraged here.
Pot calling the silverware black.