The real problem for these companies as conservatives leave in droves is drops in revenue, they think they can push their evil lib agenda on all. We will prevail.
The real problem for these companies as conservatives leave in droves is drops in revenue, they think they can push their evil lib agenda on all. We will prevail.
From a legal standpoint, this is correct. But I'm not really discussing legality here -- only the moral implications of the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Broadcasters use the RF spectrum which by law belongs to the people, and require licenses to operate. They are subject to regulation from the FCC. This is why they were able to implement the Fairness Doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
At the present time social media are not regulated in the same way. That doesn't mean they can't be. If you want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and apply it to Big Tech as well, that's not necessarily a bad idea if it holds up in court. An equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine that applied to newspapers was struck down by the court because newspapers do not use up a finite resource (RF spectrum), do not require licenses to operate, and are open to theoretically limitless competition. So you would expect a similar challenge from Big Tech.
Generally it was conservatives who were opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. It was Reagan's FCC that abolished it. The Democrats considered bringing it back about a decade ago, but Republicans opposed it because they saw it as an attack on right-wing talk radio. Would you like to see the Fairness Doctrine applied to Fox News?
You're correct that conservatives opposed the Fairness Doctrine in the '80s, because right-wing talk radio had already gained enough of a foothold that they felt it largely negated (and probably exceeded) the left-wing editorial portions of regular broadcast stations.
Keep in mind that the mainstream media in those days was also not nearly as liberal and biased as it is now, so there was less of a concern then about biased news, and more of a concern about biased editorials.
My point about the Fairness Doctrine was that there had already been action taken in the past in order to bring ideological fairness to mass media. Yes, the public airwaves allowed them to be able to assert it, but that was just legality. The spirit of the law was to prevent one side from disseminating all of the editorial opinion.
Much has changed since then, but we are back to the same question -- should we allow private companies with a near-monopoly on information platforms control the ideology of the information disseminated on them?
I think a lot of this could be solved by making two sets of rules -- one for large social media, and one for everywhere else. The "everywhere else" rules would essentially be the same as they are today. With large social media, a lot of this could be solved by the following rules:
- No banning or removing messages by any sitting major or semi-major politician (meaning the President, VP, governors, Congresspeople, Senators, and big city mayors).
- No banning or removing messages by any large publications (the term "large" could be carefully defined here, to prevent confusion).
- No warning labels allowed for either of the above categories.
- All third-party fact checkers must be open and transparent regarding their process and their staff making these decisions, and must make a good faith effort to staff an equal number of people from the left and right. Any third-party fact checker which fails to do so cannot be utilized to determine the validity of any politically-related stories or posts.
The whole "fact checking" nonsense really infuriates me, because none of the fact checkers will be transparent about anything, and it is clear that they all have a strong leftist bias.
It's not even rocket science to put together a good and fair fact checking organization. For example, if someone hired me, Kalam, BCR, and Walter to get together and fact check things, I bet we could do a pretty damn good job, regardless of our differing ideologies. By ourselves, each of us would probably have some bias, but put together in a room as a group, we could probably come up with honest fact checking.
I would actually LOVE to see stories fact-checked by legitimate, unbiased checkers. Unfortunately, no such organization exists, hence the current fact-checkers avoiding any form of transparency.
I'm just coming up with ideas off the top of my head here, but surely there's a way to solve this censorship issue while also combating disinformation campaigns.
So what you've said previously is basically nonsense and just an opinion. Save the internet the wall of text with no point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffFrom a legal standpoint, this is correct. But I'm not really discussing legality here -- only the moral implications of the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
You're correct that conservatives opposed the Fairness Doctrine in the '80s, because right-wing talk radio had already gained enough of a foothold that they felt it largely negated (and probably exceeded) the left-wing editorial portions of regular broadcast stations.
Keep in mind that the mainstream media in those days was also not nearly as liberal and biased as it is now, so there was less of a concern then about biased news, and more of a concern about biased editorials.
My point about the Fairness Doctrine was that there had already been action taken in the past in order to bring ideological fairness to mass media. Yes, the public airwaves allowed them to be able to assert it, but that was just legality. The spirit of the law was to prevent one side from disseminating all of the editorial opinion.
Much has changed since then, but we are back to the same question -- should we allow private companies with a near-monopoly on information platforms control the ideology of the information disseminated on them?
I think a lot of this could be solved by making two sets of rules -- one for large social media, and one for everywhere else. The "everywhere else" rules would essentially be the same as they are today. With large social media, a lot of this could be solved by the following rules:
- No banning or removing messages by any sitting major or semi-major politician (meaning the President, VP, governors, Congresspeople, Senators, and big city mayors).
- No banning or removing messages by any large publications (the term "large" could be carefully defined here, to prevent confusion).
- No warning labels allowed for either of the above categories.
- All third-party fact checkers must be open and transparent regarding their process and their staff making these decisions, and must make a good faith effort to staff an equal number of people from the left and right. Any third-party fact checker which fails to do so cannot be utilized to determine the validity of any politically-related stories or posts.
The whole "fact checking" nonsense really infuriates me, because none of the fact checkers will be transparent about anything, and it is clear that they all have a strong leftist bias.
It's not even rocket science to put together a good and fair fact checking organization. For example, if someone hired me, Kalam, BCR, and Walter to get together and fact check things, I bet we could do a pretty damn good job, regardless of our differing ideologies. By ourselves, each of us would probably have some bias, but put together in a room as a group, we could probably come up with honest fact checking.
I would actually LOVE to see stories fact-checked by legitimate, unbiased checkers. Unfortunately, no such organization exists, hence the current fact-checkers avoiding any form of transparency.
I'm just coming up with ideas off the top of my head here, but surely there's a way to solve this censorship issue while also combating disinformation campaigns.
... by anybody except yourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
i agree...more like using a controlled subsidiary to limit distribution of a competitor--it appears this maybe a move that injures competition in the social media market, hence anti-trust litigation possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
That's funny but of course you’re serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogeri agree...more like using a controlled subsidiary to limit distribution of a competitor--it appears this maybe a move that injures competition in the social media market, hence anti-trust litigation possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
Lawyers needing a gig
it's okay to smirk....it's only fair; i laugh when i read anything of yoursQuote:
Originally Posted by limitlesThat's funny but of course you’re serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger
Lawyers needing a gig
ANY anti-trust action in the tech sphere will benefit almost everyone everywhere. If that's an offshoot of banning Trump, A fucking Men.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogeri agree...more like using a controlled subsidiary to limit distribution of a competitor--it appears this maybe a move that injures competition in the social media market, hence anti-trust litigation possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
Break up Google, break up Amazon, break up Facebook, break up all the digital monopolies in every area. Shit, break up all monopolies and monopsonies in every area. Would be a tremendous unforeseen consequence of all this.
Twitter is not free speech, it is a publicly traded company with TOS. And Parler is just a fucking mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftpjesusBart just outright celebrated Parler going down and basically has condoned corporate censorship. I’m saddened and disgusted. Look I may disagree vehemently with people but when you embrace corporate crony censorship it’s a sad day. I might also add if you have any semblance of actual supporting free speech be prepared to give up your Apple products. They apparently are threatening to remove Parler from the App Store and disable any ability to use the app on iPhone or iPad. Again disagree politically but this is not just disgusting it’s fucking scary that the corporate leftists have no muzzle and are declaring they now get to decide what political speech is acceptable and apparently anything that doesn’t follow the leftist political slant will not be tolerated or allowed.
You guys are a bunch of cucks if you think I’m a liberal. Go back to mindlessly supporting Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz and believing the election was stolen. I have respect for Druff because at least he can acknowledge reality, actually believe what he says and doesn’t just regurgitate some Q nonsense. I’m talking to you @Dwai
Shit, I thought you read this board, Bart. Dwai's 100% pure troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
Plenty of terrible people on here, but dwai's not a serious account to react to, he's one to ignore.
Well, at least Amazon didn't drop Parler from its web hosting service yet, so that should be a good sign, right?
Fuck Bart Hansen
DWAI IS GOD MFER
:to
DIS BITCHQuote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
MMMM your tears are delicious
cry more for us please
cry yourself to sleep everyday knowing you lost BIGGLY
ALL 3 BABE ALL 3 NOW UNDER OUR CONTROL
POST MORE CRY MORE PLEASE I LOVEEEE IT
:toQuote:
Originally Posted by big dickDIS BITCHQuote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
MMMM your tears are delicious
cry more for us please
cry yourself to sleep everyday knowing you lost BIGGLY
ALL 3 BABE ALL 3 NOW UNDER OUR CONTROL
POST MORE CRY MORE PLEASE I LOVEEEE IT
I don’t cry you man baby basement bitch.
go suck more little boy cock you little dweeb, go post more bullshit on Twitter you huge faggot, go play more poker or something you racist piece of shitQuote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
keep cryingQuote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
trump is finished
HOUSE-DEMS
SENATE-DEMS
PRESIDENCY-DEMS
:to