Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 130

Thread: Apparently Bart Hanson hates free speech (Parler and Twitter censorship issue)

  1. #21
    Platinum splitthis's Avatar
    Reputation
    586
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    At the Metroparks
    Posts
    3,040
    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.

     
    Comments
      
      GrenadaRoger:
    People that sit in their recliner all day think walking is a disease.

  2. #22
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    5906
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    40,108
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

    Actually, some of them are.

    This was decided before most of us were born, regarding the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and TV stations. This was eventually abandoned when it became antiquated, but the concept has been long established.

    If a business becomes a major source of news and information for the public, the rules can be different than for others private businesses.
    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.

    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?
    From a legal standpoint, this is correct. But I'm not really discussing legality here -- only the moral implications of the whole thing.

    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.

  3. #23
    Post Restricted limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1332
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bubbles & The Baron
    Posts
    13,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post

    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.

    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?
    From a legal standpoint, this is correct. But I'm not really discussing legality here -- only the moral implications of the whole thing.

    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.
    call out ignorance at every opportunity

    Have a good day
    Never Forget

  4. #24
    Diamond Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Reputation
    866
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bowling Alley
    Posts
    6,413
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    We will not be stopped.
    ... by anybody except yourselves.
    SOBCHAK SECURITY 213-799-7798

    PRESIDENT-ELECT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

  5. #25

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    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.
    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?
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  7. #27

  8. #28
    Post Restricted limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1332
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bubbles & The Baron
    Posts
    13,300
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    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.
    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?
    That's funny but of course youíre serious.

    Lawyers needing a gig

    Name:  9B3D66F4-D407-4B9B-8DA0-E8C62074DA3A.jpeg
Views: 199
Size:  136.9 KB
    call out ignorance at every opportunity

    Have a good day
    Never Forget

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post

    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?
    That's funny but of course you’re serious.

    Lawyers needing a gig
    it's okay to smirk....it's only fair; i laugh when i read anything of yours
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    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.
    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?
    ANY anti-trust action in the tech sphere will benefit almost everyone everywhere. If that's an offshoot of banning Trump, A fucking Men.

    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.

     
    Comments
      
      gimmick:

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by ftpjesus View Post
    Bart just outright celebrated Parler going down and basically has condoned corporate censorship. Iím saddened and disgusted. Look I may disagree vehemently with people but when you embrace corporate crony censorship itís 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 itís 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 doesnít follow the leftist political slant will not be tolerated or allowed.

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:
    Twitter is not free speech, it is a publicly traded company with TOS. And Parler is just a fucking mess.

  12. #32
    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

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    I’m talking to you @Dwai
    Shit, I thought you read this board, Bart. Dwai's 100% pure troll.

    Plenty of terrible people on here, but dwai's not a serious account to react to, he's one to ignore.

  14. #34
    Well, at least Amazon didn't drop Parler from its web hosting service yet, so that should be a good sign, right?



  15. #35
    Plutonium big dick's Avatar
    Reputation
    1354
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    fuck krypt
    Posts
    11,072
    Fuck Bart Hansen

    DWAI IS GOD MFER


     
    Comments
      
      dwai:

  16. #36
    Plutonium big dick's Avatar
    Reputation
    1354
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    fuck krypt
    Posts
    11,072
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    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.
    DIS BITCH

    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
    Last edited by big dick; 01-10-2021 at 01:08 AM.

  17. #37
    Plutonium big dick's Avatar
    Reputation
    1354
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    fuck krypt
    Posts
    11,072
    Quote Originally Posted by big dick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    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.
    DIS BITCH

    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

  18. #38
    Platinum splitthis's Avatar
    Reputation
    586
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    At the Metroparks
    Posts
    3,040
    I donít cry you man baby basement bitch.
    People that sit in their recliner all day think walking is a disease.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by BartHanson View Post
    You guys are a bunch of cucks if you think Iím 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 doesnít just regurgitate some Q nonsense. Iím talking to you @Dwai
    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 shit

  20. #40
    Plutonium big dick's Avatar
    Reputation
    1354
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    fuck krypt
    Posts
    11,072
    Quote Originally Posted by splitthis View Post
    I donít cry you man baby basement bitch.
    keep crying

    trump is finished

    HOUSE-DEMS
    SENATE-DEMS
    PRESIDENCY-DEMS


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-04-2020, 11:27 AM
  2. Jeff Madsen versus Bart Hanson on Twitter
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-28-2020, 08:46 AM
  3. Bart Hanson rips an angle shooter on his call-in hand analysis show
    By JohnCommode in forum Scams, Scandals, and Shadiness
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-17-2020, 02:43 PM
  4. Bart Hanson - how much did you lose investing in that JEWISH restaurant?
    By snake_in_the_ass in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-04-2018, 05:33 PM
  5. Calling out Bart Hanson
    By IAmProfessionalTalk in forum Scams, Scandals, and Shadiness
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 10-04-2016, 06:25 AM