Should republicans move on from Trump?

8,518 Views | 245 Replies | Last: 8 days ago by BBW12OG
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah....couldn't dispute a damn thing I said could you?

You showed you true colors with the support of Amash. Way to go. And if I recall you were one of the ones bellyaching about me calling you and your party SOCIALISTS.

In your case that may have been a little "light."

As far as the child comments go.... "takes one to know one.."

Defend your support of someone that is a known anti-Semite and never spoke out against her comments. I'm sure plenty of folks on here would love to hear it. Or just avoid the topic all together and further solidify who you are IsisWolf22.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?

Wolfpack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

Wolfpack said:

pineknollshoresking said:

Civilized said:

Wolfpack said:

Can someone explain to me why you can't like conservative fiscal policy and also not want to engage in culture wars that are fundamentally anti-liberty and anti-freedom?

To answer Steve's question, please, and hurry up. Moderates are getting extremely tired and you saw how the general just went.

You obviously can and I think that's what's driving up independent numbers while Pubs and Dems both watch their parties shrink.

A lot of moderates/independents fit the profile you describe very well. They're anti-culture war but also can't get fully on board with the far left economically or even in some cases socially.
I don't know why Dems are losing registrants (well, yea, I do); however, I am sure I know why Republicans are...

The legacy Republican Party was all about: Big Business, Wall Street, K Street, and Wars. These lost people will come back once the fundamental transformation of the Republican Party completes.

As much as some here don't like Trump, he is the person that started this transformation. I am extremely thankful for this and want him to continue to lead the party and want him back in the White House. Now, Ron Desantis is definitely the next best thing and will completely support him if Trump doesn't run.

Some here will definitely hate Desantis once they get more of him. He has the same Trumpism in his communication. He is very tactful when needed; however, very blunt as well.
You're probably right. I'm one probably what you call a Reagan republican or something similar, with a liberal twist on my social views (I really don't care what LGBTQ, etc. people do, I hope we can empower their rights, etc.). -- please, I don't want to debate this part, just describing why I feel lost.

The current movement has completely isolated me, it feels like, on both sides. I am pro small government, because I believe the best talent goes to industry now. With that said, that is another reason why I don't want the government to fight and participate in culture wars. Jeez, what is small government about that? Get out of our ways! I am largely small government because I don't believe our elected officials are "cream of the crop" any longer, where I felt they were in the past.

Anyway, regardless, I am also a white collar worker in a high leadership position. I'm not saying I understand leadership, but I do know that blue collar workers (like my parents) look at things like abrasiveness, bluntness, etc. to be signs of quality leadership. I see it as being mentally weak and unable to construe the core point in any intelligible manner. This communication style would never fly in any way whatsoever in the corporate world so if we're going to act like we want "business people in the WH", this is not it.

Again, not to start an argument, I simply put this here because today I feel especially frustrated in regards to Mark Robinson's speech at the NC GOP. He spent literally no time talking about the stuff that matters to me, from a fiscal perspective. Instead just focused on exactly what I don't agree with, which to the point is... no human should tell any other human how to behave, act, or live. That, I just don't agree with.
That's all a matter of opinion....My folks think like yours does, but my dad is still running his own business this way and is quite successful, but he the business that he is in is a blue collar business. I manage a company in finance which obviously has white color workers. While it typically isn't my first go-to in terms of management, I have found that being abrasive and blunt can be very useful in the right context. I think it loses its effectiveness if that is the constant state that you manage in, but if used sparingly and in the right situations can be a very powerful tool to keep the wheels going.
You got it, man. Use it as a way to escalate a situation to get others attention. Don't cry wolf with it or no one will listen.

My parents are the ones who enabled me to get to where I am Today. I have nothing but respect for them and I completely and totally understand their viewpoints. But times change, people change, and politics change too

I really hated typing out that white collar/blue collar worker, because I really loathe the corporate BS that comes with these jobs. I'm a State guy. My family has worked from the bottom on up. I just didn't know how else to articulate my personal situation and struggles.
Wolfpack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm out of here, guys. Not a WC guy, but I felt comfortable sharing some insight into a few things bothering me. This convo really helped.

Back to letting people scream at clouds in random posts about socialists I suppose . Really would rather just see Americans unite as one, like they did in 1776.
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with Cowboy. If a social media site wants protection, they must be fair to both sides of our political spectrum.
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We appreciate your posts, Wolfpack. There is no need to run now. Perhaps we will provide something else to augment your thinking.
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What do you like about Amash other than the fact he left the Republican party to become a Libertarian?
Cornpack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

What do you like about Amash other than the fact he left the Republican party to become a Libertarian?

I can speak to this because I really admire Amash as well. He is a strong advocate for Criminal Justice reform, explained the reasoning behind every single one of his votes on his Facebook page forcing him to be consistent (and only ever missed a single vote during his time in Congress), doesn't want us involved in foreign wars for the sake of playing world policeman, offers a unique perspective as 2nd generation American whose father emigrated to here in the 40s when the Christian Palestinians were forced out, is a staunch fiscal hawk who saught to cut spending wherever possible, and yes I admire him for being willing to sink his own political career to make what he thought was the right decision. You know what else? I really like the guy who replaced him in MI-03, Peter Mejier, as well. Idk what is in the water in west Michigan but they know how to pick damn good elected officials.
Retired internet funny guy who is currently neglecting law school readings. Would rather be in Nash County.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wolfpack said:

I'm out of here, guys. Not a WC guy, but I felt comfortable sharing some insight into a few things bothering me. This convo really helped.

Back to letting people scream at clouds in random posts about socialists I suppose . Really would rather just see Americans unite as one, like they did in 1776.

You can't leave. You're imminently reasonable.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?



Parler's back in the App Store as of a few weeks ago once they improved their content moderation standards to Tim Cook's liking.

Will be interesting to see if they hit the Play store again soon.

I agree that content moderation is unequal I just don't know what to do about it (and think repealing Section 230 causes more problems than it solves). The best answer to me appears to be Parler and more apps like it, just like OAN and Newsmax and Breitbart were predictable responses to the relatively unequal volume of liberal news sources versus conservative sources.
griff17matt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?



Parler's back in the App Store as of a few weeks ago once they improved their content moderation standards to Tim Cook's liking.

Will be interesting to see if they hit the Play store again soon.

I agree that content moderation is unequal I just don't know what to do about it (and think repealing Section 230 causes more problems than it solves). The best answer to me appears to be Parler and more apps like it, just like OAN and Newsmax and Breitbart were predictable responses to the relatively unequal volume of liberal news sources versus conservative sources.


Again, the problem with that is you would also need to have phone/tablet hardware AND software. That's just too much infrastructure to produce and it'll never happen. The best thing that could happen, imo, is a rewrite of Sec230 to not be held responsible for what is posted but still being open for litigation from suppression if the oppressed party can prove other instances of similar language/content being allowed.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure that's possible, but it would seem to be the most expedient way to resolve the issue. I have ZERO issues with Twitter and FB not being held responsible for things lunatics post. I have a huge problem with selective enforcement of their own T&C.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm a little confused about the hardware aspect of what you're talking about.

I'm only suggesting that conservative apps and media continuing to enter the market to facilitate balance is a reasonable market response to liberal bias in social or mainstream media.
griff17matt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

I'm a little confused about the hardware aspect of what you're talking about.

I'm only suggesting that conservative apps and media continuing to enter the market to facilitate balance is a reasonable market response to liberal bias in social or mainstream media.


Apple and Google can pull apps from their app stores at their own discretion. Last I checked, you can really only get Android and iOS phones and tablets. You think Samsung is going to start putting some random OS on there? So, phone and tablet would need to be separate. Might need an ISP and cell carrier too since Verizon and T-Mobile could probably do the same as Apple and Google and block access if they desired.

I'm just saying, it's not as simple as "go and start your own conservative social media apps" when the means to access them is still gatekept by companies with obviously opposite political biases.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the fact that he aligned himself with someone who has openly expressed anti-Semitic views numerous times, supports Hamas and BDS doesn't bother you? Wow.... I hope you would rethink that but in some cases I guess it doesn't matter.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?
Only one is untrue...
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey, look. Another lie debunked that was spread by the state run media and fueled by social media for the Democrat party.

cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?
Only one is untrue...
As much as I think there were serious shenanigans in the 2020 election the states certified the election and congress accepted those certified electors....By our rules and laws Biden won.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boy you lefties and anti-Semites are having a tough go at it this week. You did everything you could along with your MSM propaganda partners to disparage President Trump and the 2020 re-election campaign. But...like with everything in life, sooner or later it comes out.

Looks like President Trump was correct when he said that Hydroxychloroquine combined with other supplemental drugs would help against Covid 19....

And what will you be having with your side of crow?

Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
Cornpack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

So the fact that he aligned himself with someone who has openly expressed anti-Semitic views numerous times, supports Hamas and BDS doesn't bother you? Wow.... I hope you would rethink that but in some cases I guess it doesn't matter.
The fact they both agree on one single, non-related, issue implies that he supports a terror group? Do you actually, with your whole red-blood beating heart, believe that? I'm not even asking that to be rhetorical; I actually want to know if that is your opinion.
Retired internet funny guy who is currently neglecting law school readings. Would rather be in Nash County.
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
griff17matt said:

Civilized said:

I'm a little confused about the hardware aspect of what you're talking about.

I'm only suggesting that conservative apps and media continuing to enter the market to facilitate balance is a reasonable market response to liberal bias in social or mainstream media.


Apple and Google can pull apps from their app stores at their own discretion. Last I checked, you can really only get Android and iOS phones and tablets. You think Samsung is going to start putting some random OS on there? So, phone and tablet would need to be separate. Might need an ISP and cell carrier too since Verizon and T-Mobile could probably do the same as Apple and Google and block access if they desired.

I'm just saying, it's not as simple as "go and start your own conservative social media apps" when the means to access them is still gatekept by companies with obviously opposite political biases.
You can download 3rd party app stores to both iOS and Android. They are the largest app stores because people are lazy and don't stray from the thing that comes pre-downloaded. Android in particular is an extremely open system

If a rich Republican with a good background in Tech wanted to get this done. They could
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?


But moderation is specifically allowed. I do agree that the core issue is that Terms and Conditions are not evenly enforced. However "evenly enforced" is a hard thing to really pin down and put into legislation. The article I included earlier goes into some of the ways that moderation is difficult.
The only real option would be some type of independent moderation board to assess disputes and rule for or against the company. But we'd still need to come up with rules for them, and a method of staffing isn't open to partisan hackery. I don't want Trump or Biden able to place lackeys on a board and influence enforcement
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cornpack said:

PackFansXL said:

What do you like about Amash other than the fact he left the Republican party to become a Libertarian?

I can speak to this because I really admire Amash as well. He is a strong advocate for Criminal Justice reform, explained the reasoning behind every single one of his votes on his Facebook page forcing him to be consistent (and only ever missed a single vote during his time in Congress), doesn't want us involved in foreign wars for the sake of playing world policeman, offers a unique perspective as 2nd generation American whose father emigrated to here in the 40s when the Christian Palestinians were forced out, is a staunch fiscal hawk who saught to cut spending wherever possible, and yes I admire him for being willing to sink his own political career to make what he thought was the right decision. You know what else? I really like the guy who replaced him in MI-03, Peter Mejier, as well. Idk what is in the water in west Michigan but they know how to pick damn good elected officials.
I have to echo pretty much everything here. He's also been a voice on congressional reforms that would make lawmaking more fair and accountable.

At the end of the day I always appreciate someone that has been saying the same stuff for years and remains intellectually consistent. He's actually has one of the most conservative records in congress each year. Go check any of the scorecards. He was cast out for his impeachment vote only, not any of his other positions.
IseWolf22
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IseWolf22 said:


I think if you would do a little research and see that your boy Amash did a lot more with Tilab and the Flunky Bunch than just vote to impeach President Trump. He was on stage with her in Michigan on numerous occasions and it wasn't in support of Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.

You and the lefties made it your job to disparage President Trump at every turn if he didn't immediately speak out against any sort of your -ism of the day. Tilab has openly supported BDS, Hamas and made anti-Semitic comments her entire political career and Amash has yet to condemn ANY of her statements or actions.

Amash has NEVER condemned them or spoken out against them in public, on twitter or through a press release. Now you haven't either. Very telling. Says a lot about you again. Not that most of us didn't already know but thanks for reiterating your stance IsisWolf22.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
griff17matt said:

No chance I'll respond to that whole dissertation, but I did have a noticeable eye roll to this part:

"Again, to me, quantity and veracity matter. It's a consequential difference that Trump tweeted and was quoted 500+ times about the election being stolen whereas Hillary's remarks have expressed disappointment in the impact of Russian interference or potential collusion in a small handful of interviews. She's not out there in public beating the "FRAUD/RIGGED/STOLEN" drum hundreds of times and stirring up her followers that the election was stolen from her and the system is rigged. Quantity and intensity of communication matters."

I'll give you his incessant tweeting, but are we really going to use the media's obsession with twisting every word he says against him? And, in practically the same breath, excuse Hillary for the media covering for her? I'm not sure you can form an argument around coverage disparities from a large percentage of traditional media that negatively construe one side and positively construe the other. Did they do or say the same things? If yes, then they are guilty of the same sin, regardless of how many times it was repeated through news outlets.

You also keep saying how there was Russian "interference or collusion" which would I suppose kind of echo Hillary's Trump is Putin's puppet trope. If that's the case then I suppose Biden is Xi's puppet since Dems seem so hell bent on tickling their tonsils on China's dick? So we traded one master for another? Congrats on the move from authoritarian right to totalitarian left I guess.

Also, could you PLEASE make me stop defending Trump's dumb ass? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or something.

LOL, nor would I expect you to respond to that diatribe.

Most MSM media is biased and too opinion-based. Mostly liberal bias, although Fox and then OAN, Newsmax, etc. sensed a business opportunity and moved into a vacuum to provide partisan news for the right.

The MSM was seriously butthurt from Trump being elected. That was partly political; partly Trump saying outrageous **** almost every time he opened his mouth and the media seeing it as their role to call out obvious lies; and partly him being combative/defensive/contentious with the media well before he became President, except in circumstance when someone was writing a glowing fluff profile of him.

We can't act like him seeming like a contentious, narcissistic, entitled blowhard started when he became a "Republican" or became President, or that it's unfair to judge him that, or that the MSM hating on him is solely the media's response to him being "conservative," which he's not, even. He's was incredibly unlikeable and untrustworthy before he became a "Republican" or became President. I enjoyed The Art of the Deal when I read it 20 years ago but the narcissism and bluster and convenient relationship with the truth were apparent decades ago.

Then Day 1, his team shows up and starts clearly just making stuff up about his inauguration attendance, and the defending their obvious lies by saying they were providing "alternative facts." If you're a reporter, that's chum in the water. It was also super weird and alarming to normal Americans, to see the US President look at the blue sky and then turn to the American people and say "the sky is yellow." This approach went on for four years, about matters big and small, and he and the media only got more combative and contentious as he went along. That's not a political observation, that's just who Trump is whether it's about real estate or politics. It's his personality. He crafts his own reality when actual reality doesn't suit him.

The media isn't a victim here; they made their partisan bed and they have to lie in it to some extent, but I can't get behind acting like their judgments of Trump, or combativeness with this, is totally a political construct.

Regarding Russian interference, yeah there was interference and Trump kept denying it when it had obviously taken place and was weirdly complimentary of Putin. I don't think it's a crazy response to wonder why he was in obvious denial, with some combination of himself, the media, and the American people.

Is there a similar analogy where China or Xi engaged with Biden in ways that make it seem like Biden was helped by China/Xi, and then denied it? That's a direct analogy.

Biden being soft on China in absence of anything seemingly untoward may make for bad foreign policy but in and of itself isn't directly comparable to Russia clearly helping Trump electorally and Trump denying it.

Going back to this thread topic, I understand Trump's appeal to many on the right. His combativeness with the media and him not conceding an inch or backing down from fights with the left are hugely appealing. I just wonder how much his stance in the party hurts it electorally. Seems impossible to have a relatively unified party with him playing such an active role.
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ONE CANDIDATE USED RUSSIA IN THE 2016 ELECTION. GUESS WHO THAT WAS CIV?

I glanced at yet another version of the Idiots Guide to the Water Cooler and the only thing that stood out was "Russia, Russia, Russia...."

Even after numerous validated reports that Russia had zero, nothing , zilch, nada or as you and your party who used Russian disinformation during the 2016 campaign would say... "NYET!" You and your comrades need to start doing better research before you spend two days trying to type up something you think will own the Conservatives. It takes me mere seconds to respond to you and your ilk with fact based information.

And I do it in 200 words or less.

Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

ONE CANDIDATE USED RUSSIA IN THE 2016 ELECTION. GUESS WHO THAT WAS CIV?

I glanced at yet another version of the Idiots Guide to the Water Cooler and the only thing that stood out was "Russia, Russia, Russia...."

Even after numerous validated reports that Russia had zero, nothing , zilch, nada or as you and your party who used Russian disinformation during the 2016 campaign would say... "NYET!" You and your comrades need to start doing better research before you spend two days trying to type up something you think will own the Conservatives. It takes me mere seconds to respond to you and your ilk with fact based information.

And I do it in 200 words or less.


The only thing I'll say is that my goal on here is never to "own conservatives." "Convervatives" are becoming less of a bloc anyway, just like "Liberals." Most people have blended ideologies even if they lean one way or another.

I'm here for the conversation, not to "own" anybody.

pineknollshoresking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboypack02 said:

pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?
Only one is untrue...
As much as I think there were serious shenanigans in the 2020 election the states certified the election and congress accepted those certified electors....By our rules and laws Biden won.
I get what you are saying. "If" Maricopa County finds serious issues and the election would have gone a different way, and the other States flying people in Maricopa County to research the audit, do the same, with the same results, we are going to be in a mess, possibly a real constitutional crises...
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guess the board lefties, independents and ISIS supporters are going to have a rough few days... "but..but...his tweets... they were so offensive..."

What a damn joke.

Sit back and wait for a 4 paragraph dissertation on why "Russia" made the IG put that story out.

Clown show in 10...9...8...
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?
Only one is untrue...
As much as I think there were serious shenanigans in the 2020 election the states certified the election and congress accepted those certified electors....By our rules and laws Biden won.
I get what you are saying. "If" Maricopa County finds serious issues and the election would have gone a different way, and the other States flying people in Maricopa County to research the audit, do the same, with the same results, we are going to be in a mess, possibly a real constitutional crises...
Yes, it might be time to break up the Union and I don't say that lightly, being a federal pensioner. Perhaps a convention of states could throw out the election of 2020 and keep the country together.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?
Only one is untrue...
As much as I think there were serious shenanigans in the 2020 election the states certified the election and congress accepted those certified electors....By our rules and laws Biden won.
I get what you are saying. "If" Maricopa County finds serious issues and the election would have gone a different way, and the other States flying people in Maricopa County to research the audit, do the same, with the same results, we are going to be in a mess, possibly a real constitutional crises...
Yes, it might be time to break up the Union and I don't say that lightly, being a federal pensioner. Perhaps a convention of states could throw out the election of 2020 and keep the country together.
As much as I hate to say it I think that is coming in the next 15-20 years without radical change somewhere. When you have a significant portion of the country believing that and election was fraudulent then you have a huge issue. Regardless of how you believe that we got here that's where we are. Here is where our government is right now:
  • Politicians on both sides saying that elections are rigged.
  • States and districts doing highly suspicious things with ballots and counting them
  • A large part of the population believing that the election is rigged
  • Political witch hunts in congress and the house of a previous president
  • illegal spying of a presidential candidate and president elect by the opposition party
  • the media being propagandist as opposed to a non bias group as it should be
  • Politicians that don't hesitate to trample on the god given freedoms that we are allowed in the founding documents of the country
  • a court system that is more likely to rule on ideological beliefs as opposed to the rule of law
  • Mobs influencing court decisions
  • Propaganda being taught in the school system and a large group of people being demonized by being called racist if they disagree
  • Uncontrolled borders and allowing millions of people to come into the country who are not assimilating
  • The federal government selectively not punishing politicians for breaking the law.
  • The federal government selectively enforcing laws to agree with the ideology of one of the political parties.
  • Politicians not following the will of the constituents who elected them.

That is a serious disaster in the making....
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is exactly what Dear Leader said he wanted... "fundamentally change America..."

And you have people on this very board that support that. Hell... some of them won't even come out and condemn anti-Semitism
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
Cornpack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

pineknollshoresking said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

IseWolf22 said:

cowboypack02 said:

tuffy1006 said:

I'm completely okay with Trumps ban. I mean its freaking twitter and facebook for Christ's sake. For one those are owned by people, you can't just go on someone's website and say whatever the f you want especially when politically/ethically they dont agree with you. Hell I get temporarily banned on there sometimes for talking sports junk. It's not hard to get banned on there, especially if one instigates a siege on the capital lol

Start your own brand of social media and stop counting on the very liberals you dont like to provide you a social media platform. Makes no damn sense for anyone to be complaining about this. Most these social media websites were created by left leaning/progressive people....so why is it a surprise to anyone this is happening??
There are a couple of things that I want to point out for everyone to ponder

  • A few years ago a reporter sued Trump for blocking them and a judge said that Trump couldn't do that because it was a public domain. It seems to me that if Trump can't block anyone because its a public domain then Twitter shouldn't be able to remove a sitting or retired president for the same reasons
  • The social media sites are provided protection by the government for getting sued because they not providing editorial guidance and people can post what they want. Facebook and Twitter obviously will allow people to post about an election being fraudulent because democrats were allowed to post that the 2016 election was fraudulent and that there was cheating going on with no consequences. This issue wasn't the content, it was who was posting it. If a site is not enforcing their rules equally then they are editing what is being said and should lose their protections
  • There is no "start your own brand of social media" anymore. Someone went out and did it....and then it was promptly deplatformed by Apple, Android, and AWS for no reason. That ain't right...


1. That ruling was stupid. It's not like that person was being deprived of any information. Every single tweet he made was reported on. It's a good point, and not one I will even try to defend

2. Social Media is provided protection from lawsuit because that's the only way it's possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. They are not a publisher because they don't create their own content, and rely on their users. Without protections, social media companies could be held liable for defamation, copyright, illegal activity, or whatever is posted. Without the ability to moderate at all, the site will become a cesspool that most don't care to visit (see 4chan).

Without Section 230 social media cease as we know it (well...maybe that's not that bad). It's imperfect policy in a place where more regulation can only make it worse. Politics will not help - linking an article below

3. Tik Tok came out of nowhere a few years ago. There are several alternative social media sites that are up and coming. There are so many different sites and companies that it cant be argued to be a monopoly. It's not unreasonable to ask why you feel forced to use Facebook and Twitter. Many dont.

https://reason.com/2021/06/07/dont-try-to-fix-big-tech-with-politics/

I agree with you that social media would change as we know it, and very well may disappear if those companies lose Section 230 protection. My thought is that the social media companies have found a work around where they aren't technically publishers, but through selective enforcement of their rules and regulations are a defacto publisher because of that. There are many instances where conservatives are shadow banned or have to delete content because it runs afoul of the T&C, but there are users with a different political leaning that don't suffer the same consequences if what they tweet runs against the T&C.

I saw the same things with the warning labels during covid and the election. If you tweeted that Trump was cheated you got a warning, but not if you tweeted #notmypresident when Trump won in 2016. Same with the Covid stuff. The notes attached to messages and tweets only ran to things that disagreed with certain people, but now those are having to be retracted. For almost a year there was a warning that it was dis-information if someone tweeted that Covid came from a lab, but now you no longer see that because Twitter has come out and said that it may of been incorrect. In the first sentence of item #2 above you said Social media is provided protection from lawsuits because that's the only way its possible to run a website where people can post without pre-moderation. I would argue that by adding notes when someone post something that goes against public opinion that is the definition of pre-moderation.



As far as tic-tock. They did come out of nowhere and they do still exist. My comment was in regards to social media sites that conservatives put together. I don't think that anyone can argue that right leaning sites like Parler haven't been punished because of where those companies stand politically. Here is the quote from amazon on why they removed Parler from their web hosting platform:

"Parler was not doing enough to prevent the spread of posts inciting violence, following unrest at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters last Wednesday after weeks of violent rhetoric on online sites."

If this is the standard for being hosted, they why is facebook and twitter allowed to be active online? Its been proven that both of those platforms have been used extensively in planning and getting the word out on the riots and violence all of last year. At least 25 people were killed and over 2 billion dollars with of damage was caused due directly to the 2020 riots. I believe that there is a definite double standard in the way that social media platforms are handled depending on who is managing and owns them.

You're not going to see me defend the uneven enforcement, because I agree it's a problem. Where I disagree is the solution.

If you want sites to exists where people can largely post the content they want, without pre-approval on every post, you have to have something like Section 230. There just isn't a way to make it work. Social media companies didn't find a work around, because this is how the law was intended to work. Giving these companies broad authority to police themselves in pursuit of an environment fostering innovation and open communication.

Parler is back online now. They struggled getting off AWS quickly, but it is doable and if any rich conservative wants to finance the next Facebook competitor, there are a multitude of ways to go about it without having to deal with Apple/Google/Amazon. Ultimately these companies just care about their bottom line. If people leave and deny them add revenue, they will change, or a competitor will fill it's space. Ultimately it comes down to freedom of association. SCOTUS would overturn any law requiring Social media to host content that it doesn't want.
I just tried to download the Parler app on my Android phone and it isn't available so maybe i missed it being online again. As far as financing the the next facebook competitor I think we both know that if an app cant get in the android or apple play store its DOA and if those companies are going to discriminate based on the politics of particular sites, and we all know that they do, then it doesn't matter how much money is invested because its never going to get off the ground regardless of how much demand there is for it.

My point on the Secton 230 debate is that they are moderating content. To give a prime example it would be like BBW posting that Trump won the 2020 election and he gets a warning at the bottom of his comment, but Civ posting that Clinton won in 2016 and that Trump wasn't his president but there wasn't a warning. That is exactly what is happening and that is moderating content. Your telling everyone that sees those two comments that one is false information, but not the other, even through both are untrue. That's moderating the content on your platform, even if you don't create it. The solution is a simple one. Set your terms and conditions and enforce them equally across the board.

I used to think that companies only cared about their bottom line, and I still think that a lot do, but through the actions of CEOs I no longer think that's the case. Michael Jordan made a comment that he doesn't get involved in politics because "Republicans buy shoes too". Companies don't do that anymore. If you review campaign donations by people who are on the boards and own companies it is heavily slanted in one direction. Lets take Zuckerburg, who owns facebook, for instance. He directed a PAC that spend over 300 million dollars helping democrats in the 2020 election, and personally put in over 400 Million dollars himself. You don't think that spending almost a billion dollars in one direction politically isn't going to wash out in how a company is ran by the owner?
Only one is untrue...
As much as I think there were serious shenanigans in the 2020 election the states certified the election and congress accepted those certified electors....By our rules and laws Biden won.
I get what you are saying. "If" Maricopa County finds serious issues and the election would have gone a different way, and the other States flying people in Maricopa County to research the audit, do the same, with the same results, we are going to be in a mess, possibly a real constitutional crises...
Yes, it might be time to break up the Union and I don't say that lightly, being a federal pensioner. Perhaps a convention of states could throw out the election of 2020 and keep the country together.

Didn't someone ask a few days ago why the independents didn't talk more?
Retired internet funny guy who is currently neglecting law school readings. Would rather be in Nash County.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBW12OG said:

It is exactly what Dear Leader said he wanted... "fundamentally change America..."

And you have people on this very board that support that. Hell... some of them won't even come out and condemn anti-Semitism


What anti-Semitism are you talking about specifically?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.