US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Bilge_Rat]

ALEXEI NAVALNY: I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...177264644.html

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

After Google and Apple, now Amazon as well pulls the plug on Parler.

Parler is not going anywere, web hosting services are a dime a dozen.

Parler is an antisocial media service known to be much used by Trumpian extremists, QAnon lunatics and far righters.

either you have never been on the site or you are ranting again, Parler is just like Twitter but without the censorship.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Because there’s relatively little outrage about those things in the west, it’s more profitable for Twitter to allow it on their platforms than it is to ban them

There is a lot of outrage but you don't see it on CNN or read it in the NYT.

It's the wrong narrative for those outlets. Trump and GOP members are routinely called Nazis. What the Chinese and the Iranians are doing is what the German Nazis actually did.

Jack Dorsey is a hypocrite.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I agree with Goldenrivet...

My neighbor across the street. No highschool diploma, or college. Dug ditches literally as a kid. Now in his early 50s he is a regional manager of a landscaping company and makes well over 6 figures a year.

Work for what you want. No shortcuts.

Try working for commission's only as a salesman ... one dry month can turn your butthole inside out, but one good month and your flying on cloud nine.

I lived on commission's only for ten years and loved the up and downs, plus the don't tell me what to do boss (I'll get the job done) attitude I had.

Yep! Sales is where it is at for the future

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Parler is not going anywere, web hosting services are a dime a dozen.



either you have never been on the site or you are ranting again, Parler is just like Twitter but without the censorship.

They are an especially prominent refuige for he mentioned groups. That others are there as well doe snot give it a representative image of societies. Certain groups are quite prominently represented there, like FOX for exmaple attracts a certain audience and has others avoiding it.

[Buddahaid]

Is this media divide really anything new other than having expanded in the information age? I don't think so.

[Catfish]

^ Very true. But humans have a short life and forget soon.
Any news medium ever has always had an agenda, it is the new spreading in this information age that gives individuals their soapbox, with millions being able to see and believe their personal bias.
A learned journalist is something else than some individual agitator who wants to spread his bile of unevaluated prejudice. "Away with traffic regulations, it's all a conspiracy!"

CNN or Washington Post are general media that indeed allow other opinions while maintaining a moderate stance, in contrast to this Angeli Qanon site or other bull stuff (what a fitting 'pun' lol). B.t.w. anyone saw that some of the "protesters" were indeed known neonazis, and not only this nice fellow with his Auschwitz camp t-shirt.

[Buddahaid]

You must be wrong. Those people are deeply placed agents of Antifa...

[u crank]

Navalny's CHILLING Warning: Dictators Will Use Twitter's Trump Ban to Justify Silencing Opponents

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...nents-n1327703

Navalny called Twitter’s moves against Trump “an unacceptable act of censorship.” He admitted that “Trump has been writing and saying very irresponsible things,” and he argued that the president got “paid for it by not getting re-elected.”

The Russian politician insisted that Twitter did not really ban Trump for violating the rules. “I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone (not that I ask for it). Among the people who have Twitter accounts are cold-blooded murderers (Putin or Maduro) and liars and thieves (Medvedev). For many years, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have been used as a base for Putin’s ‘troll factory’ and similar groups from other authoritarian countries,” he explained.

While the Russian dissident acknowledged that Twitter is a private company, he noted that in Russia and China, such private companies have become “the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.

“Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: ‘this is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter’,” Navalny warned.

[Skybird]

Soon we will learn every little thing about it. Trump was a Martian agent provocateur testing the Earthlings' resistence to getting mind-controlled.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/u...rnd/index.html

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by u crank

Navalny's CHILLING Warning: Dictators Will Use Twitter's Trump Ban to Justify Silencing Opponents

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...nents-n1327703

And at the same time these media platforms are being held legally responsible for their user content. We can't have it both ways.

[Skybird]

The US lifts self-imposed ban on diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

About time, Europe must follow. Taiwan outperformed the world tremedoeusly duzrinbg the pandemic, and walked long marches to let the world paritcipate from its medical expertise - which the WHO, this auxiliary legion of China, has (again) almost comp0letely ignored. Many people paid with their oives for this appeasement of China. What does that make the Western governments who willed to let that happen?

Let me think sharply. There has been no declared war raging on, so... Ehem - murderers of their own citizens, maybe?

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

And at the same time these media platforms are being held legally responsible for their user content. We can't have it both ways.

Are they? I thought section 230 shields them from liability of user created content or are you talking about the plans to do away with or amend that, or are you talking about the companies not in the US?

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

Are they? I thought section 230 shields them from liability of user created content or are you talking about the plans to do away with or amend that, or are you talking about the companies not in the US?

I stand corrected mostly.

https://www.theverge.com/21273768/se...ree-moderation

"WHAT CHANGES ARE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS PROPOSING?
Democrats have largely been concerned with getting platforms to remove more content because of the harms associated with hate speech, terrorism, and harassment. To facilitate this, they’ve helped introduce several bipartisan proposals to erode Section 230.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) was a sponsor of the EARN IT Act and is a frequent critic of Section 230’s protections. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) has proposed an alternative called the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, which focuses on requiring websites to transparently report how they moderate content.

WHAT CHANGES ARE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS PROPOSING?
The most serious Republican effort to rewrite Section 230 has come not from Congress, but from the Department of Justice. In June 2020, Attorney General William Barr released a series of recommendations for how Section 230 might be reformed, playing off a string of workshops earlier in the year. The recommendations include new restrictions on cyberstalking and terrorism, which would likely result in more proactive moderation efforts, along with measures intended to punish arbitrary or discriminatory moderation. Barr’s proposal would only grant immunity for moderation decisions that are “done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation” — a far narrower scope than the current law.

Barr’s recommendations would need to be passed by Congress to have any legal force, but so far, they’re the best blueprint congressional Republicans have for what mainline conservative 230 reform might look like.

A smaller faction of Republicans has focused entirely on restricting moderation immunity, punishing platforms that moderate in a biased or otherwise discriminatory way. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has also proposed a bill that would bind platforms to a “duty of good faith,” entitling users to significant monetary damages if they were able to show in court that the platform had breached its duty.

More extreme versions of that approach include Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)’s Stop the Censorship Act, which sought to prevent platforms from removing content that they found “objectionable.” (That would mean they could only remove posts that violated the law.) Introduced in 2019, Hawley’s Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would have required platforms’ content moderation teams to be certified as politically “neutral” by a bipartisan panel in order to retain their liability protections.

Neither proposal has so far advanced. Republicans are also behind the EARN IT Act described above."

[Dowly]