Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Sue them on grounds of descrimination. And political prosecution. And, follow through the courts with it. 

The fact that facebook needs to lie and claim it was a 'mistake' tells me they know it was wrong.

 

 

That would never fly because the user has no contractual relationship with Facebook or Twitter. You really can't sue them for denying access to a service you didn't pay for. A service you really have no "right" to other than at their pleasure. 

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Sue them on grounds of descrimination. And political prosecution. And, follow through the courts with it. 

The fact that facebook needs to lie and claim it was a 'mistake' tells me they know it was wrong.

 

 

am gonna sit back and let folks discuss the law stuff sans our input. ins kinda intriguing to hear what folks believe,

however, inspired by vol, we will make one observation:

the Courts is not magical and all-powerful  wish granting genies.

for the Courts to act, there needs be an actual injury capable o' being cured by legal available remedies. on its face, even temp banned from twitter is not so much a first amendment issue as it is a Kontracts problem. if the interruption o' service violates terms o' the contract, then the injured could seek damages.

wait, no contract? no fees paid? well...

even if we analogize facebook and twitter to public utilities, which is a stretch when am talking 'bout individual citizens posting random opinions as 'posed to say the government using as a means to communicate information to the public, what is damages sought?

injunctive relief? well, that would mean facebook would be told to reconnect service... which they already did. needs be actual injury, so can't sue facebook for possible/maybe future other plaintiffs who could possible/maybe suffer similar at the hands o' a faceless algorithm bent on the destruction o' lawyers and alt-right radio hosts. injunctive relief is a waste as service were already reinstated. 

actual damages? need show proof o' monetary loss. the publicity garnered from the snafu likely has opposite effect as many o' you now know the lawyer's name. how many criminal defense lawyers can you name w/o doing an internet search? less than five?

have mentioned punitive damages, but again, there needs be underlying actual damages, which then get multiplied if the bad guy did knowing on a mass scale. if can't show individual actual damages, don't matter if the social media platform did for bad reasons... at least from a legal pov. sure, from a pr standpoint, media uncovering an actual plot by social media to punish mouthy lawyers defending vigilantes would likely not garner much public support... but if you can show other more compelling victims were injured... but is kinda pointless to discuss as pr fallout is not specific a legal remedy, even if is often enough to motivate a defendant to engage in settlement discussions.

the civil Courts don't punish bad people for their injustice. goal is to make a plaintiff whole if is found they suffered a real injury. hurt feelings and indignity is not the kinda injury the Courts address, so...

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

[Malcador]

50 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

So what is the solution? Have the government step in and stop them from doing that? That would NOT be a small government conservative position you realize.

Government's as large or as small as it needs to be to swing a sword at others with.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Amentep said:

What Gromnir is referring to is what Trump talked about when he was Candidate Trump not his executive orders as President Trump.  This is what was posted to his website, as a candidate -  

Emphasis mine.  This text was later removed, but Trump stood by it IIRC during the trials for the Executive Orders he issued that were a series of bans of people from majority Muslim countries (and it took three tries to get a version that the Supreme Court didn't knock down; as I recall the third one went through due to a provision added that would allow people to go around the ban, or be waived of its effects).

Thanks for posting this, it gave me more information around what you and Gromnir are saying about the Muslin Ban. I agree with some of what you saying 

For me I prefer people doing this or posting links so I can do my own research on any particular subject , I generally will always do this in a debate which is exactly what they taught me at school when I did debating as an extracurricular subject ...I loved debating, one of the few things I loved about school

[Amentep]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

First amendment applies to social media bans, now ?

Obsidian moderators, your time has finally come, you fascists!

 

In other news, I always find it puzzling how people seem to think that 'guilty' people shouldn't have a lawyer to defend them.  There's a local politician who I'm not a fan of, but there are some disturbing PAC attack ads that are like "AND AS A LAWYER HE DEFENDED MURDERS AND RAPISTS!!!! AND THEY GOT BAIL! OMG!"

 

[Malcador]

5 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 

In other news, I always find it puzzling how people seem to think that 'guilty' people shouldn't have a lawyer to defend them.  There's a local politician who I'm not a fan of, but there are some disturbing PAC attack ads that are like "AND AS A LAWYER HE DEFENDED MURDERS AND RAPISTS!!!! AND THEY GOT BAIL! OMG!"

 

See ? Obsidian moderators stick up for rapist's rights. What about their victims?!!

But yes, a lot of people are a-okay with bad things happening to "bad" people.

 

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

As always the "mistake" happened to a conservative that had different view then the regressive left, huh? It's obvious the "mistake" claim is always given when sufficient fuss is made. But what about dozens other people who get banned because of their view on the issue who don't get headlines when this is happening to them? 

I would be perfectly happy to migrate to another platform, but there isn't one. Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are basically monopolies and monopolies are not treated like a normal provider because standard market rules don't apply. That's why any sane country have and enforce anti-monopoly laws. Imagine that in the name of fighting global warming normal cars are banned and only electrical cars can be used and that your only choice is Tesla. No imagine Tesla declares that because women are bad drivers only men can drive them. What would you tell women? To switch to bikes if they don't like the terms of service? Of course not.

I think it's to much power in the hands of owners of those companies to allow them to shut off any opinions and ideas they are not approving. 

Yes, that's why I used quotation marks. I do not believe for a second that it was an honest mistake, but that's beside the point. It is their platform, you don't pay to use it, and they can shut you down at any time for any reason -- Constitutional protections probably don't extend to that barring some landmark case or other. If I had to guess, I'd say the lawsuit will be more along the lines of potential lost revenue than breach of his 1st Amendment rights, as it happened while he was doing promotion for a fundraiser.

It's nobody's fault that there is no alternative platform... except the very users' of social media. And I guess there's nothing stopping them from starting one themselves. One that is strongly committed to diversity of opinions, free speech and all the good stuff (yeah right). The problem with your analogy is that there is no government mandate to restrict the social media platforms that people can use. You could literally set up an alternative to YouTube tomorrow if you had the financial and technical clout. Of course this is false and ignores how leverage and market shares work which is what I've been arguing until going blue in the face here, but we can't have the government regulating the market to break up monopolies we don't like, while taking a laissez-faire approach the rest of the time.

I agree, though. It's too much power to have for someone who is essentially unaccountable. You can stop it today, though. Delete your social media accounts. You'll be happier too!

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

So what is the solution? Have the government step in and stop them from doing that? That would NOT be a small government conservative position you realize.

I don't believe conservatives are small government anymore, I mean just look at Trump's policies.

The left (that currently exists only marginally) would be wise to pick up the ball they fumbled and incorporate it into thier pro-working class ideology.

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

So what is the solution? Have the government step in and stop them from doing that? That would NOT be a small government conservative position you realize.

How? The basic function of government is to uphold the law. Small government doesn't mean "your on your own" in interaction with bigger entity. Should "small government" skip also fighting with mafia because it supposed to be small? What is your definition of small government?

39 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Yes, that's why I used quotation marks. I do not believe for a second that it was an honest mistake, but that's beside the point. It is their platform, you don't pay to use it, and they can shut you down at any time for any reason -- Constitutional protections probably don't extend to that barring some landmark case or other. If I had to guess, I'd say the lawsuit will be more along the lines of potential lost revenue than breach of his 1st Amendment rights, as it happened while he was doing promotion for a fundraiser.

It's nobody's fault that there is no alternative platform... except the very users' of social media. And I guess there's nothing stopping them from starting one themselves. One that is strongly committed to diversity of opinions, free speech and all the good stuff (yeah right). The problem with your analogy is that there is no government mandate to restrict the social media platforms that people can use. You could literally set up an alternative to YouTube tomorrow if you had the financial and technical clout. Of course this is false and ignores how leverage and market shares work which is what I've been arguing until going blue in the face here, but we can't have the government regulating the market to break up monopolies we don't like, while taking a laissez-faire approach the rest of the time.

I agree, though. It's too much power to have for someone who is essentially unaccountable. You can stop it today, though. Delete your social media accounts. You'll be happier too!

That's like saying: you dont like cameras in your house then go back to tent. No, people cannot be forced to not use modern comodities because the providors of those comodities use their position as a monopoly in bad ways. Social medias are platforms for comunication and information if we like it or not. If there is an emergency or danger in your area where will be the information available first? Being forced out of those limits people in every way. So no, boycott of Social Media is not a solution to this.

[ComradeYellow]

1 minute ago, Skarpen said:

Should "small government" skip also fighting with mafia because it supposed to be small?

Too late for that opinion.  The Feds have pretty much neutered the Mafia to irrelevancy.

Better question: Should the FBI be abolished?  I don't like how my tax dollars go to giving some artificial police force all the best weapons, ammo, and training.  I mean we already have too much big government military spending my tax dollars go to for pillaging and terrorizing the world, perhaps the FBI gone would be a good first step?

[Volourn]

Then how do you deal with crimes that cross state lines? Isn't that where the FBI comes in? To deal with crimes that occur in multiple states?

[Malcador]

14 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

If there is an emergency or danger in your area where will be the information available first?

WEA and I imagine other regional equivalents - all those need are an SMS capable phone.  Assuming the companies banning you aren't really going to super vigilant, also can have alternate accounts if you really need the service.

[Volourn]

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/02/boulder-boy-assaulted-trump-sign/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_content=tw-denverpost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow

 

BLM and Antifa strike again!  Pedophiles try to rape a 17 year old with a  gun and skateboard, and he shoots them in self defense.

Woman assaults 12 year old over a sign. That is child abuse. 

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

It's nobody's fault that there is no alternative platform... except the very users' of social media.

That's probably true for Twitter specifically, since it's always been the weakest performing major social media network, and their financial position is relatively weak. The other companies mentioned though in Alphabet/ Google/ Youtube and Facebook, they have the money to just buy up any nascent competitor and either fold it into themselves or shut it down- and that's their most common approach to competition. Users can't switch to a competitor if we own the competition too [taps head].

Preaching to the converted it may be, but...

Same with any monopolist really; you might blame users for making Amazon dominant and not switching to smaller alternatives, but, Amazon uses its market dominance to suppress competition, including loss leader pricing which is unsustainable for smaller competitors until said competitor goes bankrupt, at which point pricing returns to normal. MS was also infamous for its Embrace Extend Extinguish philosophy and essentially paying companies to be on windows. Intel paid billions for companies to be exclusive to Intel etc etc.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Zoraptor

[MedicineDan]

I'm curious to see how things pull out for this election.  I mean, Biden would be disastrous, I'm sure.  Let's see how long he can speak out against generic violence without citing Antifa and BLM.  Yeah, it's right wing militias that are causing mayhem.  At least they're moving away from the "mostly peaceful" rhetoric.  Biden's kind of stuck in that he probably hates the violence but can't do much about it.  I'd like to think he hates it on principle, and maybe he does.  I *know* he hates politically because it's causing him grief.  He can't afford to lose either group from his core constituency.  You know, Trump sometimes does the same sort of thing, but the press does its job and goes after him for it.  Biden...?  He's a *hero!*  :shaking my head with a bemused smile:

This is really going to be a make or break for polling.  To cite the 2018 polls, I think it was fair to say that Trump's rhetoric was and is offputting and, just like Obama, his impact is either limited or largely negative when he, himself, is not on the ballot.  I said this at the time.  I guess I could pull up an old post, but it could be doctored, right?  I could have a friend search through my old posts and attest to it?  lol  Some people around here kill me, or maybe want to.  If you don't understand the difference between presidential and midterm elections, you're a fool.  I mean, not anyone here personally is a fool.  I'd hate to be approached in a parking lot one night be the victim of a "Mostly peaceful" murder.  

A lot of conservatives point out things like ballot harvesting in California during the 2018 election, which is now part of the political landscape here, but that's silly.  Yes, it's wrong and it helped the Dems, but the election was going to be a disaster no matter what.  All harvesting did was turn a run of the mill disaster into a historic one.  Anyhow, mid-term elections usually hurt a first term president, especially in these times when the supports of the candidate who lost are incensed.  Trump magnified that, though.  I'm voting for the guy, and I urge you to do so also.  Maybe you can't help it if you're cowed into submission, but you can still vote.

Anyhow, I'll check in to see what ol' Demosthenes has in store for me.  Can't wait for the fire and brimstone.  lol  Maybe this time, Phillip really will go down!

[Skarpen]

After reading this:

I think anyone that did vote for Trump because he promised a Muslim ban should pat themselves on the back 

[MedicineDan]

To be clear, if I had to make a bet, I'd still bet on Biden for this election.  A lot of crazy stuff going on, but I still tend to believe the problems in a nation tend to fall on the president although they are not normally his fault.  That's any president.  People blame the guy in charge for all sorts of stuff beyond his, and eventually her, control.  Of course, even believing that, I can still come, speak my sincere opinion, and if I poke someone in the eye doing it, fair enough.  :big beefy grin:

[ComradeYellow]

1 minute ago, Skarpen said:

After reading this:

I think anyone that did vote for Trump because he promised a Muslim ban should pat themselves on the back 

If Swedish women didn't want Arab men then they would have been kicked out decades ago or longer.  I mean it's not like I care much but I'm really starting to think that a lot of these alt right types are just men that no woman wants so they try to rationalize that into some kind of false sense of racial superiority.

[majestic]

43 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Preaching to the converted it may be, but...

I'm pretty sure that @213374U is just laughing his butt off when the right wing brigade comes stomping in and demands government sanctions of private enterprise because they excercise the very freedoms they're usually arguing for (i.e. as long as it fits their narrative and said freedoms are not used to further some Jonesian conspiracy). Hence the "start your own platform" argument.

I sure did.

That doesn't mean I disagree. Doesn't happen very often but I think Skarpen's got a point here, apart from calling it an Orwellian nightmare, those were very much of an authoritarian government  nature. The large tech players have undue influence and too much power. And yes, the government(s) should do something about it. They probably won't because money, but they should.

  

13 minutes ago, MedicineDan said:

People blame the guy in charge for all sorts of stuff beyond his, and eventually her, control. 

Thanks, Obama! Right?

edit:

Wow, look at that @ callout not working. Hell... whatever. Ah, now it does. GG board software.

Edited September 2, 2020 by majestic

[Orogun01]

23 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

If Swedish women didn't want Arab men then they would have been kicked out decades ago or longer.  I mean it's not like I care much but I'm really starting to think that a lot of these alt right types are just men that no woman wants so they try to rationalize that into some kind of false sense of racial superiority.

So are you saying European women are....asking for it?

[Volourn]

"I don't believe conservatives are small government anymore"

They never were. If you are in politics you are never truly for 'small government'. It is about making rules that benefit you. 99% of people who claim they are pro freedom are only pro freedom when it is their freedom.

[majestic]

2 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

So are you saying European women are....asking for it?

Nah, I think he's actually trying to say that European women like Arab men because of their superior virility. That's some serious Beta cuck talk there. I'm not sure that's accurate though, that usually comes up when talking about the superiority of big black... male chickens. But eh. Maybe BBCs for Amuricans and Arabs are for Europe. Although technically they're North African, so maybe... who knows. Brown is brown.

Also something, something Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, something.

I hope @Azdeus will come along and post, because finding actual information on that Arab Party in Sweden is kind of hard. There's an article in a German online Nazi magazine and one from Russia Today, both extolling the Arab Party for demanding an immediate immigration stop in Sweden (especially from Arabic nations) and something or other about 80 something places in Sweden where the muslim invaders already established Islamic law.

 

[213374U]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

 If there is an emergency or danger in your area where will be the information available first?

WEA et al. You don't really need Twatter for that. And yes, boycott is a perfectly reasonable reaction because you do not need social media to survive. For instance, I've been boycotting certain airlines, banks and ISPs for years and am still quite alive and well. You can too.

I can't believe I'm arguing that government doesn't need to step in and override corporate decisions, with you of all people, but I guess we really are through the looking glass in 2020.

 

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The other companies mentioned though in Alphabet/ Google/ Youtube and Facebook, they have the money to just buy up any nascent competitor and either fold it into themselves or shut it down- and that's their most common approach to competition. Users can't switch to a competitor if we own the competition too [taps head].

Is Josh your name by any chance?

edit: saw @Malcador mentioned WEA before. Beaten to the punch.

Edited September 3, 2020 by 213374U
too slow!

[Azdeus]

49 minutes ago, majestic said:

Nah, I think he's actually trying to say that European women like Arab men because of their superior virility. That's some serious Beta cuck talk there. I'm not sure that's accurate though, that usually comes up when talking about the superiority of big black... male chickens. But eh. Maybe BBCs for Amuricans and Arabs are for Europe. Although technically they're North African, so maybe... who knows. Brown is brown.

Also something, something Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, something.

I hope @Azdeus will come along and post, because finding actual information on that Arab Party in Sweden is kind of hard. There's an article in a German online Nazi magazine and one from Russia Today, both extolling the Arab Party for demanding an immediate immigration stop in Sweden (especially from Arabic nations) and something or other about 80 something places in Sweden where the muslim invaders already established Islamic law.

 

Yeah, finding information about the Arab party in Swedish goes about as well, the only ones that has written anything about them has been people like Northern Resistance and similar ilk. They do have an official webpage, and yeah, they've got... interesting ideas. They do want a complete stop to immigration, and everyone in Sweden at that point should be granted residential permit(I'm unsure how to translate the word, but be allowed to reside in Sweden without being citizen).

They do have some weird ideas though, they want to give the Swedish Army mandate to act as the policeforce of Sweden to support the police. I've always wondered if a Carl Gustav would win against our Cold War bunker apartment complexes?

They want to make begging illegal, no private or religious schools, no private healthcare, no veils under 18 years of age, a "mothers-wage"(To help with integration; This will not help, women are generally kept at home as babymachines, because if you have a certain number of children you get ****loads of cash from the government to weigh up the fact that you won't be able to work like a normal person...), to actively inform people about feminism to strengthen womens position in our society, they want to protect Jewish people more against Antisemitism, increase peoples knowledge about "HBTQ"-people to protect them.. They want to limit the types of stores per area, i.e. no two pizza shops in the same block I suppose...

Heh, also they want to raise the demands for stores standard of decoration.

And they disclaim they're Secular, and despite the name not about Arabification of Sweden or anything similar.

 

I don't have myface so I can't check what he's actually saying there, but from what I can tell at the moment there is 1 guy behind it all. That facebook post is just... yeah, get used to there being immigrants here, there's no going back. I suppose it's sort of a play on "I want to emigrate to where they don't accept immigrants".

Edited September 2, 2020 by Azdeus

[Darkpriest]

I dare  you to try and get a high profile well paid job or run a successful and profitable business without accessing or being on social media in any capacity... 

LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon tools, Google tools, various messangers., Video call tools, etc. 

 

I'd say, you can easily skip Twitter and not lose anything. Funny, that Trump made it relevant again, during his campaing and after becoming president. 

Yes, there are alternatives, born out of necessities, but usually viable only on certain markets, like China or Russia

 

There are also things like Parler(?),  which could be alternative for twitter, but again using that approach you start living in bubbles, that are isolated and will only dig deeper trenches. 

 

Functioning in a modern society without social media or having them filtered is like working in tech and having to skip Python, Java and JavaScript. 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Darkpriest