When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'll admit that I don't have the app installed, and don't pay much attention to what happens on it.
The web-facing presence needs some work. Right now, the whole thing is run by three people, and they're off in a corner of the newsroom by themselves. In theory, their content should fall under the purview of the Neutrality Arbiter, but the News Director has been as busy as my department has since the launch, so I'm assuming she's over-looked it.
And, to be 100% transparent here: I am not going to bring it up. I keep my department completely separate from all editorial processes. My crew are free to **** and moan about politics amongst themselves, but that talk never leaves the shop. From the point of view of anyone outside the southern half of the 2nd floor of the building, the engineering department is Switzerland.
“We act on the world stage every day of the year as a model in security, urban crime prevention, dignitary protection, specialty response capabilities, and homeland security. As ambassadors of the Congress, we are often the first face that visitors and employees encounter, and we leave a lasting impression that is reflective of the Legislative Branch and its role in America's democracy.”
Like many people, I'd never even heard of Parler before last week. Now, of course, we're drowning in it.
The very first screenshot I ever saw of a Parl* is below. What really fascinates me about it is not the content of the message, but rather the terminology used by Parler to describe the concept which, on FB is called a "Share" and on Twitter is called a "re-Tweet": .
* = If a post on Twitter is a tweet, then a post on Parler is a Parl.
.
"Echoed"
That's a great description for a phenomenon which has been occurring pretty much since the dawn of social media. Parler is the first one to really acknowledge that.
Trolllololol
Liberals: Let's make the intardwebs a public service and have the gub regulate content!
Conservatives: That would limit the first ammemberment and give me less kickbacks, my yachtermeran don't pay fer issself.
......
Some time goes by....
......
Private companies build their own convenient access and usage models for the web.
......
Private companies decide they don't like specific content and remove it.
.....
Liberals: I like the color yellow
Conservatives: You can't remove my content that's socialism!
Big business is all fun and games until they're not on your side and giving you kickbacks.
I feel like the right/left needs to come up with new boogeyman names that don't relate to anything to scare themselves with. Being angry at a capitalistic outcome and calling it socialism just makes you look dumb.
Merkel's political roadmap is indeed an interesting one. But I'm starting to disagree less and less with her stance on this. While I find it undesirable to have the editorial policies of a publisher dictated by the government, I also find it undesireable for a large company to use its editorial policies as a tool for shaping the public discourse to conform to their political ideology.
CDA Section 230, which has been in tech press a lot lately, is interesting, because it grants a protection to social media companies which is very similar to the Common Carrier status enjoyed by The Phone Company, and in more modern times, ISPs.
Because they cannot be held liable for the user-generated content which they host, it could be argued that Twitbook has no vested self-interest in moderating its users' content. Forcing them to regulate the content on their platforms would essentially nullify Section 230, or at least cripple it.
Which is fascinating, because the President has been a highly vocal critic of Section 230, and has tried numerous times to have it struck down. Had Section 230 been repealed, then Twitter would likely have been forced to silence the President long ago, out of fear of the legal liability arising from the content of his speech.
That's the whole rub isn't it? They claim their 230 protection and then moderate the way they see fit anyway.
Exactly.
The Phone Company and ISPs are not allowed to regulate the content of their users' communications, apart from certain exceptions pertaining to abuse of the service, criminal activity, etc. That's the price which they pay for their immunity.
Section 230 grants similar protections to content-hosting platforms, but without the obligation to be free of discrimination in hosting said content.
There used to be a legal philosophy that such situations were an either-or situation. You may either choose to exercise editorial control over the content of your users, or you may enjoy immunity from liability arising from such content. But exercising the former disqualifies the latter.
Not because I don't to some extent, agree that the practice of selective de-platforming as a means of controlling public opinion is problematic, but rather because what might otherwise have been a legitimate investigation is now tainted by Nunes' name.
As a refresher, this is the man who is presently suing Twitter, because they did NOT shut down an account claiming to be run by a cartoon cow belonging to Nunes, which posted mean things about him.
Got that? Nunes is personally suing Twitter, for $250 million, for NOT doing the thing for which he is now demanding that three other tech companies be investigated under the RICO act, because they DID do that thing.
Talk-radio owner orders conservative hosts to temper election fraud rhetoric
By Paul Farhi
Jan. 11, 2021 at 5:00 a.m. CSTAfter months of stoking anger about alleged election fraud, one of America’s largest talk-radio companies has decided on an abrupt change of direction.
Cumulus Media, which employs some of the most popular right-leaning talk-radio hosts in the United States, has told its on-air personalities to stop suggesting that the election was stolen from President Trump — or else face termination.
A Cumulus executive issued the directive on Wednesday, just as Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s election victory and an angry mob of Trump supporters marched on the Capitol, overwhelmed police and briefly occupied the building, terrorizing lawmakers and leading to the deaths of five people.
“We need to help induce national calm NOW,” Brian Philips, executive vice president of content for Cumulus, wrote in an internal memo, which was first reported by Inside Music Media. Cumulus and its program syndication arm, Westwood One, “will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended. The election has been resolved and there are no alternate acceptable ‘paths.’ ”
The memo adds: “If you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately.”
A Cumulus representative did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Sunday.
The new policy is a stunning corporate clampdown on the kind of provocative and even inflammatory talk that has long driven the business model for Cumulus and other talk show broadcasters. And it came as Apple, Google and Amazon cut off essential business services to Parler, the pro-Trump social media network where users have promoted falsehoods about election fraud and praised the mob that assaulted the Capitol. Apple and Google removed the Parler app from the offerings for its smartphones, while Amazon suspended it from its Web-hosting services. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
Since the election, Cumulus has remained silent while some of its most popular hosts — who include Mark Levin and Dan Bongino — have amplified Trump’s lies that the vote was “rigged” or in some way fraudulent.
On his program on Tuesday, the day before the march on the Capitol, for example, Levin fulminated about Congress’s certification of electoral votes for Biden, describing the normally routine vote as an act of “tyranny.”
“You think the framers of the Constitution . . . sat there and said, ‘Congress has no choice [but to accept the votes], even if there’s fraud, even if there’s some court order, even if some legislature has violated the Constitution?’ ” Levin said, his voice rising to a shout.
01-10-2021, 09:41 PM
1
