|
|
Originally Posted by Engi-ninja
(Post 1507217)
Concentrating an entire country's source of information into a handful of companies is a new thing...it might need new rules.
|
Originally Posted by vitamin j
(Post 1507221)
Simple answer: volume of users.
|
I get all my political news from MT.net :giggle:
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1507222)
I would argue the sources of information available today has never been more. That the public is dependant of fewer of them is the fault of the public not the platform. But that's probably a different topic. If I recall, the abolishment of the PUHCA has been a driving theme of the Republican party for at least a decade. You know, the old small government = good for business kind of thing.
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1507223)
So I guess MT.net is a monopoly because the volume of users looking for info on turbo'd miatas is far more here? Should the government intervene and protect those newbs from the banhammer just because? Carry on...
|
Seriously, WTF is wrong with these people? I still don't understand what they think is going to happen when they finally succeed in inciting widespread violence.
Pelosi was being interviewed onstage by Paul Krugman, the left-wing New York Times columnist and Nobel economic laureate who predicted, the day Donald Trump won the presidency, that Trump would trigger “a global recession, with no end in sight.” In a long, rambling monologue, during which she stumbled on her words and appeared to lose her train of thought, Pelosi said:We have to have total clarity about what we do, when it comes to everything — a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage … whether it’s about immigration, whether it’s about gun safety, whether it’s about climate … I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose. |
This made me laugh far too much
|
Originally Posted by vitamin j
(Post 1507226)
You're smarter than this. Try harder.
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1507245)
Are you supporting a narrative that would enforce a commercial social media platform to publish both sides of an argument i.e. left speech <> right speech through regulations or saying just language in whatever form? Trying harder... to understand you.
The phone company is an example of a common carrier. They transmit whatever content you put through their system, and make no effort to analyze or regulate that content except as required by law (eg: wiretaps, DMCA, etc.) As a result, they are absolved from legal liability for any content which they carry. Ie: the phone company cannot be named as an accessory to a crime merely because the people who perpetrated the crime used the phone to communicate. Or, in the case of hacking / data theft / etc., use the phone to commit the actual crime itself. A case could be made to treat Facebook and the like as common carriers. The problem, of course, is that when someone gets busted for hosting a child porn website, nobody screams "The phone company should have done something to prevent this!" By contrast, there are lots of shrill voices crying out for Facebook to censor what they consider to be "hate speech," (eg: photos of people behaving in a calm and civil manner while wearing a red hat.) |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1507247)
I don't suppose to speak for VJ, but I believe that "Common Carrier" is a better analogy than "Public Utility."
The phone company is an example of a common carrier. They transmit whatever content you put through their system, and make no effort to analyze or regulate that content except as required by law (eg: wiretaps, DMCA, etc.) As a result, they are absolved from legal liability for any content which they carry. Ie: the phone company cannot be named as an accessory to a crime merely because the people who perpetrated the crime used the phone to communicate. Or, in the case of hacking / data theft / etc., use the phone to commit the actual crime itself. A case could be made to treat Facebook and the like as common carriers. |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1507252)
The Communications Decency Act (1996) pretty much already does this unless there was intent on the part of the web site itself to harm as in the Hulk Hogan case Bolea v. Gawker.
The CDA has generally been interpreted by the courts as applying to internet service providers, rather than content providers (websites). In this context, an ISP is considered to have common-carrier status similar to the phone company wherein liability is concerned. The operators of individual websites have found mixed success in citing the CDA as a defense against liability, including those whose content is principally user-produced. Some cases have resulted in not-liable verdicts, others have not. Examples of situations in which websites hosting user-generated content were found not to be immune from liability under the CDA:
|
So @IB Nolan ... cats appear to be enabled for this thread now. :party: |
Originally Posted by afm
(Post 1507300)
So @IB Nolan ... cats appear to be enabled for this thread now. :party: But, seriously, I'll get this fixed. Thank you. |
I listened to a curious piece from NPR this morning about a first generation immigrant family. Parents were political prisoners and escaped Vietnam, daughter was raised in the US. The parents were very republican and thought Trump was doing a good job. The daughter was "fearful" that the she was seeing the "same things that happened in Vietnam" now happening in the US to minorities and women.
I have seen this before back in South Florida, and just thought it was interesting to see the people that experience a communist regime with those that imagine it. |
Originally Posted by buffon01
(Post 1507318)
I listened to a curious piece from NPR this morning about a first generation immigrant family. Parents were political prisoners and escaped Vietnam, daughter was raised in the US. The parents were very republican and thought Trump was doing a good job. The daughter was "fearful" that the she was seeing the "same things that happened in Vietnam" now happening in the US to minorities and women.
The parents, having experienced actual oppression, have a sense of perspective, and are able to distinguish between the fear-mongering of present-day US sociopolitical political rhetoric and legitimate danger. The daughter, having grown up in a safe and sheltered environment while hearing tales of the old country, does not, and understandably transposes her parent's horror stories upon the hyperbolic propaganda being fed to her by the ultraleft. |
Joe Perez scoffs at Ayn Rand -- she used to say the same...
But I agree, this girl was told by the TV to be scared or orange man. Facebook Post https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...b6&oe=5C4F50B0 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...8a&oe=5C894771 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...1b&oe=5C4EA616 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...c8&oe=5C4A0177 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...b5&oe=5C4A6B64 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...54&oe=5C5782EF https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...40&oe=5C476E61 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...25&oe=5C43C83D https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...f0&oe=5C58FDB5 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...a0&oe=5C432735 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...3c&oe=5C898B22 |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1507129)
Remember when Braineack used to participate in conversations in this thread, rather than just flooding it with copies of whatever politimeme he most recently discovered?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1507320)
(Does that exact thing)
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...85a4734040.png (That video was pretty sad, though.) |
that wasnt the same thing and then i said i agreed with you, bro.
When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun fire—one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare. No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale. Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs. |
:likecat: given while I am still able, before IB takes away yet another of my liberties.
|
Originally Posted by afm
(Post 1507300)
So @IB Nolan ... cats appear to be enabled for this thread now. :party: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 AM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands