The One True Politics Thread
 

Opening a new thread, since the old one has degenerated into juvenile chaos.

In this thread: engage in discussion. Post interesting things. Argue intelligently. Posit controversial ideas. Be civil. Act like a mature adult.

Do not meme-dump. Do not spam with the same shit over and over again. Don't be a dick.

Feel free to post photos, but don't just dump them without context or commentary. Use your grown-up words.

This thread is going to be actively moderated. No one will be banned for saying anything at all in this thread. But BS will be deleted without mercy.


I'll start:

I came across this documentary from 2014 largely at random.

It's two hours long.



Despite the passage of seven years and multiple congresses and presidencies, it seems more relevant today than ever. Almost prescient in parts.

An interesting example of PBS expressing what could be interpreted as a somewhat antigovernmental sentiment, and during a democrat presidency.

Good move Joe, I haven't been there in ages.

Your vid is not coming up for me, apparently only available in selected countries :dunno:, got a title/source? Thanks.

Well, that's unfortunate.

It's a documentary by Frontline (PBS) entitled United States of Secrets: Part One. Essentially a dissection of the covert functionality of the US executive office during the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies.

What's really interesting is that while it was produced in 2014, it's oddly prescient of the state of affairs here in 2020/21.

I dunno. In 10 years this thread will be fucked too. Joe will be married with 2.5 kids and have no time to moderate.

Or the cosmos corrects and Mr. Perez will be the president.

EDIT: Joe's video works for me.

Not a Meme, as this is what Joe looks like IRL:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...228a0574a5.jpg

It's true, you know. :D



I do a lot of searching for things related to far-left liberalism, gender dysphoria, and so on as research in preparation for various online retorts.

One of the unintended consequences of this is that Facebook's AI seems to increasingly be of the opinion that I am a neurodivergant genderfluid communist. I deduce this mostly from how I've seen a shift in the content which it "suggests" to me.

And this is fascinating to me, because it's giving me a glimpse of how the other half lives, so to speak. I'm getting visibility into their echo-chamber, and starting to understand more about the how and why of some of the beliefs which you see the fish-mouth types parroting time and again.

This morning, the following was "suggested" to me:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...23ce908186.png

So, it ticks the boxes for helping people to identify as members of victim groups, which is unsurprising. And it attempts to attack the foundations of the US, which is also unsurprising.

What does surprise me a bit, however, is that it presumes complete and total ignorance of the constitution on the part of the reader.

Ms. Esposito is making a simple ad-hominem attack on the constitution based on the gender and race of its authors. But in her snide remark about "I assume it may occasionally need a few updates," she appears to be totally dismissing the fact that those white men also foresaw this, included a process for updating the constitution within itself, and that that process has been used on many occasions.

I doubt also that the people towards whom this infographic is targeted will realize that this is, in fact, the precise reason why they are personally allowed to criticize the constitution without fear of reprisal.

Or to vote.


I suspect not.


Anyway, it's really fascinating seeing all of these anti-democracy, pro-segregation, pro-hate memes come through my feed.

Fascinating and also terrifying.

I've been reading about that, and it's my understanding that if you're seeing lots of left wing content, it's due to FB having you pegged as right wing and vice versa. Anger drives clicks. You won't click on something you agree with, you'll click on the ones that get under your skin in order to prove them wrong.

Although I'm certain it's more complex than that and FB has many algorithms.

I would be very put-off to see something like that in my feed. If it became too pervasive, I would probably bail on FB.

I honestly don't care at all what the extreme left or right think, feel, or say. I find them to be irrational and annoying. Their words are not worth any of my valuable time at all.

Believe it or not, I think it was the more moderate people who are tired of the extremists that hired President Trump in the first place, and I would not be surprised to see him get re-elected. This goes double if he can mix in some of this innovative technology.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...3fd233a9a.jpeg

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...5462f03e8.jpeg

I'm curious what everything thinks regarding an upcoming housing "correction." Will it be like 2008? With the increasing inflation, the Feds have indicated they are going to reduce QE and raise interest rates much more quickly than predicted last year.

The “experts” are all saying this time is “different because, well it just is…”, which is pretty much what they all said in 2008, 2000, and 1990. Housing prices are just like any other product and subject to the laws of supply & demand. Throw in a little media coverage at each end of the market swing to help things along and there you have it.

In some markets buyers are paying cash for 2nd homes then remortgaging the primary home to take equity out and replenish the bank account. In other markets, national real estate investment companies are buying up single family homes to make them into rentals. Go figure…

Now, this is interesting.

For one, I can see the logic in this. My maternal grandmother (the English-speaking one) used to have Fox News on the TV pretty much all the time. Now, this woman was staunchly anti-Republican, but it gave her something to get riled up over.

But for two, I also can't picture why FB would have me pegged as right-wing, unless they still think that the Tea Party are Libertarians. Which is possible.



On the housing thing, who the hell knows. I just bought a house last week, for $515k, which is about average for this market. Put $200k down, financed the rest. In retrospect, I should have made a lower downpayment, given that my mortgage rate is 2.125%, but what's done is done. (I was trying to impress upon the sellers the notion that I was very, very serious about this purchase, given how selective the market is in this neighborhood.)

If housing prices crash, I might use that opportunity to buy a second house. I might also create an S-corp and sell my own house to it at whatever the then-current market value is, in order to get a lower appraised value on the books for property tax purposes.

Yeah, what I've read is the reason "this time is different from 2008," is that mortgages aren't flooded with subprime loans that have been packaged up in CDS like they were leading up to the 08 crash.

Of course, it's all speculation. 2000 the burst of the tech bubble was a main factor, right? I just graduated high school that year so I wasn't paying attention to that kind of stuff, 1990, that I have no idea. I'd have to go back and research, I was only 8.

Congrats on the house purchase. Now that we know they are closing the OKC office at the end of the month, I wish I wasn't tied to this mortgage. Even though theoretically the house is worth about $60k more than I owe on it, we just aren't in a position to try and sell and move at the moment. I wouldn't mind renting for a bit as things keep cooling off, but that would be nearly impossible with 3 dogs and a cat.

Zillow says my house is worth at least 3 times what I paid for it in the mid 1980's. Frankly, I wouldn't believe it, but the tiny (less than 900sq. ft.) house on the corner went for about 3-4 times what I'd have guessed, so who knows?

Houses in my neighborhood always sell within 2 weeks unless they are grossly overpriced, and have underlying issues. And that has remained constant since I've lived here.

House I rented for a few years in an "improving" neighborhood out here in texas more than doubled in value during the ~4 years I was renting it (2016-2020, 300k --> 615k, landlord sold it at the end of that period). ZIllow now pegs it at 740k. There's supply and demand, and then there's so much cheap capital that it doesn't make sense not to have blackrock/zillow/EvilCorp go around buying up >10% of the single family home market. That said, they can absorb price fluctuations and obviously are not exposed to the whims of a specific local market, your average (maybe speculative) new home buyer can't say the same, prime-grade-credit mortgage or not, as @bahurd pointed out. We're on the precipice of perhaps the biggest new home building push in at least a decade, and yet still stories like @rleete mentioned are the norm.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...ce58b086dd.png

I'm no expert, but if we called it the Taper Tantrum back in 2013, I'd expect the name for it when the feds finally let off the bond-buying gas pedal this time around may not be so cheer-y.

Controversial thought of the day-

The "deep state" in the US government is mostly just competent and educated public servants that provide for our safety and prosperity without us even knowing about it.

Inefficient? Unquestionably.

Poorly managed? By definition, as they have new leadership every election, and the leaders are often as ignorant about how government services function as the rest of us.

Bad at PR? Federal laws actually dictate that this is the case.

The U.S. Federal Government is the worst form of government that's ever been attempted. Except for every other form of government that's been attempted.

I was wondering where you were at. I saw that doc recently and the 2nd part, too. Also saw the one on the Fed Reserve. The Minneapolis? Fed branch reserve director reminded me of the quip in the movie Roxanne, "KEEP THAT MAN AWAY FROM MY COCAINE!".

:bowrofl:

Is it just me, or has the fundamental definition of "normal, acceptable behavior from a high-ranking member of a Federal agency" shifted rather dramatically within the past year?

This is an interesting observation, and one which I'd accept without much hesitation as axiomatic.

There are definitely bad actors in government, no question about that. But my take is that those folks are mostly motivated by personal greed, which makes sense.

As to the rest of Federal government, well... they're mostly comprised of the sort of people whose best career option was government employment.

I'm reminded of the chief engineer at WLRN-FM in Miami, where I did an install about 15 years ago. This is a public radio station owned by the Miami-Dade school board. That guy was, to put it mildly, not the brightest tube in the rack. A strict 9-to-5er, he did the absolute minimum necessary to keep the station on the air. And what struck me most (apart from the fact that he literally wore socks with sandals to work) was how he could never stop talking about how he was a government worker. He's got a pension, and will be retiring in exactly X years and Y months, and the rest of us who were working overtime and moving figurative mountains to get this new studio done on schedule were just dumb.

As such, Hanlon's razor is never far from my mind when contemplating such matters.

^ I work with government employees and agencies from time to time, and I also have an internal debate about it. My thoughts are tempered by a few things:

- government employees usually accept less base pay/bonus than they would get for an equivalent job in the private sector in return for the pension and early retirement;

- I see a similar proportion of dummies, wierdos, layabouts and just generally bad people in the private workforce. Maybe more. The "invisible hand" sure isn't doing a very good job of keeping those people from fucking stuff up;

- Nobody in government work gets recognized for good work, only problems. The mindset is to keep your head down and try not to get noticed, even if you're a star. In the private sector, high achievers spend a good amount of their time self-promoting and are often rewarded for this. I've worked with people in CDC, FDA and NIH that are megawatt bulbs with million dollar educations and could pretty much name their price in the open market, yet they do government work out of a calling to public service.

Price's Law: The square root of the number of people in a domain do 50% of the work.

My general observation: Pensions build less generational wealth than a well-managed private portfolio (or small business) that leaves an inheritance.

DNM

And you basically have to be convicted of a felony to be fired. Unless you're an elected official, than you can be arrested for drunken driving, kill someone, and serve no jail time. And in the private sector, if you have any kind of decent job, you're expected to produce tangible results or you will be fired.

And like DNM said, I wouldn't want to count a Federal pension for my retirement. Although, I don't really care about generational wealth as the lady and I don't have children and don't want children.

It's way easier for a GS to be fired than a contractor.

What agency do you work for? I've met two types of government employees:

1. The low-skilled, low-level, GS in silly paper-pusher roles. You wonder how these people were ever able to secure a job, let alone the quasi-import role the are in now. (think DMV employee)

2. The egotistical and inexorable high-level GS never concerned with good work; only self-promotion. They take all credit for the work of their contractors in order to move from GS to SES.

Both are lower skilled and less intelligent, driven, capable of their free-sector counterparts. Not saying contactors are great by any stretch, but FTEs are the worst -- especially given they are in charge. I've met my fair share of incompetent contractors -- in fact, I've personally been responsible for getting a few fired and/or quit because I simply couldn't stand working with them.


I would say just be thankful they aren't your doctor, but I don't have very high thoughts on doctors as of late...

Don't work for any agency or contractor, never have. My personal experience working with federal government is in a private sector company that's reliant upon them for various things. From my limited exposure to federal employees and contractors, your characterization is more or less correct although probably painting with too broad a brush. My main point is that the same character types are also present in the private sector in proportions that are just as large, if not larger. The whole "federal employees never get fired" deal is just completely wrong. Again it's hard to describe millions of people with one viewpoint but by and large they are screened much more carefully on the way in, and are often under great scrutiny during their tenure. Whenever I hear someone talking about how much better government employees have it, I usually say "why don't you go get a government job then?" Almost every vocation in the private sector has some government equivalent. The real answer to that question is usually either a) the complainers aren't actually qualified and are lucky to have the job they've got; or b) government work isn't that great a deal compared to equivalent private sector work.

With regard to doctors- there are plenty of reasons to complain about healthcare in the U.S. But most of the people I hear complaining are complaining about the wrong things, and are breathtakingly ignorant about how healthcare in a population actually works.

My complaint is with actual doctors and vets. They are dumb, treat you like a moron, and don't provide any help to your specific needs.

I am a type 2 diabetic. As a result, I am required by my doctor to get fairly regular blood tests, to he can track my blood sugar levels (A1C). Normally, this is a 5-15 minute stop on my way to work, as the lab opened at 6AM, and the wait was dependent on the number of retired old farts ahead of me. The draw itself was usually under a minute.

Well, as was all over the news, many health care workers in Rochester were protesting the mandatory jab. At the end of September, those not submitting to big brother were let go. Then URMC (largest employer in the greater Rochester area) decided to close about half the labs, and reduce the hours of the rest. So, not only can I not stop on my way to work (earliest open lab is 8AM), I have to go out of my way to get to one that is open. And now the wait is an hour and a half! Employees are now working at rush hour pace all day long, tempers of patients are short, and there are people milling about the parking lot waiting to be called in.

The blood draw itself is still about a minute, but the stupid screening questions (no one lies?) and all the rest means it takes longer to process each patient, and it's stressing out those doing the work. Fuck JB and his Chinese handlers.

Pro-vax / anti-vax hysteria is discouraged in this thread.

I really like the idea of a civilized political thread, Joe, and I hope it works. In these overly contentious times, its success would be a lofty achievement, to be sure, and likely one which comes with meager rewards (no good deed going unpunished, and all). In the interest of full disclosure on its inception, I am curious:

Will you be its sole moderator?
Is it possible this thread could devolve into an echo chamber of it's moderator?
What magical powers can a single person have to detect their own biases?
Will the determination of what is BS be akin to Potter Stewart's measure?

I wish you good luck here. :bigtu:

Yes, with the exception of the others.




I am free of biases. It's only those people who do not agree with me completely on everything 100% of the time that are biased.




https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...f4c244348f.png

But seriously, @good2go, you raise an interesting point.

Now, I do believe that, as a broad generalization, the ability of Americans to have productive dialogue about matters of sociopolitical importance has noticeably declined over the past decade or so. And I mean both members of Congress, as well as the general population.

I define "productive dialogue" as meaning that people acknowledge opposing points of view, directly address them when argue for or against them, and perhaps even reach a compromise position which recognizes the wants and needs of both.


After I made the Darth Vader meme, I started thinking about movie scenes which concern the concept of truth.


The great one, of course, is Obi-Wan backtracking his way out of a lie expounding upon his earlier explanation of the fate of Anakin to Luke.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...629fe3e361.png

"So, what I told you was true. From a certain point of view. (...) Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

Now, I'm not sure that Luke actually bought the "point of view" explanation, and insofar as the story was concerned, he just kind of let it go. A little too casually perhaps, but, hey, we're psychoanalyzing a movie about magical space wizards at this point.




Another good one is from the 1992 film Sneakers, which is about two old friends who were black-hat hackers in the 70s, but turned into rivals after one was arrested (and subsequently vanished from prison, thought to be dead) while the other changed his identity and eventually started a cybersecurity company, back before a name for such things existed:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...5529e6b8a0.png

Cosmo: "When I was in prison, I learned that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality..."

Marty: "... but the perception of reality."

Now, in this one, Cosmo is using this analysis to justify his "day job" in organized crime, and his grandiose plans to bring down the world financial markets for the purpose of establishing the classless utopia which the two used to dream about as teenagers. (Mind you: he's pretty much gone crazy.) But his point, which is not crazy, is that everything in this world is not actually about what it is, but about what people perceive it to be. And different people may perceive the same thing differently, which from the point of view of justifying or driving human action, makes it function as though it literally were two different things.



Both Kenobi and Cosmo make essentially the same point: "The Truth" can mean different things to different people.


I think that perhaps part of the reason why it's become all but impossible for people with strongly-held opinions about politically contentious subjects to have a rational discussion is that we're forgetting this basic principle.

We're losing the ability to comprehend that a belief held by someone else, which differs from our own, might be based not on malice or fear or hate, but merely on the fact that their perspective, which is informed by their life experience and circumstances, differs from our own.

CA to ban pretty much all IC engines eventually
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...equipment.html

Basically, all small off-road gas engines. So, you’ll have to replace your gas generator with a plug-in for when the electric grid fails due to the insufficiency of wind/solar generation in your neighborhood. Oh, wait…..

Joe, for no particular reason, I'm now compelled to ask you about your position on like, micro-dosing psychedelics, man? :giggle:

In my position I am frequently presented with several conflicting viewpoints on a single topic, all of which are truth or "right" depending on indisputable context or perspective. I just assumed that everyone experiences the same, and recognizes the fact that it is how (and possibly why) things work.

There will always be those who are absolutely unwilling to compromise or deviate from a hard-line stance. They don't usually stick around if it becomes routine.

Obi-wan speaks truth, Vader killed Skywalker. Change my mind.

Well, yeah. I mean, this is the same state which has also now mandated that toy aisles in large department stores must become gender-neutral. It will be interesting to see how that is enforced, and whether it will apply to the manufacturer's packaging or merely the arrangement of the aisles.

I do miss living in San Diego. But the state as a whole is merely continuing its decades-long push to be as woke as possible. The gas-powered engines mandate is no surprise at all. Obviously this will hurt small businesses the most; landscapers who will, in the future, have to carry a fleet of batteries with them for their large riding mower, leaf-blowers, and such. It's reasonable to assume that they'll also be carrying chargers with them, so that batteries can be recharged on the go by leaving their diesel trucks idling while they work.

Funny thing, though. Within the past month, I have purchased a lawnmower, and weed-trimmer, and a snowblower. Despite Illinois having no such laws, and gas-powered units being readily available, I chose battery-powered units from Ryobi. 17 years ago, when I last owned a lawnmower, it was corded electric model (Black & Decker, I think?) and I really liked the quiet operation and instant starting. Battery technology has, thankfully, evolved to the point where the cord is no longer necessary,


And Illinois, for all its faults, is a perfect place to own such things. IL generates more nuclear energy than any other state, is a net exporter of electricity, and a whopping 54% of all electricity in IL is generated at nuclear plants.


Illinois (and New Hampshire, and South Carolina) are just absolutely trouncing California in terms of clean energy, and CA seems not to care about catching up, only about projecting the image of being a leader in the field.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with almost everything these days. Image over substance.

Contractors may be an issue with recharging, but for the rest of us ... I've got a Stihl Farmboss chainsaw, hasn't been used in years - certainly not since I bought a battery chainsaw. It is not as big, but for 98% of my work it's fine. Didn't even have to buy batteries for it, as I bought the same as my drill, rattlegun, saw, grinder. I used both 4ah batteries to cut down and then cut up an Ironbark Euc that was about to shade my solar panels, and the diameter of that was bigger than the blade. Little batteries have come a long way, and the cost/capacity is only going to improve. The contractors may have second thoughts about charging while idling, the price of diesel will likely be go up as a result of taxing to discourage its use - you want it, you will be paying for it.

Edge cases will be a problem, but the network will evolve in reach and reliability - it will have to.

The biggest battery issue is for domestic use. A standalone battery still has a longer payback than its projected life (based on tariffs/costs here), something that may be overtaken with utilisation of your EV as a household battery though I haven't seen any serious assessment on the life of the EV battery when (also) used domestically.

Battery powered lawn equipment is fantastic. Although I will admit, we are the epitome of upper-middle class suburbians, and we pay someone else to do it now. A 10,000 sq ft corner lot is a ton of edging.

Hide and watch. California seems to be happy with the thought of rolling blackouts and other 3rd world events. Hope is not a policy.

DNM

This is from an Opinion piece in Fox News, by Bernie Sanders:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...bb9c8ddc2.jpeg
I the poll data quoted are correct, we are in a world of hurt. Our school systems are just big propaganda houses. Why would we want to start at Kindergarten?

The gimmie gimmie is also way out of hand.

This will not end well for “working Americans”.

DNM

I actually kind of disagree here.

Hope is an emotion. And for those of a certain political persuasion, feelings and emotions are the most important thing.

This is how we get the sort of blind image-consciousness which drives a state to essentially mandate increased poverty and unemployment, in order to project the image of being progressive and forward-thinking.

If making people feel like you're doing "the right thing" is how you measure success, then hope is most certainly a policy.

I mean, it was literally a campaign platform in the 2008 presidential election.

Why do you believe this to be the case? Do you have kids in school currently? And do you believe it is a nationwide issue?

https://epe.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/...ew-revised.jpg

This particular graph seems pretty "in the middle" for numbers I've seen relative to nationwide polls, and included administrators and district leadership as well. The associated article was written back in 2017, and represents the 2016 election. Break those numbers down a little further based on who they voted for, and most of the self-identified educational "moderates" are actually left leaning, putting conservatives at a "disadvantage" of roughly 2:1 in an educational setting. While I don't have the numbers to back it up, I'm betting that a much higher percentage of teachers nearing retirement age account for a larger percentage of conservatives, skewing the numbers more towards liberal ideologies as younger teachers come up in the education workforce.

I have a 15 year old daughter who I removed from public school at age 13 and went to a homeschool curriculum. She attended school in a large, predominantly democratic city in North Carolina. I won't go so far as to say there was "indoctrination", but the culture, from student body to administration, was very left leaning. She and I often have discussions about politics and religion, and the points of views and how the facts were presented by teachers based on her descriptions were assuredly left of center. However, the "wokeness" of the student population was staggering - so much so, that my preadolescent daughter identified briefly as a "lesbian" despite being open to us about having no romantic feelings or interest towards either sex at the time, but took on a "girlfriend" based on pressures from various classmates to identify as gay or be excluded from her friend group. Once she was tired of the charade and "broke up," she was bullied incessantly by the other girls in her class to the point where she'd come home in tears every day. Once homeschooled, her real personality shines through, stress levels became virtually nonexistent, and our discussions on politics revealed that she falls much closer to a true middle ground than the group think on either side of the spectrum. I can only imagine that this may be a bigger issue in states which are notably less conservative than North Carolina.

I presently have grandchildren in public schools. Yes, I believe it is nationwide.

It was a meaningless campaign slogan. Less meaningful than the change part. Obama succeeded in the change part, and nearly killed my hope for this nation.

You're right, hope is not a policy. I was not expressing or recommending 'hope'.. I was reflecting an observed phenomena in modern industrialised societies of adaptation, innovation and improvement. As I am not an observer of California I'll leave other to comment on how that happens there.

Ted Cruz introduces a bill to troll the Dems -
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ves/ar-AAPIhFH

Here's another interesting one...

Remember a few years back, when a baker in Colorado was compelled by law to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite the fact that he personally objected to homosexual marriage on religious grounds?

Well, that was fine. It's ok to use government to force businesses to act in a certain way when doing so protects the perceived rights of someone else.

Except that now it isn't. A lot of folks are getting pretty riled up about a bill which was recently signed into law in Texas, House Bill 20.

What does HB 20 do? Well, it forces social media platforms which do business in Texas not to censor the speech of their users.

And this, according to some (as seen in the article below) is a bad thing, because people might be able to say things which are hurtful, or even (gasp)... wrong!

I honestly find it pretty interesting how they are using the First Amendment itself as a tool to argue in favor of the right to censor. The argument isn't technically incorrect from a purely legal perspective, and I gotta admit that I admire the creativity.

A new Texas law is about to make social media worse

Requiring websites to publish all kinds of speech violates the First Amendment.

By Carl Szebo

1:30 AM on Oct 17, 2021

The First Amendment protects us from an overreaching government dictating what we can say and where. But last month, Texas ignored the First Amendment’s limits on government when Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 20 into law.

Presented as a conservative anti-bias law by its supporters, the unconstitutional statute is anything but conservative as it empowers the government to control speech in ways prohibited by the First Amendment.

Texas is now following in the footsteps of Florida in a misguided crusade against social media even if it’s at the expense of the Constitution and free speech. Both Abbott and Gov. Ron DeSantis claim to be defending free speech, but both are putting free speech in danger by trying to get the government involved in online expression.

Just as we sued Florida in May to protect the First Amendment, NetChoice similarly sued Texas last month over HB 20. Citing First Amendment and other constitutional violations, we strongly believe it’s important to protect constitutional freedoms and the safety of American internet users, consumers and small businesses. And just like in Florida, where a federal court enjoined the state from enforcing its unconstitutional law, we expect the same in Texas.

Contrary to the perspective of tech’s critics, removing content from the internet is not some dastardly attempt to censor conservative voices. Content moderation is a feature at the crux of what makes social media useful.

If a website hosts every piece of user-generated content thrown its way, the internet would be saturated with awful but lawful content — spam, pornography, hate speech, misinformation, graphic images and so on. That’s why online services work to protect our online communities, including parents, Republicans and Democrats alike, from the spread of harmful and potentially dangerous content.

If allowed to take effect, HB 20 will ruin much of the internet. It would require our favorite services to host and promote the hateful and harmful screeds of bad actors that today they remove and restrict. Additionally, by telling social media sites they have to host all speech, even if user posts break their service’s rules, HB 20 undermines the First Amendment by using government coercion to compel speech.

Just as delis, diners and dive bars can kick out patrons for violating their policies, digital platforms are allowed to enforce their own rules too. The First Amendment ensures that you, me and just about every business we interact with can make our own decisions about which content to host and which to remove. That means states like Texas and Florida can’t force you, me, Parler, Rumble, Facebook or your local grocery store to post messages, images, videos — any form of content.

The sad truth is, Texas’ law is not about protecting Americans or free speech online. It’s about the government trying to advance its own interests at the expense of businesses and consumers who have the right to make their own decisions.

Texas has worked hard to make itself a hub for American technology and innovation, but HB 20 moves the state in an anti-tech direction while potentially exposing its citizens to an unsafe internet. We believe the courts will protect our First Amendment rights laid down by America’s founders and reject Texas’ unconstitutional law, and the internet will be all the better and safer for it.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...l-media-worse/

I honestly thought one side (TX Governor) was using the 1st amendment as the argument AGAINST the right of the business to censor which put it at odds in previous fights where they argued it was the right of a private business to do whatever it wanted i.e. not bake a cake, etc… In other words, do my 1st amendment rights trump (sorry, couldn’t resist) your 1st amendment rights?

I will admit to not really giving much shit about either side at this point but it is hard to keep track.

Well, yes- that's what makes this especially interesting.

Texas is, from a purely technical standpoint, violating the 1st Amendment by forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, and they are doing so under the banner of "free speech."

It's an interesting conundrum, and one which I can't recall having been tested in the courts previously.

Of course, this is a majority-Republican legislature and a Republican governor. Who, broadly speaking, were in the camp of loudly protesting against government forcing businesses to adopt a certain standard with regard to content moderation, back when the "speech" in question was a wedding cake.

It's almost as though Politicians do not have strong convictions about the sanctity of the Constitution, regardless of whether they wear a red hat or a blue hat, but rather do whatever is necessary to create the conflict and drama which fuels the political theater, which entertains the electorate and keeps them in power.

I wonder if any of them would support a person standing on their lawn uninvited while wearing a long robe espousing his/her religious views if contrary to theirs? It’s the same thing.

How so?

I mean, a person standing on my lawn uninvited is:

A: A private citizen*, and
B: Trespassing, which is a very straightforward criminal offense in most US states.

I see these examples above (using govt' to force cake-baking, and using govt' to fore non-censorship) as quite unique.

Both are examples of a group using the power of government (either the legislature or the courts), to compel others to behave in a certain way, which may in fact be in direct opposition to the First Amendment, but is otherwise not in violation of any statute.

* = I assume for the purpose of this comparison that Nancy Pelosi is not standing on my lawn espousing religious views.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the cake baking controversy centered around the concept that a business can not deny serving you based on status? If you walked into a restaurant and they told you to leave because you were being loud and disruptive that's fine, but if they flat out said "we don't serve Hispanics here" well, that's where the Government steps in.

Edit: Found it. While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4][3] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that include sexual orientation as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws.[5] Craig and Mullins's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[6] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers".[7][8]

You are correct on all counts.

So far as I am aware, no Federal statue exists which gives a State the power to force a business (Facebook, etc) to enact certain policies on how it moderates user-generated content. On the other hand, I can think of no Federal statue (or Constitutional provision) which specifically denies this authority to the States either, so when the Texas case invariably winds up before the Supreme Court, I'd expect Texas to invoke the tenth amendment.

In either case, the tone in which the article I referenced above (from the Dallas Morning News) was written is substantive to my point here. To wit: "If allowed to take effect, HB 20 will ruin much of the internet. It would require our favorite services to host and promote the hateful and harmful screeds of bad actors that today they remove and restrict."

I'm reading between the lines here, of course. But the author is bemoaning a possible future in which they might be not shielded from "bad things" such as when US Congressman Jim Banks recently referred to a person who is biologically male as a "man" on Twitter, and Twitter valiantly deleted his posts and banned him in order to protect us from such violent hate-speech.


Examples like that are why this sort of policy is distressing. Does Twitter have the right to filter what people are allowed to say on its platform? I'm fairly certain that the answer is "yes."

Is allowing Twitter (and others) to selectively filter content in such a way as to discriminate against truth, thus effectively re-shaping truth to conform to a specific social agenda, ultimately harmful to society? Again, I think the answer is "yes."



This is a great example, to me, of how even the United States Constitution is imperfect. It seems clear that social media companies are actively undermining the fundamental concept of reason, and it would appear that the First Amendment protects their right to do so.

Seems to me that it will delve into the philosophical musings of "what is the truth". For true believers of the flat earth theory, that is the truth and you will never convince them otherwise. For most people it is provably false and a silly idea, but since it doesn't really harm anyone we (as a society) tend to just laugh and ignore and not make efforts to silence them.

But what if the ideas spread by flat earth believers were actively harming people? Hyperbole obviously, but what if hundreds of thousands of impressionable people were sailing off into the sunset to die on the open waters searching for the edge of the world? Would it be justified to stop the spread of information by "silencing" them on twitbook?

Is their "right to free speech" more important than stopping harmful information?

I think it's a good idea to let Facebook, Twitter and the like be the moderator of "what is truth." Even better, we will let them decide what is harmful.

Some cake company was required by law to write things they don't like on a cake. In the same exact way, social media companies should be required to leave writings up that they don't want visible to all.

Because according to the makers of the cake, that marriage is harmful. Who in the hell are you to tell them that they are wrong? The truth police? According to google, 20% of all marriages and partnerships have domestic abuse at some point. You want to roll that dice?

Open and shut.

A. didn't the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission essentially say a business is the same as a private citizen?
B. Isn't someone posting on a business's forum trespassing if it's not per the rules as established by that business/citizen? I realize it's not in a physical sense.

Not meaning to get into an endless debate on the topic. At least we aren’t talking about Hippos…

US Supreme Court: Craig vs Masterpiece

My side comment: There is a difference between the government allowing you to say something, and the government forcing you to say something.

In my world the Constitution allows me to say things not the government.

Exactly.

Which is why the Texas case is so fascinating. The government is forcing a corporation to allow you to say something.

I cannot immediately think of any relevant precedence for this, which is why I assume that the inevitable supreme court arguments will be... interesting.

Sadly, I live in a world in which the government employs police, and uses them as a tool to regulate speech.

Do a web search for Amyiah Cohoon, and read whichever article you deem most trustworthy.

Short version:

After returning home to Westfield WI from a trip to Orlando in March of 2020, 16 year old Amyiah Cohoon began exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Despite a negative Covid test, she made a post on Instagram, showing a photo of herself wearing an oxygen mask, and stating that she had Covid.

Now, at the time, it was the stated position of Marquette County WI (specifically, the school board) that "there's no Covid in our town." As such, the Sherriff's office dispatched a deputy to Cohoon's hope, who demanded to her parents that the Instagram post be removed, and threatened arrest for disorderly conduct if they did not comply.

They complied.

And that... is terrifying.

Fortunately, the family took this matter to the courts, with the aid of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The US District Court ruled in favor of the family, using rather harsh language to describe the actions of the county and the Sherriff's dept.

But this is now a thing which is actually happening.

I would say the constitution won out in this case although it likely cost a lot of money to get there for both parties. The interesting thing in that case was the fact Amyiah Cohoon, knowing full well she didn't have Covid, posted she did and therefore lied about it. So, while morally wrong (at least my morals) she is legally able to say it. That she made a negligent false statement which could've landed her in civil court is a separate thing.

I believe that either party, and most politicians have learned the fine art of using our courts to screw things up. Unfortunately the courts operate at a snails pace and because the news cycle operates in seconds things decided in the courts ultimately go unnoticed.

But I get your point.