|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Being a part of a mob that calls for someone elses firing over old comments is sort of like throwing gasoline on your neighbors house while it burns and expecting the fire not to reach your door. We are all vulnerable to this mob fury. Twitter has 336 million active users, but its not just tweets that can get you fired. Everyone who has shared an opinion online on a podcast, a blog or anywhere that can be screenshotted, copied or recorded is a potential target. If you think youre safe, think again. Sacco had just 170 followers; the tweet still ruined her life. No one is too anonymous. No tweet is too old. The more we make businesses pay attention to an online reaction, by directly calling for a firing or cheering on those who do, the easier itll be to get someone fired in the future. If a bunch of keyboard warriors out for blood can influence companies to ax employees over old jokes, then were all in jeopardy. If youve been online for any significant period of time, youve probably either said or will say something that, in or out of context, could be used to embarrass you in front of a potential employer. No one who helps build a guillotine imagines that one day their head will be on that chopping block. |
I tend to think it should be the latter. For the murky circumstances (woman calling police on the lemonade girl for instance), I think her getting fired was what upped the stakes of the story.
When a person in media, PR, corporate leadership, etc. says/said something wildly idiotic it's a little harder for the corporation to eat it.
I always tend to err on the side of open speech and the parallel responsibility to be brave and principled to overreacting.
Personally I think it's a social issue that starts with individuals being dedicated to being tempered, honest, open to learning, and open to patience online.
I know most people don't read the National Review and will consider me Hitler or a racist for reading it, but Jonah Goldberg had a great piece on Friday about a semi-related topic - mostly related to Jeong and racism - not limited to the internet mob. I linked it below for anyone interested.
This whole mob mentality/bloodlust issue has many layers.
1. the internet for the majority of people provides anonymity to embolden people in a way we've never experienced. I cringe when I imagine people saying face to face some of the things they'll type on social media (even here). I'm not anti-social media, I think it's valuable and useful but man it has a side effect of bringing out the unbridled worst in people.
2. the internet has a long memory. I don't think people should be completely free of responsibility for things they said or did when they were a teenager but is a teenager really the same as a grown person in terms of how their words are viewed in terms of public perception. I hope not.
3. this has become very political and outing people or getting them fired/shamed is almost like political revenge porn. People try and justify things like saying Roseanne deserved to be fired but Whoopi Goldberg or James Gunn do not or Joy Reid doesn't or [plug in name x who thinks like you] doesn't. it's all the same. it's identity politics and if anyone on here believes Roseanne was fired for a racial tweet you are willfully ignorant.
anyway, great topic for a Monday, hope it remains civil and lasts a while because we as a society need to be more tolerant and respectful of others and today you see more and more the opposite of that (from the people who preached it for so long especially.)
Link - ( New Window )
I tend to think it should be the latter. For the murky circumstances (woman calling police on the lemonade girl for instance), I think her getting fired was what upped the stakes of the story.
When a person in media, PR, corporate leadership, etc. says/said something wildly idiotic it's a little harder for the corporation to eat it.
I always tend to err on the side of open speech and the parallel responsibility to be brave and principled to overreacting.
Personally I think it's a social issue that starts with individuals being dedicated to being tempered, honest, open to learning, and open to patience online.
I definitely think it's the latter. Things happen too quickly these days, and it's concerning that decisions are made to satisfy the mob rather than understanding dealing with the actual issue at hand.
I know most people don't read the National Review and will consider me Hitler or a racist for reading it, but Jonah Goldberg had a great piece on Friday about a semi-related topic - mostly related to Jeong and racism - not limited to the internet mob. I linked it below for anyone interested.
This whole mob mentality/bloodlust issue has many layers.
1. the internet for the majority of people provides anonymity to embolden people in a way we've never experienced. I cringe when I imagine people saying face to face some of the things they'll type on social media (even here). I'm not anti-social media, I think it's valuable and useful but man it has a side effect of bringing out the unbridled worst in people.
2. the internet has a long memory. I don't think people should be completely free of responsibility for things they said or did when they were a teenager but is a teenager really the same as a grown person in terms of how their words are viewed in terms of public perception. I hope not.
3. this has become very political and outing people or getting them fired/shamed is almost like political revenge porn. People try and justify things like saying Roseanne deserved to be fired but Whoopi Goldberg or James Gunn do not or Joy Reid doesn't or [plug in name x who thinks like you] doesn't. it's all the same. it's identity politics and if anyone on here believes Roseanne was fired for a racial tweet you are willfully ignorant.
anyway, great topic for a Monday, hope it remains civil and lasts a while because we as a society need to be more tolerant and respectful of others and today you see more and more the opposite of that (from the people who preached it for so long especially.) Link - ( New Window )
The National Review is great. Smart writers there
That process hasn't started so far, and I doubt it ever will.
I know most people don't read the National Review and will consider me Hitler or a racist for reading it, but Jonah Goldberg had a great piece on Friday about a semi-related topic - mostly related to Jeong and racism - not limited to the internet mob. I linked it below for anyone interested.
This whole mob mentality/bloodlust issue has many layers.
1. the internet for the majority of people provides anonymity to embolden people in a way we've never experienced. I cringe when I imagine people saying face to face some of the things they'll type on social media (even here). I'm not anti-social media, I think it's valuable and useful but man it has a side effect of bringing out the unbridled worst in people.
2. the internet has a long memory. I don't think people should be completely free of responsibility for things they said or did when they were a teenager but is a teenager really the same as a grown person in terms of how their words are viewed in terms of public perception. I hope not.
3. this has become very political and outing people or getting them fired/shamed is almost like political revenge porn. People try and justify things like saying Roseanne deserved to be fired but Whoopi Goldberg or James Gunn do not or Joy Reid doesn't or [plug in name x who thinks like you] doesn't. it's all the same. it's identity politics and if anyone on here believes Roseanne was fired for a racial tweet you are willfully ignorant.
anyway, great topic for a Monday, hope it remains civil and lasts a while because we as a society need to be more tolerant and respectful of others and today you see more and more the opposite of that (from the people who preached it for so long especially.) Link - ( New Window )
You think Rosanne being fired was about politics? You think ABC wanted to fire her with her ratings? Cmon now. Not sure what you are getting at here. I guess I'm ignorant.
Well, I did try to post it on the original thread but it was archived and didn't allow me to do so. I thought it was an interesting discussion with a lot of participants so I shared the article.
Agree with many, the bigger issue is that it becomes a game of 'I disagree with this, and want the speaker to suffer consequences'...which is about as anti-free speech as you can get. The problem is, there isn't really a line where, this is ok, this isn't - it's entirely determined by the audience and the level of reaction.
Maybe I just think differently, but if ABC came out and said, look this isn't the first time you have tweeted something offensive, but ABC will not tolerate this, even for a top grossing show, this will be the last time you will tweet something like that or the show will be canceled. I think they'd have satisfied everyone - except the bloodthirsty twitter mob. And I have zero love for Roseanne. I read not one advertiser threatened to pull out of the show (granted her firing happened so fast maybe there wasn't time, but in either case, just like with Gunn the mob acted and the networks/company reacted) and I thought Gunn deserved some action or at least investigation because IMO there was potential criminal activity.
And you can find may cases of similarly exposed people saying similar things and not being fired (Joy Reid, Samantha Bee, Chelsea Handler, etc. etc etc.). So yes, politics played a role, if Roseanne was Jimmy Kimmel she would not have been fired for an awful, racist, joke, one which she apologized profusely for and even said she didn't know Valerie Jarrett was black (call her a liar if you want, and I knew, but no idea if Roseanne did).
Here is another example.
Candace Owens (a black conservative millennial - who says some pretty outlandish stuff - I hope for shock value - but no idea - some of what she says is relevant if you can filter through the BS) retweeted the same things Sarah Jeong tweeted but replaced the word "white" with Jewish and Black. Candace Owens was suspended by twitter for 12 hours for inciting hate and being insensitive in violation of twitter terms.
Sarah Jeong was never once reprimanded.
The tweet by Candace:
She also had one where she replaced White people in a Jeong tweet with Jewish people:
Think about that for a minute.
Would be nice to see corporations take a stand for once. Unfortunately, this goes against their sole purpose of making money.
Rose McGowan bitched about 20th Century Foxs X-Men: Apocalypse poster showing Apocalypse choking Mystique during a climatic scene of the movie.
Fox immediately cowered, pulled the poster and begged for forgiveness. Grow a spine already.
Now, I don't read Infowars and I don't follow conspiracy theorist/loon Alex Jones, but this, on the surface, is a dangerous precedent.
Unless he or his minions are harassing Sandy Hook parents (which should be criminal IMO) I think this move in general should make people uncomfortable. Should Facebook, twitter, apple, etc. be the arbiter of what is or isn't hate speech?
"unspecified hate speech" (the reason Facebook used) is really wide ranging, nebulous, and ambiguous and allows for no specific infraction to result in removal or banning.
What's next Breitbart, The Blaze, Drudge, etc. They're all right wing fringy media sites, but why aren't they protected by the same first amendment rights as Slate or Vox?
Infowars maybe be bullshit, but like I said above, unless they're harassing people or committing a crime, no idea why they should be allowed to ban them from the platform based on their own interpretation of "hate".
In other words, Sarah Jeong, of Cal Berkeley and Harvard Law, is oppressed and must be given a pass. And the examples where one swipes out "white" for various minority groups are absurd because of course, white people have oppressed all of those groups, so anything goes.
The concepts of color-blindness, or everyone treating everyone else with dignity, respect and kindness regardless of background, are foreign concepts to the Sarah Jeongs of the world and her defenders. Sarah Jeong knew very well that she could say whatever she wanted and get away with it and it would never harm her career prospects - and it hasn't and it won't.
We should have one standard - either you can be insensitive, prejudiced and racist, or you can't, no matter who you are. To say the least, I much prefer the latter - but to have two standards depending on who you are and whose ox is being gored is absurd and maddening.
In other words, Sarah Jeong, of Cal Berkeley and Harvard Law, is oppressed and must be given a pass. And the examples where one swipes out "white" for various minority groups are absurd because of course, white people have oppressed all of those groups, so anything goes.
The concepts of color-blindness, or everyone treating everyone else with dignity, respect and kindness regardless of background, are foreign concepts to the Sarah Jeongs of the world and her defenders. Sarah Jeong knew very well that she could say whatever she wanted and get away with it and it would never harm her career prospects - and it hasn't and it won't.
We should have one standard - either you can be insensitive, prejudiced and racist, or you can't, no matter who you are. To say the least, I much prefer the latter - but to have two standards depending on who you are and whose ox is being gored is absurd and maddening.
Exactly - that is Candace Owens opinion that I agree with (we should follow the same standard of common decency and respect with all people), but read the Jonah Goldberg piece I linked it deals with your post head on.
Would be nice to see corporations take a stand for once. Unfortunately, this goes against their sole purpose of making money.
Rose McGowan bitched about 20th Century Foxs X-Men: Apocalypse poster showing Apocalypse choking Mystique during a climatic scene of the movie.
Fox immediately cowered, pulled the poster and begged for forgiveness. Grow a spine already.
Given the ratings, how could Roseanne have been considered bad for business? The show was cancelled before you could see if the ratings dropped. And it's not like the viewers don't spend money. There really is a double standard.
Not an insensitive tweet or anything like that. Just because it was right-leaning. It was picked up by Fox, but the cancellation was completely political.
I can't even imagine the vitriol that would be said if a left-leaning show were cancelled based on politics.
...but the cancellation was completely political.
There's no proof -- or even evidence -- of that.
I doubt that. It is the young generation that is fueling it. Also, when you are young, you don't realize the significance of someone losing a career-type job. Young people switch jobs all the time, so its hard for them to empathize with someone having their career/life ruined just by losing a job.
They should be free to decide what they want to and don't want to carry on their private platform based on their own standard for content. So, yes.
I must have missed the news story about Breitbart, The Blaze, and Drudge having their 1st Amendment rights revoked. Link, please?
Not an insensitive tweet or anything like that. Just because it was right-leaning. It was picked up by Fox, but the cancellation was completely political.
I can't even imagine the vitriol that would be said if a left-leaning show were cancelled based on politics.
Actually, this is false. You could make the same argument for Brooklyn Nine Nine (both shows had 'meh' ratings), but both were canceled as business decisions. Older shows not making headway in the ratings, LMS with an older demographic (and advertisers don't like miserly middle aged or older people, as we apparently don't have any money to piss away).
Now - all the social media stuff aside, I have no idea how Jeong wasn't reprimanded. Her tweets were horrific - and the only explanation Vox or anyone else had to give was 'well, white people have done worse'.
So apparently, we can blame social media for some people not understanding the age old 'two wrongs don't make a right' logic.
Look at most with extremely strong opinions and start looking at actions, hurts your eyes.
Quote:
Should Facebook, twitter, apple, etc. be the arbiter of what is or isn't hate speech?
They should be free to decide what they want to and don't want to carry on their private platform based on their own standard for content. So, yes.
Quote:
What's next Breitbart, The Blaze, Drudge, etc. They're all right wing fringy media sites, but why aren't they protected by the same first amendment rights as Slate or Vox?
I must have missed the news story about Breitbart, The Blaze, and Drudge having their 1st Amendment rights revoked. Link, please?
So people want net neutrality or they don't because not allowing Infowars on your platform is truly in the purest sense AGAINST net neutrality. Yes, net neutrality focused on the carriers not providing fast lanes or promoting certain apps/content, it also protected against filtering out content, but if that filtering should be illegal for carriers why is it ok for platforms/apps? Facebook should be an arbiter of hate but not Verizon?
If you believe in it for the carriers you should really want it to apply to platforms like twitter, facebook, itunes, etc. as well. Otherwise you are struggling to justify prejudice. Confirmation bias at it's finest.
Kind of ironic isn't it? the people who said people would die if net neutrality was repealed are now reveling in "the platform should have a right to choose" Sure they should but Verizon and Comcast aren't private companies too?
Convenient.
LOL. Lemmings.
and I used the phrase "what's next..." to indicate that as of now, none of those other mentioned media outlets have had their rights infringed but it started with infowars and any of them "could" be next, so "link please" shows an utter lack of reading comprehension.
really bungled that one, Mr.
Quote:
The younger generation will understand the scope of their social media posts and either say little of consequence or avoid it altogether. It's pretty much the only way the witch hunts can be stopped.
That process hasn't started so far, and I doubt it ever will.
Facebook has been around for what, 15 years? Twitter less than that? We're just now seeing this deep digging of social media accounts to incite the mob.
I think you might want to give it some time before you say the next generation will "never" alter their usage.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
I know. I said that. But it did have to do with ISPs filtering out content (for whatever reason).
And I fail to see how someone can say out of one side of their mouth that ISPs should not be allowed to filter out content, but social media platforms should.
I also mentioned that if Alex Jones is harassing Sandy Hook parents that should be a crime, but otherwise his words, should be protected. or people start making the first amendment convenient for them.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
Couldn't agree more, plus, last time I checked, James Gunn was fired from one of the biggest blockbuster franchises out there. The standard was set, so why the big uproar? He got the same treatment.
And no offense, but I don't see how anyone can defend Alex Jones, what a piece of shit. I think calling InfoWars bullshit is being way to kind.
So people want net neutrality or they don't because not allowing Infowars on your platform is truly in the purest sense AGAINST net neutrality. Yes, net neutrality focused on the carriers not providing fast lanes or promoting certain apps/content, it also protected against filtering out content, but if that filtering should be illegal for carriers why is it ok for platforms/apps? Facebook should be an arbiter of hate but not Verizon?
If you believe in it for the carriers you should really want it to apply to platforms like twitter, facebook, itunes, etc. as well. Otherwise you are struggling to justify prejudice. Confirmation bias at it's finest.
Kind of ironic isn't it? the people who said people would die if net neutrality was repealed are now reveling in "the platform should have a right to choose" Sure they should but Verizon and Comcast aren't private companies too?
Convenient.
LOL. Lemmings.
and I used the phrase "what's next..." to indicate that as of now, none of those other mentioned media outlets have had their rights infringed but it started with infowars and any of them "could" be next, so "link please" shows an utter lack of reading comprehension.
really bungled that one, Mr.
First of all, you claim that you know that net neutrality has nothing to do with platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Yet you're trying to make an argument based on net neutrality applying to Facebook and Twitter.
But I'm the one who bungled it.
Second of all, your "What's next" nonsense is basically making an argument based on something that doesn't (at the moment) exist. Here's a fact about current reality: Breitbart, The Blaze, Drudge, etc. ARE protected by the same first amendment rights as Slate and Vox.
But, again, I'm the one who bungled it.
You're not making an argument, you're misusing terms and creating boogeyman hypotheticals. Everything you post on these threads is just the latest marching orders for the Internet Army of the Conservative Persecution Complex. Have you emailed Eric about the possibility of putting a red X next to your handle yet?
And you're calling me a lemming? That's rich.
Nobody wants to read that bullshit.
I did not reference her as an argument against social media mobs, but one to represent a double standard regarding "hate speech"
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And Sarah Jeong's tweets weren't hate speech? I totally agree with you on Jones.
and net neutrality as written prevents ISP's from filtering out content. I don't see how someone can support net neutrality and also say that media platforms should be able to filter out content. It's the same thing done by a different corporation based on their interpretation of "hate" or "standards"
either you support the first amendment or you don't. People in the UK can now be jailed for "hate speech". But you don't get there in one step. It's starts small.
keep eating yourself, geniuses
Quote:
filtering out obscene, hateful or illegal content. Zero.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And Sarah Jeong's tweets weren't hate speech? I totally agree with you on Jones.
Not only that, that piece of trash's filth's words were defended by numerous morons around the world
and that goes for all sides
i would estimate that no more than 5% of America truly supports free speech
The guy who I think got a raw deal in all of this is James Gunn. His old tweets were arguably offensive, but they were clearly written with a tongue-in-cheek, absurdist tone.
Free speech does not begin or end with the First Amendment. People can complain about a chilling impact on free speech from a corporate decision or a boycott or even just a digital dogpile without any state action at all. The First Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of free speech, but (in my opinion) there needs to be greater social understanding of the far greater impact non-state actors can have in discouraging speech simply because they find it offensive.
Free speech certainly is a constitutional law, but hate speech laws have been around since 1940 and were even reaffirmed in 2017.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.
Quote:
So, unless there's a popular movement to repeal the 1st Amendment of which I'm unaware, or the government is infringing upon 1st-Amendment protections, it doesn't really matter if and how people express or demonstrate "support" for it.
Free speech does not begin or end with the First Amendment. People can complain about a chilling impact on free speech from a corporate decision or a boycott or even just a digital dogpile without any state action at all. The First Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of free speech, but (in my opinion) there needs to be greater social understanding of the far greater impact non-state actors can have in discouraging speech simply because they find it offensive.
I think we're going to see a lot of litigation with respect to "shadow banning", along with complaints to the FEC and FCC in the next few years.
Roseanne the show, was great for business. Roseanne the person, was bad for business after her comments.
Advertisers know the viewers make the correlation between the person and the show for obvious reasons.
ABC was being "proactive" by canning the show outright. They wanted to prevent the social media mob mentality from further scrutinizing the network...which was clearly going to happen if ABC tried to extend the show further.
Personally, I think viewership would have increased (because bad exposure is still exposure) but advertising dollars would have plummeted. And in the end, it's all about the money.
It's happened on here. People are unhinged.
Was it the Seahawks fan who was posting 9-11 taunts?
Quote:
I don't really remember all the details but does anyone recall a number of years ago the Giant were playing a big game against an opponent (was it maybe Seahawks) and some jerk (one of their fans) came to this site and was really stirring things up on the forum and a some posters found out where he worked and I think end up getting the guy fired or something along those lines?
Was it the Seahawks fan who was posting 9-11 taunts?
Yeah I maybe that was it.
Im pretty sure that guy posted a pic of one of the planes crashing into the towers or made fun of it. I remember it happening but not the details myself.
- 'it's OK to hate white people because they (we in our case) have all the power'
Which is a moral abomination and not even true if you see the human experience as a series of one on one interactions as opposed to the false extension of a particular narrative about groups and identity into. all. things.
Around that time she also started self negation, over eating, not studying, etc and more, worse..stuff..maybe part just being that we happen to Be white. Ergo - Self hate.
I told her hate is hate, don't hate and I love you just the way you are, sweetie.
But damn that line of thinking to hell.
I don't know but I think it was like the broadcast of the news, players being interviewed walking into game or getting on bus and made provocative comments about Katrina (how theyd mess up the Saints like Katrina did to NO)...maybe it was just me
Quote:
filtering out obscene, hateful or illegal content. Zero.
And if these content providers should be expected to filter out copyright violations, they sure as hell should be able to filter out obvious hate speech. When Alex Jones goes around saying that the victims of Sandy Hook are paid actors and they're harrassed incessantly by his legion of idiots, that's hate speech.
And Sarah Jeong's tweets weren't hate speech? I totally agree with you on Jones.
Look above, I don't disagree one bit about Jeong's statements, or the outlets that ran to her defense (Vox and the NYT).
It's just that you can't use Net Neutrality and social media content monitoring interchangeably. One guarantees that network traffic will be delivered regardless of the origin and type of that traffic. The other is more complex.
In a world where Net Neutrality exists, the nutjobs of the world will still have a platform. Alex Jones can pay for his servers, and his followers can continue to receive his garbage as they wish. I'd rather such a world didn't exist, but there's no way to support freedom of speech otherwise.
Social media platforms on the other hand do have an obligation not to allow hateful or criminal behavior where they can prevent it. This will continue to be a sore spot and a focal point for it going forward. From cyber bullying to terrorist attacks, copyright violation to outright theft (gang networks and trafficking of all different types), criminals and delinquents use these tools to accomplish their goals, and where it can be stopped, it should.
Bitchute, a youtube competitor, probably got a big boost out of this from some who support the 1st amendment.
Bitchute, a youtube competitor, probably got a big boost out of this from some who support the 1st amendment.
Thats an open question, somewhat linked to net neutrality. If it is a public utility, then all traffic should be treated neutrally. The fact that net neutrality has been overturned would say its not a public utility.
But even if is, that only extends to the ISPs. It doesnt mean every website and service becomes a public utility. It would be absurd for them to be. As an analogy, the Postal Service is a public utility. They cannot censor what is sent thru the mail. But that doesnt mean that newspapers and magazines sent thru the mail have to publish anything anyone asks of it.
It's why you see major shifts on cultural issues happen so quickly now, why a political stance that's the worst thing ever in adminstration X is totally fine for adminstration Y.
But the old lessons, seemingly forgot also still stand. The compass is money and power. Especially for corporations. The conversations on why to end a contract, show, relationship aren't predicated on politics, they are predicated on and P&L.
Now what group is loudest, more fervent, will vote with their dollars is pretty variable.
But if you want to get to the truth on why power brokers make certain decisions and they don't seem consistent, and sometimes they seem hypocritical, start with the money.
Guy makes a drunken remark and a good portion of his livlihood is ruined.
What is somebody screenshot remarks in a game thread where people have threatened to kill players or coaches. Should they deserve to be fired?
If a fan goes on a drunken rant when their team loses shouting "Fuck Brady in the ass" and it is captured in one of the Tosh 2.0/Flounder clips, should they be fired?
It is past the point of ridiculousness.
And what happens when outrageous behavior from one side of the political spectrum (Jones) is censored while equally outrageous behavior from the other side (Jeong) remains unrestrained?
but it starts a slippery slope. Why is Louis farrakhan allowed to still be active on the platforms? farrakhan has been a purveyor of hate far longer than Jones. Is his type of hate any better than Jones? And you can then start naming your "hate mongers" on both sides of the aisle that still are allowed on the platform.
two is part of net neutrality disallows content filtering at the ISP level of any type (in addition to the many other things it was created for - and by the way net neutrality was not some above the board "for the people" legislation as some think - it was absolutely political), but why allow it at the platform or app level? It's hypocritical in my mind to say Verizon, Comcast, AT&T - you cannot tell me what hate is, but Facebook, Google and Twitter (and others) can. And copyright infringement or theft is not a good comparison - that's a crime, and ISP's and the apps probably have an obligation to prevent or remove criminal activity.
Because as you can see they all view Jones as hateful, but not Farrakhan. If that doesn't highlight the disconnect then we can agree to disagree, that's just how I view it.
And wrt being "public" those platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are all in a confusing spot right now. When government organizations use those platforms for government purposes they ARE considered public. A government facebook page or twitter account. Not public utilities, but public forums. But today it's not really legislated IMO the right way. For example someone goes to a city council meeting takes the microphone and begins spewing profanities and offensive, personal comments they would be removed. Forcefully if necessary. What do you do if they do that on twitter or facebook? There is a different way of handling those things that the world hasn't quite figured out yet.
I hate to make it seem like I'm defending Alex Jones, I'm not, he's a POS, but unless he's committing a crime (when he is I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law), otherwise I think he's got just as much right to spew his bullshit as people like Farrakhan. And removing or banning him from these platforms is akin to digital book burning.
Conceding up front to a degree of hyperbole I'd say the better comparison is to Big Brother.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
Quote:
Like Justine Sacco tweeting about hoping to not get AIDS in Africa are situations where people have posted extremely awful views. If the employers did not act swiftly they would have suffered reputational damage and possibly profit impacts. We had a situation here where a drunk soccer fan shouted on live tv behind a female correspondent fuck her right in the pussy! He was outed on social media and promptly fired. I have no issues with social media posters calling out terrible behaviour and holding them to account or businesses that take action. People need to own up to their behaviour and if the consequences make them think twice about posting or doing something stupid, I consider that progress
And what happens when outrageous behavior from one side of the political spectrum (Jones) is censored while equally outrageous behavior from the other side (Jeong) remains unrestrained?
Quote:
I hate to make it seem like I'm defending Alex Jones, I'm not, he's a POS, but unless he's committing a crime (when he is I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law), otherwise I think he's got just as much right to spew his bullshit as people like Farrakhan. And removing or banning him from these platforms is akin to digital book burning.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
So true.
Quote:
We had a situation here where a drunk soccer fan shouted on live tv behind a female correspondent fuck her right in the pussy! He was outed on social media and promptly fired. I have no issues with social media posters calling out terrible behaviour and holding them to account or businesses that take action
Guy makes a drunken remark and a good portion of his livlihood is ruined.
What is somebody screenshot remarks in a game thread where people have threatened to kill players or coaches. Should they deserve to be fired?
If a fan goes on a drunken rant when their team loses shouting "Fuck Brady in the ass" and it is captured in one of the Tosh 2.0/Flounder clips, should they be fired?
It is past the point of ridiculousness.
I don't have any sympathy for the FHITP soccer fan drunkard who was fired. he saw the news cameras rolling, he decided to make a vulgar comment on live television and when someone recognized him on tv, he was outed. as the employer, they can justify firing him on the basis that he has poisoned the work environment for female employees.
I'm not sure what the laws are in the US about death threats, but if someone threatened to kill a player or coach here in Canada, they could face criminal charges.
if someone is filmed going on a rant making an ass of themselves and it goes viral, such that the person is outed, does he deserve to be fired? it depends on what is said or done and whether the person is the face of the company or someone behind the scenes and whether the person had an expectation of anonymity/privacy or not.
Quote:
I hate to make it seem like I'm defending Alex Jones, I'm not, he's a POS, but unless he's committing a crime (when he is I think he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law), otherwise I think he's got just as much right to spew his bullshit as people like Farrakhan. And removing or banning him from these platforms is akin to digital book burning.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
Mic drop.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
It doesn't have a direct tie to the censorship issue, but think about this for a second. Instead of calling people who believe Facebook posts and then vote based on those posts, a whole narrative about our sacred democratic system has taken hold since the election. The overdramatic assertion that by seeding fake news items that it inherently caused the election to be impacted.
We don't blame ourselves - the collective morons who believed reports from websites. We don't claim to have evidence that actual polls were hacked. Yet night after night, the news runs updates on an investigation that almost always uses some reference to attacks on freedom or democracy.
You know what is under attack? Our intelligence.
These Facebook ads and tweets are disguised to appear to be from legitimate organizations. Among those fooled: Kellyanne Conway. Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump. Sebastian Gorka. Dinesh DSouza. Ann Coulter. They all re-tweeted fake stories from a Russian twitter account that appeared to be a legitimate GOP account. To millions of followers of their accounts. And Fox News then picked up the stories and reported them. To many more millions of viewers.
To millions of people, the information didnt come from some Facebook post. It came from the Presidents advisors and spokespeople, and from the news organization they trust.
Quote:
I don't really remember all the details but does anyone recall a number of years ago the Giant were playing a big game against an opponent (was it maybe Seahawks) and some jerk (one of their fans) came to this site and was really stirring things up on the forum and a some posters found out where he worked and I think end up getting the guy fired or something along those lines?
Was it the Seahawks fan who was posting 9-11 taunts?
Yes it was.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
Could something be serious enough to invite that sort of outcome? Sure. Would excessively dark humor qualify? Most of us have heard things as bad or worse than a shitty joke about AIDS, and I'm sure plenty in here have said things at least that bad. Hell, just about every profession that deals with death has some species of gallows humor that would horrify people who don't deal with that every day.
To millions of people, the information didnt come from some Facebook post. It came from the Presidents advisors and spokespeople, and from the news organization they trust.
There were all sorts of stories out there. some picked up. Some not. But the perception - which you also seemingly show - is that the stories were all duping just Republicans and Fox.
Again - this isn't an attack on freedom or whatever superflurous descriptor goes in front of "election". It is a misinformation campaign that the ADD driven social media people have eaten up.
I guess we should call Nigerian scammers an imminent threat to our glorious banking system??
Nigerian prince is a good analogy. (for this example), I'm sure some ads/stories were aiming a little higher on the intelligence scale.
Quote:
we'll agree to disagree. I don't think a vulgar comment outside of the workplace should result in somebody getting fired in his workplace.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
Could something be serious enough to invite that sort of outcome? Sure. Would excessively dark humor qualify? Most of us have heard things as bad or worse than a shitty joke about AIDS, and I'm sure plenty in here have said things at least that bad. Hell, just about every profession that deals with death has some species of gallows humor that would horrify people who don't deal with that every day.
There were all sorts of stories out there. some picked up. Some not. But the perception - which you also seemingly show - is that the stories were all duping just Republicans and Fox.
Again - this isn't an attack on freedom or whatever superflurous descriptor goes in front of "election". It is a misinformation campaign that the ADD driven social media people have eaten up.
I guess we should call Nigerian scammers an imminent threat to our glorious banking system??
False equivalence. Presidential advisors and mainstream news outlets are not telling people to trust the Nigerian scammers.
It really isn't that different from campaign ads. There are a lot of falsehoods in there.
Again - the idea Russians are the bogeyman is two-fold.
- It takes the burden off of ourselves to say we were duped and puts the blame elsewhere
- It allows us to avoid confronting the fact we didn't do due diligence before pulling a lever (and disavow that we are moronic fools).
Quote:
There were all sorts of stories out there. some picked up. Some not. But the perception - which you also seemingly show - is that the stories were all duping just Republicans and Fox.
Again - this isn't an attack on freedom or whatever superflurous descriptor goes in front of "election". It is a misinformation campaign that the ADD driven social media people have eaten up.
I guess we should call Nigerian scammers an imminent threat to our glorious banking system??
False equivalence. Presidential advisors and mainstream news outlets are not telling people to trust the Nigerian scammers.
technically he wasn't president at the time, he was a candidate, widely un-trusted and disliked by many. He had a 38% approval rating pre-election (according to 538), but you want everyone to believe his re-tweets swayed an election?
technically he wasn't president at the time, he was a candidate, widely un-trusted and disliked by many. He had a 38% approval rating pre-election (according to 538), but you want everyone to believe his re-tweets swayed an election?
His opponent was also widely untrusted and disliked by many, The election came down to @ 80,000 votes in three states. Do we know for sure peoples votes were influenced by the Russian disinformation campaign? Of course not - theres no way to know for sure what caused any person to vote one way or the other. But to allow it to continue is lunacy.
Quote:
technically he wasn't president at the time, he was a candidate, widely un-trusted and disliked by many. He had a 38% approval rating pre-election (according to 538), but you want everyone to believe his re-tweets swayed an election?
His opponent was also widely untrusted and disliked by many, The election came down to @ 80,000 votes in three states. Do we know for sure peoples votes were influenced by the Russian disinformation campaign? Of course not - theres no way to know for sure what caused any person to vote one way or the other. But to allow it to continue is lunacy.
No, we don't know for sure if there was any impact to the results, but now we're way off topic of the OP so I'll save my thoughts on how a prior administration could have shined a light on it all before the election.
I was making more of a point about the social media mob mentality latching onto something and running with it before knowing the facts.
Russian hackers knew such a strategy would work, and when it did, we don't blame ourselves. We blame Russia for threatening the very fabric that the country was founded on!!
And before anyone says blaming Russia is a red herring, I'll ask - what stories exist out there of people taking responsibility for voting before knowing the source material that might have swayed them? The focus isn't just squarely on the russians, but by extension, the current administration.
Not on ourselves.
Verified account @ChrisMurphyCT
Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.
For those who don't know, Murphy is a Senator from CT.
I liked Bethany Mandel's reply:
Verified account @bethanyshondark
4h4 hours ago
Bethany S. Mandel Retweeted Chris Murphy
If the survival of our democracy hinges on silencing voices we dont like, weve already lost it.
There are ISIS pages on Facebook, but Alex Jones is determined to be "unspecified hate". I don't understand how people don't see a problem with this.
A democratic society should result in free thinking, but we've seen time and again that we are unwilling to think freely:)
Quote:
Chris Murphy
Verified account @ChrisMurphyCT
Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.
For those who don't know, Murphy is a Senator from CT.
I liked Bethany Mandel's reply:
Quote:
Bethany S. Mandel
Verified account @bethanyshondark
4h4 hours ago
Bethany S. Mandel Retweeted Chris Murphy
If the survival of our democracy hinges on silencing voices we dont like, weve already lost it.
There are ISIS pages on Facebook, but Alex Jones is determined to be "unspecified hate". I don't understand how people don't see a problem with this.
Let it happen so someone on the opposite side and they'll have a problem.
How about - start with banning hate speech, and don't immediately jump all over them for banning one and not another. Let them take an immature, still developing process for identifying and removing hateful and dangerous participants from the platform and continue to build upon it rather than cry foul from the first fucking second they implemented it.
How about - start with banning hate speech, and don't immediately jump all over them for banning one and not another. Let them take an immature, still developing process for identifying and removing hateful and dangerous participants from the platform and continue to build upon it rather than cry foul from the first fucking second they implemented it.
If the process hasn't been stillborn Sarah Jeong should be banned already.
It seems that "free market solutions" is spouted an awful lot by those condemning the banning of Alex Jones.
I consider him a domestic terrorist, ginning up fear and anxiety among his large following to destroy this country in order to make a buck.
Whether most people consider him crazy or not, he has a large following that are dumb and crazy enough to act in furtherance of his messaging.
The sooner that guy gets a crippling neurological disease that paralyzes all of his motor functions, the better.
How about I don't need Facebook or Twitter or Apple or Google to tell me what constitutes hate speech? Not only do I not trust them to do it, I don't need or want them to do it. Most people don't. But...if they do it, then do it consistently, but they don't. for obvious reasons.
If it's not criminal it's not their business.
What's sort of ironic is that censorship of "offensive" material used to be a right wing tenet, now it's the left that wants everything censored so people don't "stir up a base", it's actually laughable when you think about how fully ideological roles have been reversed in this country.
Like I said - these are processes that are new. Zuckerberg was tap dancing all around the Holocaust denier issue for the same reason - they know action needs to be taken, but no matter how they take it there will be complaints.
Jones has been active on that platform and under scrutiny for YEARS. He's had millions of followers in that time. The scale here is completely different.
To compare that to the fallout to Jeong's fuckstick statements, which should earn her a banning - is just proof positive that you're less concerned with trying to keep hateful speech away from these platforms and more concerned with keeping score.
Let the process develop - and if the likes of Farrakhan, KKK/white supremacy groups, ISIS, etc. are still hanging on - then go after it with full force.
I liked Bethany Mandel's reply:
Quote:
Bethany S. Mandel
Verified account @bethanyshondark
4h4 hours ago
Bethany S. Mandel Retweeted Chris Murphy
If the survival of our democracy hinges on silencing voices we dont like, weve already lost it.
The InfoWars website is still up and running.
Therefore, Alex Jones has not been silenced.
You like an inane reply.
If Alex Jones is committing a crime, and as a "domestic terrorist" it shouldn't be hard to prove, then charge him and punish him. I don't care one bit about Alex Jones. I don't even know much about him other than he's a noted conspiracy theorist and he harassed Sandy Hook parents as did his followers. I thought he could or should have been charged with a crime because of that and if he was I would have applauded it.
besides that I know nothing of him, and don't visit infowars and I don't listen to his podcasts.
Removing him or banning him sets a dangerous precedent though.
And Chris Murphy took the discussion exactly where I thought it would go. Now that infowars is gone (from social media) let's set our sites on the next voice we disagree with. As long as it's labeled "hate speech" it's fair game to lobby for it's removal and banning.
I'm certainly not comfortable with Chris Murphy - or even Andrew Breitbart (if he were alive) or William F Buckely or Facebook or Google or Twitter etc telling me what I should view as hate speech.
Is this a serious post?
Quote:
and making you use Facebook, Twitter, Google, and iTunes?
Is this a serious post?
I think its valid question, and it ties into your net neutrality point from earlier. I think it boils down to what you consider a utility vs a private entity.
I can see an argument where ISPs are considered utilities where individual social media platforms are private entities. And as such need to be held to different standards. Although I'm sure there are valid arguments that even the ISPs are private entities.
so my personal choice to use or not use any specific social media outlet is not in any way relevant to not wanting the application owners censoring their usage.
If there is a market for a completely uncensored social media platform, one will be built.
Where it becomes a problem for me is when the ISPs block sites like info wars when they have committed no crimes or other violations.
Thats the point that is being made.
If there is a market for a completely uncensored social media platform, one will be built.
Where it becomes a problem for me is when the ISPs block sites like info wars when they have committed no crimes or other violations.
Thats the point that is being made.
that seems wildly inconsistent to me.
You're ok with Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple removing content from people who have committed no crimes, but not Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc?
Twitter gets more views than the NY Times and Washington Post combined.
And you can make the same argument about usage, it's estimated that over 70% of American households have a choice in ISP.
Quote:
The point is that in a free-ish market, they can run their business as they see fit.
If there is a market for a completely uncensored social media platform, one will be built.
Where it becomes a problem for me is when the ISPs block sites like info wars when they have committed no crimes or other violations.
Thats the point that is being made.
that seems wildly inconsistent to me.
You're ok with Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple removing content from people who have committed no crimes, but not Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc?
Twitter gets more views than the NY Times and Washington Post combined.
And you can make the same argument about usage, it's estimated that over 70% of American households have a choice in ISP.
yes thats pretty much what I am saying. One is a utility and one is a private entity and should be held to different standards. But you could potentially convince me that the ISPs are private entities as well but having a choice between 2 providers is hardly an open market.
Quote:
In comment 14031543 Mr. Bungle said:
Quote:
and making you use Facebook, Twitter, Google, and iTunes?
Is this a serious post?
I think its valid question, and it ties into your net neutrality point from earlier. I think it boils down to what you consider a utility vs a private entity.
I can see an argument where ISPs are considered utilities where individual social media platforms are private entities. And as such need to be held to different standards. Although I'm sure there are valid arguments that even the ISPs are private entities.
So if one party, or segment of a party, has access and use of free accounts in social media that reaches hundreds of millions of users and access is denied to all other parties it's OK? We're nowhere near there yet, but the tenor of your post suggests that would be fine.
You couldn't take out an ad on ABC or CBS promoting hate speech or lunatic conspiracy theories (a conspiracy theory is one thing - advocating that people harrass or disrupt victims as was the case with the Sandy Hook families is another). Similarly, you shouldn't be able to do those things on YouTube, Facebook, etc. They're basically broadcast media now, and should be treated as such.
A foreign nation - an enemy of our state - managed to influence our election the last time around. If they had done it via TV broadcasts from Canada or Mexico, we wouldn't be having this debate - it would be a crime, and we'd be out for punishment. Instead, some people are playing willfully stupid because it helped their candidate. What happens if next time around you don't like the results?
People in this country need to wake up. The most essential part of any democracy is a well regulated, fair election process. Ours is at a crossroads, and is facing a number of challenges, from poorly constructed and secured voting machines to foreign nations running intelligence ops to skew public opinion. This is only starting to be a problem now - it is going to get worse.
OK, we're adding one more to the 'hates democracy' column. We're also kicking a kitten in your honor.
You couldn't take out an ad on ABC or CBS promoting hate speech or lunatic conspiracy theories (a conspiracy theory is one thing - advocating that people harrass or disrupt victims as was the case with the Sandy Hook families is another). Similarly, you shouldn't be able to do those things on YouTube, Facebook, etc. They're basically broadcast media now, and should be treated as such.
A foreign nation - an enemy of our state - managed to influence our election the last time around.
jcn56 couple counter points:(IMHO)
1.) We have lunatics public officials advocating disrupting lives of public officials of differing parties being broadcast by major outlets, already. And it is working.
2) Correction - there were foreign entities (a few and one major) attempting to influence elections - TRIED - no evidence they actually did change a single vote.
Quote:
over one of the worst humans on the planet (that regularly encourages his dimwitted followers to harass Sandy Hook parents) losing an income source is pathetic...
OK, we're adding one more to the 'hates democracy' column. We're also kicking a kitten in your honor.
Fucker smells like tuna anyway...
They are accelerating through drastic moves on these social media platforms, through banning, shadow banning, biased algorithmic manipulations. Beyond that Infowars thing yesterday it is a direct attack on 1st amendment. What really got my attention was their shadow banning of US Congress members. That takes some balls and may come to get them or identify congressional members that support it and are fucking traitors.
You couldn't take out an ad on ABC or CBS promoting hate speech or lunatic conspiracy theories (a conspiracy theory is one thing - advocating that people harrass or disrupt victims as was the case with the Sandy Hook families is another). Similarly, you shouldn't be able to do those things on YouTube, Facebook, etc. They're basically broadcast media now, and should be treated as such.
A foreign nation - an enemy of our state - managed to influence our election the last time around. If they had done it via TV broadcasts from Canada or Mexico, we wouldn't be having this debate - it would be a crime, and we'd be out for punishment. Instead, some people are playing willfully stupid because it helped their candidate. What happens if next time around you don't like the results?
People in this country need to wake up. The most essential part of any democracy is a well regulated, fair election process. Ours is at a crossroads, and is facing a number of challenges, from poorly constructed and secured voting machines to foreign nations running intelligence ops to skew public opinion. This is only starting to be a problem now - it is going to get worse.
Didn't help my candidate.
And while I don't think actual voting machines are at risk because they are rarely, if ever, connected to a network, I agree that in general this is a problem that will get worse before it gets better. As I said earlier, I expect considerable litigation and administrative disputes involving the FEC and FCC before there's even a chance of this getting worked out.
People in this country need to wake up. The most essential part of any democracy is a well regulated, fair election process. Ours is at a crossroads, and is facing a number of challenges, from poorly constructed and secured voting machines to foreign nations running intelligence ops to skew public opinion. This is only starting to be a problem now - it is going to get worse.
I just want it stated for the record that my candidate didn't win. I voted for neither in the past election. Democracy is based on having freedoms to elect who you want without fraud or coercion of the process. I'd posture that so much has been made of the Russian influence (or the more common term t he Media uses - "meddling") is because Trump did win.
There are legitimate tenets of election fraud. Having dead people vote. Voting under fake identities. Rigging the ballot box, voting machines and other voting tools. Purposely miscounting votes. Barring people from voting.
Only now are we stretching the idea that voter fraud includes a propaganda campaign. We can ask why only now it is being debated, but that's for another time.
If Russia hacked into the actual tallying of votes - that would be a threat to our democratic process. When they tap into the imbecilic masses who hinge on bogus stories from Facebook? Sorry. That doesn't cut it for me.
Should we aim to stop that? Of course. Should we act like our country is under attack and that the sacred election rules have been trampled? Absolutely not.
We basically have a system of institutional propaganda anyway. It is called campaigning. Where spreading falsehoods and lies goes unpunished. Even when they get fact checked, there are very few sanctions put in place for making shit up.
But another country does it and we are being attacked? That's the part I just don't buy. We shouldn't absolve people from being morons by creating a bogeyman.
Or was the fabric of our democracy not threatened by that?
You couldn't take out an ad on ABC or CBS promoting hate speech or lunatic conspiracy theories (a conspiracy theory is one thing - advocating that people harrass or disrupt victims as was the case with the Sandy Hook families is another). Similarly, you shouldn't be able to do those things on YouTube, Facebook, etc. They're basically broadcast media now, and should be treated as such.
A foreign nation - an enemy of our state - managed to influence our election the last time around. If they had done it via TV broadcasts from Canada or Mexico, we wouldn't be having this debate - it would be a crime, and we'd be out for punishment. Instead, some people are playing willfully stupid because it helped their candidate. What happens if next time around you don't like the results?
People in this country need to wake up. The most essential part of any democracy is a well regulated, fair election process. Ours is at a crossroads, and is facing a number of challenges, from poorly constructed and secured voting machines to foreign nations running intelligence ops to skew public opinion. This is only starting to be a problem now - it is going to get worse.
Should non-citizens vote?
Most people say true voter fraud is small, and maybe it is, but my guess is no one really knows. Once the fraud is perpetrated it's hard to uncover unless the voter is dead or caught in another crime. For every article that says voter fraud is insignificant there is one (or maybe a half) that shows another one-off case of a non-citizen voting.
And from what you read about today, mayors and governors in more liberal cities and states are making it much easier for illegals to vote.
How is that not a concern? Maybe what was once insignificant becomes significant and unlike fake stories propagated by "useful idiots" this is intentional and orchestrated and coordinated by government officials.
Shouldn't you actually have to be a citizen to vote? Seems like another one of those no-brainers that actually becomes a hysterical debate for some people and results in spews of racism.
Or was the fabric of our democracy not threatened by that?
Yes, we should...
Really?
Except it has been stated by several competing entities that there is no evidence that anyone was influenced and it has been acknowledged that not a single vote was changed.
But that is ok, keep hoping...
Mr. Bungle : 2:01 pm : link : reply
and then strategically releasing them to the public at times and in ways that influence the dominant news cycle is merely "propaganda"?
Really?
Propaganda is the fake stories or Facebook posts that people latched onto.
The release of information is an interesting thing to parse. Release of emails impacted the election, but sitting on a story until weeks before the election on a Billy Bush interview from a decade ago didn't?
In an ironic way, the way I look back at the run up to the election, I thought the dominant news topics were decidedly anti-Trump. And I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I guess if the timing of information comes from "within" it is OK?? From Russia? Nyet!!
I just want it stated for the record that my candidate didn't win. I voted for neither in the past election. Democracy is based on having freedoms to elect who you want without fraud or coercion of the process. I'd posture that so much has been made of the Russian influence (or the more common term t he Media uses - "meddling") is because Trump did win.
There are legitimate tenets of election fraud. Having dead people vote. Voting under fake identities. Rigging the ballot box, voting machines and other voting tools. Purposely miscounting votes. Barring people from voting.
Only now are we stretching the idea that voter fraud includes a propaganda campaign. We can ask why only now it is being debated, but that's for another time.
If Russia hacked into the actual tallying of votes - that would be a threat to our democratic process. When they tap into the imbecilic masses who hinge on bogus stories from Facebook? Sorry. That doesn't cut it for me.
Should we aim to stop that? Of course. Should we act like our country is under attack and that the sacred election rules have been trampled? Absolutely not.
We basically have a system of institutional propaganda anyway. It is called campaigning. Where spreading falsehoods and lies goes unpunished. Even when they get fact checked, there are very few sanctions put in place for making shit up.
But another country does it and we are being attacked? That's the part I just don't buy. We shouldn't absolve people from being morons by creating a bogeyman. [/quote]
I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding that propaganda campaigns are a real threat to democracy. But they are, and always have been. That there are segments of the population that are ass-backwards ignorant and don't understand the world around them is a different story, and we can't resolve that with any kind of legislation or rules.
There's a reason why there are caps on campaign advertising, why there are rules preventing monopoly ownership of media outlets, and why there are regulations on what can be broadcast wrt political campaigns. Saying you disagree means you'd like to see all those go by the wayside too.
Now - the other types of voter fraud or problems with the election system - are real, should be addressed, and have existed for a very long time. These are new threats - dragging those strawmen into this conversation is a joke.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised - that so many Americans have no problem with people spewing hate. Prior to the expansion of the Internet and social media, I honestly believed the US was better than a lot of the world in that regard, but that was just me being naive. We're no better than a lot of other places, unfortunately. ISIS believes in one kind of purity, white or black supremacists another - but idealogically, they're the same. Giving any of them a platform is wrong, and has squat to do with free speech, it's just trying to protect a long and disgusting status quo.
I just want it stated for the record that my candidate didn't win. I voted for neither in the past election. Democracy is based on having freedoms to elect who you want without fraud or coercion of the process. I'd posture that so much has been made of the Russian influence (or the more common term t he Media uses - "meddling") is because Trump did win.
There are legitimate tenets of election fraud. Having dead people vote. Voting under fake identities. Rigging the ballot box, voting machines and other voting tools. Purposely miscounting votes. Barring people from voting.
Only now are we stretching the idea that voter fraud includes a propaganda campaign. We can ask why only now it is being debated, but that's for another time.
If Russia hacked into the actual tallying of votes - that would be a threat to our democratic process. When they tap into the imbecilic masses who hinge on bogus stories from Facebook? Sorry. That doesn't cut it for me.
Should we aim to stop that? Of course. Should we act like our country is under attack and that the sacred election rules have been trampled? Absolutely not.
We basically have a system of institutional propaganda anyway. It is called campaigning. Where spreading falsehoods and lies goes unpunished. Even when they get fact checked, there are very few sanctions put in place for making shit up.
But another country does it and we are being attacked? That's the part I just don't buy. We shouldn't absolve people from being morons by creating a bogeyman.
I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding that propaganda campaigns are a real threat to democracy. But they are, and always have been. That there are segments of the population that are ass-backwards ignorant and don't understand the world around them is a different story, and we can't resolve that with any kind of legislation or rules.
There's a reason why there are caps on campaign advertising, why there are rules preventing monopoly ownership of media outlets, and why there are regulations on what can be broadcast wrt political campaigns. Saying you disagree means you'd like to see all those go by the wayside too.
Now - the other types of voter fraud or problems with the election system - are real, should be addressed, and have existed for a very long time. These are new threats - dragging those strawmen into this conversation is a joke.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised - that so many Americans have no problem with people spewing hate. Prior to the expansion of the Internet and social media, I honestly believed the US was better than a lot of the world in that regard, but that was just me being naive. We're no better than a lot of other places, unfortunately. ISIS believes in one kind of purity, white or black supremacists another - but idealogically, they're the same. Giving any of them a platform is wrong, and has squat to do with free speech, it's just trying to protect a long and disgusting status quo.
Quote:
Hacking the private emails of a presidential campaign team
Mr. Bungle : 2:01 pm : link : reply
and then strategically releasing them to the public at times and in ways that influence the dominant news cycle is merely "propaganda"?
Really?
Propaganda is the fake stories or Facebook posts that people latched onto.
The release of information is an interesting thing to parse. Release of emails impacted the election, but sitting on a story until weeks before the election on a Billy Bush interview from a decade ago didn't?
In an ironic way, the way I look back at the run up to the election, I thought the dominant news topics were decidedly anti-Trump. And I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I guess if the timing of information comes from "within" it is OK?? From Russia? Nyet!!
Was the Billy Bush tape coordinated by a foreign adversary?
The KKK preaching that people of color are inferior might regrettably be covered. But when these groups are using these platforms to assemble and use force to cause disruption and harm - they lose their first amendment protection.
Alex Jones egging on his legion of morons to harass Sandy Hook victims, Antifa, etc. - no better.
Quote:
has not yet concluded, making blanket statements about the degree to which a foreign entity had no influence over the election is premature at best...
Except it has been stated by several competing entities that there is no evidence that anyone was influenced and it has been acknowledged that not a single vote was changed.
But that is ok, keep hoping...
Sounds very scientific...
Of course, 45 says you shouldn't listen to those guys, the Russians themselves said they didn't do it.
We're at war electronically now - and people still don't get it. Our next war will take place economically and online, and we are rapidly losing ground to the Russians of all people, and that's mostly because the average American is so ass backwards when it comes to technology it's not funny.
I find the KKK disgusting, just like ISIS, and flag burning makes my blood boil, but the fact people have a right to be those things or do those things or say those things is part of what makes us America.
Also the mass rejection of those hateful opinions by the overwhelming majority and keeping them on the fringes contributes to making us a great country too.
And none of those opinions, when shared, should come without consequences which brings us full circle to the OP.
The mob. People keep trying to set that line that can't be crossed to things they don't like or disagree with.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it well:
As did George Washington, and never in my life have these thoughts/quotes been as relevant as they are today. IMO.
Strategic release is not the point. The point is how the released information was obtained.
A "hot mic" recording is not equal to hacking someone's computer.
Of course, 45 says you shouldn't listen to those guys, the Russians themselves said they didn't do it.
We're at war electronically now - and people still don't get it. Our next war will take place economically and online, and we are rapidly losing ground to the Russians of all people, and that's mostly because the average American is so ass backwards when it comes to technology it's not funny.
Interfered with, meddled with, all likely true, but influenced the results of is where the debate comes and of course the "collusion" which is what Mueller has been investigating for 15 months.
To whatever extent they did influence, that was a warning shot. And who's to say that they stop there - elections all around the country are moving to electronic platforms that we have already seen evidence of foreign nations (not just Russia) trying to compromise.
We can't just walk away from this one and say 'hey, the election process sucks elsewhere, what's one more problem'.
As for collusion - that will be a big problem if there's actual proof. I don't see how anyone could make the argument that it's not treason, but that's a separate debate. We need to be less concerned with the past here and more alarmed about the future.
To whatever extent they did influence, that was a warning shot. And who's to say that they stop there - elections all around the country are moving to electronic platforms that we have already seen evidence of foreign nations (not just Russia) trying to compromise.
We can't just walk away from this one and say 'hey, the election process sucks elsewhere, what's one more problem'.
As for collusion - that will be a big problem if there's actual proof. I don't see how anyone could make the argument that it's not treason, but that's a separate debate. We need to be less concerned with the past here and more alarmed about the future.
The problem will be that a segment of the population won't believe the proof even if it is blatant and obvious...
Watch what happens if oil drops back below 50.
To whatever extent they did influence, that was a warning shot. And who's to say that they stop there - elections all around the country are moving to electronic platforms that we have already seen evidence of foreign nations (not just Russia) trying to compromise.
We can't just walk away from this one and say 'hey, the election process sucks elsewhere, what's one more problem'.
As for collusion - that will be a big problem if there's actual proof. I don't see how anyone could make the argument that it's not treason, but that's a separate debate. We need to be less concerned with the past here and more alarmed about the future.
I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but this absolute assurance that THE but for cause of failure in '16 was the Russians is not helping to address the myriad other causes of that failure. It was a one-off thing, but the surest way to make it a two-off thing is to pat yourself on the back and say "we did nothing wrong..."
Of course, 45 says you shouldn't listen to those guys, the Russians themselves said they didn't do it.
We're at war electronically now - and people still don't get it. Our next war will take place economically and online, and we are rapidly losing ground to the Russians of all people, and that's mostly because the average American is so ass backwards when it comes to technology it's not funny.
They have also indicted Russians and indicated that their is no evidence of hacking or election interence knowing that these trials will never occur. Like indicting the tooth fairy. For the record, the russians, chinese, israel have been cyber spying for quite some time. Our country is doing the same...don't be so naive and co-opting this for your political bias. The left is covering up their actions by creating a new "monster" under the bed to fix their loss of influence in government. Its no different than the same crap we here on this board after a bad season, blame something. What we need right now is a house cleaning in government to remove the corruption. It is starting now. We see resignations, firings, and congress that are no longer interested in their seats. The light is on now, and the roaches are visible.
The FACT that Russia had waged a propaganda attack on our elections should alarm EVERY American. That some Americans are not concerned about this says a lot about their so-called patriotism and love of our democratic institutions.
Between the rumors, innuendo, and facts about the dossier being funded by the DNC, provided by McCain, the FBI running sting operations against the trump admin up to the inauguration, the obama admin doing nothing (or at least very little in the eyes of the public) and even blocking attempts by leading politicians to go public about it, it's a f-ing mess.
The FACT that Russia had waged a propaganda attack on our elections should alarm EVERY American. That some Americans are not concerned about this says a lot about their so-called patriotism and love of our democratic institutions.
Did someone say patriotism?
[img]https://rockatee.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Id-rather-be-A-Russian-than-Democrat-shirt-600x600.jpg[img]
One can believe that future attempts need to be stopped while still believing that the story has been overblown with overly dramatic references to democracy being threatened and the sacred electoral process under fire.
And again. Hacking into voting machines is threatening the electoral process. Feeding a bunch of idiots fake stories isn't.
And if we're really tossing naivete out there - evidence also exists that the Russian influence extends back well before the Presidential election, with the previous administration having visibility to the threat.
Between the rumors, innuendo, and facts about the dossier being funded by the DNC, provided by McCain, the FBI running sting operations against the trump admin up to the inauguration, the obama admin doing nothing (or at least very little in the eyes of the public) and even blocking attempts by leading politicians to go public about it, it's a f-ing mess.
The Obama administration blocked attempts by leading politicians to go public? On what planet?
One can believe that future attempts need to be stopped while still believing that the story has been overblown with overly dramatic references to democracy being threatened and the sacred electoral process under fire.
And again. Hacking into voting machines is threatening the electoral process. Feeding a bunch of idiots fake stories isn't.
And if we're really tossing naivete out there - evidence also exists that the Russian influence extends back well before the Presidential election, with the previous administration having visibility to the threat.
Maybe you're problem should be with Mitch McConnell then who blocked the Obama administration from issuing a warning about it.
My point is that naivete is as rife as the faux panic of the imminent destruction of the sacred electoral process.
My point is that naivete is as rife as the faux panic of the imminent destruction of the sacred electoral process.
Faux panic. Okey doke.
Quote:
will ever know the truth. It's really hard to know who to trust or believe. Nothing makes sense and a lot contradicts each other.
Between the rumors, innuendo, and facts about the dossier being funded by the DNC, provided by McCain, the FBI running sting operations against the trump admin up to the inauguration, the obama admin doing nothing (or at least very little in the eyes of the public) and even blocking attempts by leading politicians to go public about it, it's a f-ing mess.
The Obama administration blocked attempts by leading politicians to go public? On what planet?
Right here on Earth. Apparently not the planet you live on.
You are part right about McConnell, only McConnell wanted no part in a bipartisan report. He had zero ability to block any statements whatsoever by Obama. That's silly to think otherwise. Obama blocked Comey.
From an NPR report...
But that didn't stop then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., from alluding publicly to the Russian campaign in a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey. And Comey reportedly wanted to announce the active measures in an op-ed column, as Newsweek reported in March 2017. Two sources with knowledge about the matter told Newsweek that Obama administration officials blocked the effort.
Quote:
Our next war will take place economically and online, and we are rapidly losing ground to the Russians of all people.
Watch what happens if oil drops back below 50.
We are rapidly losing ground to the Russians economically? In what sector?
The FACT that Russia had waged a propaganda attack on our elections should alarm EVERY American. That some Americans are not concerned about this says a lot about their so-called patriotism and love of our democratic institutions.
Are you equally outraged or only selectively that our country has done the same to Israel, France and others. My point again is that this standard biz operation, but only in focus when HRC lost, otherwise it would have never been reported or in focus....All intel and military investments are geared toward cyber warfare now.
You can't be serious with this post. Heard of Scott Pruitt? Wilbur Ross? Ryan Zinke? Tom Price?
Quote:
As far as some of the other issues discussed above, I'm concerned that bigotry, misinformed resentments and fear have taken the place of wisdom, open-mindedness and compassion for many in our society.
The FACT that Russia had waged a propaganda attack on our elections should alarm EVERY American. That some Americans are not concerned about this says a lot about their so-called patriotism and love of our democratic institutions.
Are you equally outraged or only selectively that our country has done the same to Israel, France and others. My point again is that this standard biz operation, but only in focus when HRC lost, otherwise it would have never been reported or in focus....All intel and military investments are geared toward cyber warfare now.
This is SOP? What examples do you have of the Russians or any other foreign entity having successfully tampered with our elections prior to this that qualifies you to make that statement?
Quote:
In comment 14031667 jcn56 said:
Quote:
Our next war will take place economically and online, and we are rapidly losing ground to the Russians of all people.
Watch what happens if oil drops back below 50.
We are rapidly losing ground to the Russians economically? In what sector?
We're losing ground in the cyber war to the Russians. Wait until the next time you have a credit card compromised or someone pulls a loan request in your name, and let me know what foreign country your money ended up in. That's when they're not meddling in our elections.
Economically - if you've missed all of the wonderful trade wars we've been engaging in lately - the adversary referred to there is obviously China.
Quote:
What we need right now is a house cleaning in government to remove the corruption. It is starting now.
You can't be serious with this post. Heard of Scott Pruitt? Wilbur Ross? Ryan Zinke? Tom Price?
Yes, thanks for confirming my point, although a biased response. Can't wait till we find McCains name on that FISA.
My point is that naivete is as rife as the faux panic of the imminent destruction of the sacred electoral process.
So the implication is that unless there's 'imminent destruction' we shouldn't do anything about it? Or by jokingly calling it 'sacred' do you mean that it's already fucked so we shouldn't care?
Go let the folks in San Francisco know, those fuckers have been wasting their money building earthquake proof buildings for nothing, who knows how imminent the next quake is.
Define successfully.
The only way you can claim successfully is by assuming that the outcome would be different that what it was.
Ask the average American about the Russian impact and they'll likely believe Trump was behind it, that we have a grievous situation on our hands and that it is the first time this kind of thing has happened.
Just to point out how dominant the story is a Media Tracker reported that the Russian election hack and/or probe has been one of the top 3 news stories on NBC 78% of the days in the past year.
Even with the shootings, natural disasters, celebrity deaths and the MeToo movement, it still was front and center the majority of the time.
Ask the average American about the Russian impact and they'll likely believe Trump was behind it, that we have a grievous situation on our hands and that it is the first time this kind of thing has happened.
Just to point out how dominant the story is a Media Tracker reported that the Russian election hack and/or probe has been one of the top 3 news stories on NBC 78% of the days in the past year.
Even with the shootings, natural disasters, celebrity deaths and the MeToo movement, it still was front and center the majority of the time.
The president of the United States, his senior advirsors, and his children may have accepted he aid of a foreign adversary in his election. I guess the news should lead with the white sale at Macys or an old lady who found a trout in her toilet.
It get close to what I think would be better solution for people like Alex Jones.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
of times on this thread alone that of course we should safeguard the election. That's a separate topic than the severity this has been made out to be.
Ask the average American about the Russian impact and they'll likely believe Trump was behind it, that we have a grievous situation on our hands and that it is the first time this kind of thing has happened.
Just to point out how dominant the story is a Media Tracker reported that the Russian election hack and/or probe has been one of the top 3 news stories on NBC 78% of the days in the past year.
Even with the shootings, natural disasters, celebrity deaths and the MeToo movement, it still was front and center the majority of the time.
The president of the United States, his senior advirsors, and his children may have accepted he aid of a foreign adversary in his election. I guess the news should lead with the white sale at Macys or an old lady who found a trout in her toilet.
He didn't say it shouldn't be covered, but a lead story 78% of the time is overkill. And beyond the subjects he mentioned you can add Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Ukraine and a whole lot more.
Quote:
In comment 14031724 mdc1 said:
Quote:
What we need right now is a house cleaning in government to remove the corruption. It is starting now.
You can't be serious with this post. Heard of Scott Pruitt? Wilbur Ross? Ryan Zinke? Tom Price?
Yes, thanks for confirming my point, although a biased response.
I'm not following. You said that a house-cleaning of government corruption is starting now, but the four extremely corrupt people I named were given cabinet positions by the current occupier of the Oval Office. Two of them are still on board, one of whom is facing a $120 million grifting scandal.
How did I confirm your point?
Before you read the story, if you haven't already, watch the video and tell me what would violate reasonable terms of service for this video? Maybe it's obvious, maybe not, even without a facebook account, I've seen much, much worse than this linked on facebook.
Banned by Facebook - ( New Window )
Before you read the story, if you haven't already, watch the video and tell me what would violate reasonable terms of service for this video? Maybe it's obvious, maybe not, even without a facebook account, I've seen much, much worse than this linked on facebook.
Banned by Facebook - ( New Window )
If she finished 2nd in the California open primary system she's not tilting at windmills. I don't have a Facebook account, but if they allow screen shots or links to the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" then denying this is a travesty.
Quote:
republican candidate for congress in CA had the linked ad banned by Facebook. I think she's got very little chance to win, but stuff like this certainly hurts. if she has to remake an entire video to circulate it.
Before you read the story, if you haven't already, watch the video and tell me what would violate reasonable terms of service for this video? Maybe it's obvious, maybe not, even without a facebook account, I've seen much, much worse than this linked on facebook.
Banned by Facebook - ( New Window )
If she finished 2nd in the California open primary system she's not tilting at windmills. I don't have a Facebook account, but if they allow screen shots or links to the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" then denying this is a travesty.
The link I posted is the youtube video. I guess she has a chance, but she's battling s 14 year incumbent Democrat in CA. that's a tall order.
Quote:
In comment 14031817 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
The link I posted is the youtube video. I guess she has a chance, but she's battling s 14 year incumbent Democrat in CA. that's a tall order.
The first 20 second is a horror show of gruesome dead bodies. Get real.
what did you expect?
I will say for the most part despite some snarkiness from most involved the thread has remained civil, people made their point, listened to others and replied. Maybe no one changed anyone's mind, maybe someone thinks about things a little differently or tries to see things from a slightly different perspective. Either way, there was no harm done in my mind.
this thread will be deleted eventually, and probably violated the sites TOS, but I think discussions like this, among people who disagree, have to happen civilly or progress definitely won't be made. To the extent people can disagree without punitive action for that disagreement the better off we are as a society.
If you want to discuss genuinely partisan stuff (which this clearly became), do it on social media. This place is best left free of it.
You can appeal a video rejection with Facebook, but Im sure she got a lot more publicity and views via the outrage route.
You can appeal a video rejection with Facebook, but Im sure she got a lot more publicity and views via the outrage route.
She appealed and was denied. I have seen much worse on Facebook.
Sticks and stones may break your bones and in today's age, words can fuck your life up worse.
I'll tell you what, I've got a daughter who I bring to Giants games, and if someone yells "fuck her in the pussy", I would hope that consequences would be severe. Otherwise, how else would these fucking idiots learn.
You are worried about these people losing their jobs for a supposed one time slip up, but for me, that should stop them right in their tracks, and hopefully that will put some fear into other knuckleheads as well.
If you want to discuss genuinely partisan stuff (which this clearly became), do it on social media. This place is best left free of it.
So once you found the content of the thread to be uncomfortable for you why didn't you just stay off the thread?
Even if Eric was 100% right to ban political threads.
I mean if the thread was deleted no one would have been surprised, but I'm always a little surprised to see grown men or women complain about content of a thread or discussion on the Internet that they don't have to view.
Quote:
republican candidate for congress in CA had the linked ad banned by Facebook. I think she's got very little chance to win, but stuff like this certainly hurts. if she has to remake an entire video to circulate it.
Before you read the story, if you haven't already, watch the video and tell me what would violate reasonable terms of service for this video? Maybe it's obvious, maybe not, even without a facebook account, I've seen much, much worse than this linked on facebook.
Banned by Facebook - ( New Window )
If she finished 2nd in the California open primary system she's not tilting at windmills. I don't have a Facebook account, but if they allow screen shots or links to the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" then denying this is a travesty.
Hang on - are you really comparing a movie and simulated violence to photos of real gore?
That should be enough to prompt you to walk away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and reconsider. These should be photos from a horror reel, not a campaign ad.
Quote:
transparently political, and partisan, with predictable people adopting predictable positions.
what did you expect?
I will say for the most part despite some snarkiness from most involved the thread has remained civil, people made their point, listened to others and replied. Maybe no one changed anyone's mind, maybe someone thinks about things a little differently or tries to see things from a slightly different perspective. Either way, there was no harm done in my mind.
this thread will be deleted eventually, and probably violated the sites TOS, but I think discussions like this, among people who disagree, have to happen civilly or progress definitely won't be made. To the extent people can disagree without punitive action for that disagreement the better off we are as a society.
That the first thing you said that I agree with in this entire post...