njbuff Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: It's always someone else's fault. Poor Trump. Such a victim all the time - thoughts and prayers big guy. But... Just curious - In 2018, did China fire Homeland Security Advisory Tom Bossart, whose job was to coordinate a response to global pandemics? Ah, you're right - that's Trump's job and of course Trump did not replace him. Just curious - In 2018, was China supposed to replace Dr. Luciana Borio when she left her job as the NSC director for Medical and Bio-defense Preparedness? NOPE - that would be TRUMP. Just curious - In 2018, did China stop funding the CDC's epidemic prevention activities in 39 out of 49 countries? NOPE - that would be TRUMP. Just curious - In 2019, was China supposed to replace Tim Ziemer, the NSC's Senior Director for Global Health Security and bio-defense? NOPE - that would be TRUMP. Just curious - did China shut down the entire Global Health and Bio-defense Agency? Ah, no? Oh, who did? TRUMP. Since 2018 - Trump absolutely destroyed our pandemic preparedness and global infrastructure. Jesus Christ you FASCISTS are so laughable. Calling me a fascist? What a disingenuous prick you are. Blame Trump all you want liking the fvcking re.tarded leftist mermaid you are, but none of this is happening whatsoever if it weren't for communist China. So spare me with your fake fvcking outrage about Trump. Start ANY conversation with holding CHINA accountable, then we can have a debate on what Trump did or didn't do. I am not supporting or sticking up for Trump. I am supplying something you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about......... facts. 1 1
B-Man Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, BillStime said: Back to the thread............ 1
reddogblitz Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, BillStime said: I'm sorry, the President of the United States shouldn't depend on SOCIAL MEDIA - a format originally designed for KIDS in college to communicate and connect - as his formal communication mechanism. Twitter should just boot the MF right from the platform. I agree. but this is a different question. And, SOCIAL MEDIA IS waaaaaaaaaaay beyond KIDS in college communicating about hot babes. Back to my question. Would you be OK in 5 years if a flaming republican gets in at Twitter and banishes Uncle Joe or whoever from the platform? Thinking "Oh, I hate Trump so whatever they do to him is OK by me", is not smart. They are setting a precedent. To think it won't be used by your opposition to beat you over the head with it in the years ahead is questionable logic at best IMHO. Nuclear option anyone? Be careful what you ask for. Edited May 28, 2020 by reddogblitz 2
BillStime Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 9 minutes ago, njbuff said: Calling me a fascist? What a disingenuous prick you are. Blame Trump all you want liking the fvcking re.tarded leftist mermaid you are, but none of this is happening whatsoever if it weren't for communist China. So spare me with your fake fvcking outrage about Trump. Start ANY conversation with holding CHINA accountable, then we can have a debate on what Trump did or didn't do. I am not supporting or sticking up for Trump. I am supplying something you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about......... facts. Oh, did I hit a nerve sunshine? I did. Good. There is NO fact in your response - all emotion; just like Trumpy. You cannot argue the fact that the US was not prepared to take this on - even though the previous administration left them a blue print. Obama should have just left a coloring book for the man child in office. 101,002 Americans are DEAD 1.7 MILLION CASES in the US 40 MILLION AMERICANS = unemployed If only Trump didn't destroy our infrastructure and ignore the COVID warnings as early as November. Keep spinning "fvcking re.tarded"
GG Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: Back to the thread............ Never mind that when the law was written in '96, Section 230 applied to the more traditional interpretation of ISPs, which are the companies that provide access (ATT, VZ Comcast, etc). The law did not consider the vast spread of social networks and that they would look to fall under the ISP umbrella, even they don't provide access. Look for this loophole to be closed as the first legislative step. 1 3
B-Man Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, BillStime said: There is NO fact in your response - all emotion; just like Trumpy. (Irony Alert) You cannot argue the fact that the US was not prepared to take this on - even though the previous administration left them a blue print. (FALSE) Obama should have just left a coloring book for the man child in office.(CHILDISH EMOTION) 101,002 Americans are DEAD 1.7 MILLION CASES in the US (Due to China Virus) 40 MILLION AMERICANS = unemployed If only Trump didn't destroy our infrastructure (False) and ignore the COVID warnings as early as November. (Proven Lie) Keep spinning "fvcking re.tarded" (Irony Alert) You make it too easy. 2 1
BillStime Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: I agree. but this is a different question. And, SOCIAL MEDIA IS waaaaaaaaaaay beyond KIDS in college communicating about hot babes. Back to my question. Would you be OK in 5 years if a flaming republican gets in at Twitter and banishes Uncle Joe or whoever from the platform? Thinking "Oh, I hate Trump so whatever they do to him is OK by me", is not smart. They are setting a precedent. To think it won't be used by your opposition to beat you over the head with it in the years ahead is questionable logic at best IMHO. Nuclear option anyone? Be careful what you ask for. Bring it. I'm not responsible for what Joe Biden or the next President does no more than I hold you responsible for Trumps actions. Second - I don't live my life defending every move anyone makes - on either side - like we see here with Trump Mafia - who can ONLY consume sugar coated Trump news. 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: You make it too easy. Sorry, what?
njbuff Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 19 minutes ago, BillStime said: Oh, did I hit a nerve sunshine? I did. Good. There is NO fact in your response - all emotion; just like Trumpy. You cannot argue the fact that the US was not prepared to take this on - even though the previous administration left them a blue print. Obama should have just left a coloring book for the man child in office. 101,002 Americans are DEAD 1.7 MILLION CASES in the US 40 MILLION AMERICANS = unemployed If only Trump didn't destroy our infrastructure and ignore the COVID warnings as early as November. Keep spinning "fvcking re.tarded" Yeah, you really have me unnerved. Peddle all the bvllshit you want. I will let the others argue with you. You hate Trump so much, just get others to support you and vote him out in November. Not much else I can say when someone is supporting a communist nation like China.
B-Man Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 President Trump To Sign Executive Order Targeting Facebook, Google, and Twitter for Blatantly Limiting Conservative Speech FTA: What Google (in particular) and Facebook and Twitter have carved out for themselves is essentially a monopoly. It is a monopoly based on the fiction that they are simply a way for people to interact when, in reality, they are operating very much to control not only the content presented on their platforms but the political context to be drawn from factual information. Because of the market dominance of those companies and their ability to damage potential competitors (how, for instance, could an alternative platform survive if they were not allowed to use Google’s internet advertising network?) it simply is not feasible to compete with them in a meaningful way. Since 2018, we’ve seen all these companies branch out from meddling in political spats and suspending people who tell newly unemployed journos to “Learn to Code,” to direct interference in the political process.. This is from my post The Story Of 8chan Shows Why There Is No Alternative To the Leftwing Social Media Giants: A prime example of this is the decision by Twitter to suspend the Twitter account of Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign for encouraging violence when it tweeted a video of leftwing wackos, at least one of which appeared to be very chummy with Elizabeth “Ol’ 1/1024” Warren, at McConnell’s home shouting obscenities and threats of physical harm. This behavior is not new. During the 2018 campaign, Facebook pulled ads by Elizabeth Heng because she made reference to the fact that her parents had escaped from the Khmer Rouge genocide. Had a radio or television station done this, they would have been in violation of federal election law. In the case of President Trump’s tweet, he stated his opinion that mail in ballots were more susceptible to fraud than in-person voting. You can disagree with it (and reveal yourself to be an ignorant ass) if you wish, what you can’t do is fact check someone’s opinion. And all sane people know why they did this. They did it try to damage Trump politically. How does this play out? This order does not take place in a vacuum. Many Republican senators, particularly Missouri’s Josh Hawley, have been chomping at the bit for the chance to go after the social media monopolies because of their obvious hostility to free speech and their willingness to blatantly lie during Congressional testimony. Ordering the FCC to engage in rulemaking to define what Section 230 actually means sounds like a good step. The argument that this limits free speech is simply bizarre. And some of the numbskullery that it created is mindboggling: {snip} Section 230 has zero to do with the Constitution and under the Administrative Procedures Act the federal government is 100% free to define exactly how this part of the law will be interpreted. The First Amendment is also what allows people, including the President, to say whatever they wish without their words being forced to carry a disclaimer imposed by some goober in skinny jeans. By the way, isn’t Ed Buck’s buddy one of the guys who always lose their sh** whenever Citizens United is mentioned…the case that held that corporations do have free speech rights? Whatever happens here, it is headed to court. And the current Supreme Court is much more likely to be attuned to the just how Twitter denying you access is very, very different from a billboard company refusing to sell you space or your local newspaper not running your letter to the editor. What is much more likely, given that anti-trust investigations of Google and Facebook are underway by the Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general, is that we see some behavior shifts as the management of those companies are waking up to the fact that the SJWs they’ve hired to police content are making them unnecessarily vulnerable to some very unpleasant consequences. 1 1
BillStime Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 1 minute ago, njbuff said: Yeah, you really have me unnerved. Peddle all the bvllshit you want. I will let the others argue with you. You hate Trump so much, just get others to support you and vote him out in November. Not much else I can say when someone is supporting a communist nation like China. Have a nice day!
njbuff Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, BillStime said: Have a nice day! I will if you shut the fvck up. ? Just kidding 1
BillStime Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, njbuff said: I will if you shut the fvck up. ? Just kidding lmao - I still like you as a Bills fan - lmao 1
reddogblitz Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, BillStime said: Bring it. I'm not responsible for what Joe Biden or the next President does no more than I hold you responsible for Trumps actions. Second - I don't live my life defending every move anyone makes - on either side - like we see here with Trump Mafia - who can ONLY consume sugar coated Trump news. So I take it you ARE OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiters of truth and decency for the rest of us? I hope they don't Bring it. I don't like Uncle Joe or Trump but still think that Jack or Mark deciding what future presidents say that is safe for people to read or not. I think a better solution is to let it be a free for all. Anything and everything is permitted. Develop filtering technology that will allow you to filter out the crap you don't want. Edited May 28, 2020 by reddogblitz
BillStime Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 1 minute ago, reddogblitz said: So I take it you ARE OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiters of truth and decency for the rest of us? I hope they don't Bring it. I don't like Uncle Joe or Trump but still think that Jack or Mark deciding what future presidents say that is safe for people to read or not. I think a better solution is to let it be a free for all. Anything and everything is permitted. Develop filtering technology that will allow you to filter out the crap you don't want. The solution is simple - bounce ALL politicians from SOCIAL MEDIA. 1
njbuff Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, BillStime said: lmao - I still like you as a Bills fan - lmao Isn't that really the reason any of us are on this message board? In all honesty, I admit I have no fvcking idea what I am talking about politically, but my brain has endless miles of useless Bills knowledge. And Devils hockey too. If I wanna talk politics, I would be better off trying to squeeze a third nipple. 1
Doc Brown Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 3 hours ago, Magox said: I wouldn't trust them to do it on their own. If they could have a regulated entity that is approved by congress to conduct the fact checks, details on what is and isn't censored and how the algorithmic search and display functionalities are conducted (which I would argue is even more important than the fact checking/censoring), then I'd be ok with it. I don't trust the media nor big tech to conduct this. While we are at it, I think the media needs to be regulated. I read a really good article the other day in the WSJ from ex CBS chief Van Gordon Sauter which I highly recommend that people read. He goes on to make the case not just that the media has made a huge leftward lurch especially now in the age of "resistance journalism" under Trump, where the mask has completely been taken off, but that the journalistic model is driven by finances as opposed to just giving straight news. I've lamented over this for years on this board, that today's news is driven by affirmation bias. People want to get their news where it comports with their pre existing held views. If news organizations begin to start moving away from this, they will lose viewers, at least that's their calculation. So the financial motive is to continue to keep providing what their base viewers want to digest. And now in the age of Twitter, these so-called journalists want to become Twitter rock stars and the more gotcha moments they can provide for their followers, the larger their followings, likes and retweets they will get. Which helps their careers out. At least so they believe. I don't really trust Congress to do it either. Who appoints these regulators and what guarantees they can remain politically neutral? 1
Magox Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I don't really trust Congress to do it either. Who appoints these regulators and what guarantees they can remain politically neutral? No guarantee’s but at least there would be oversight. And a more conscience entity that could lead to a better product. And if not congress, then who? Congress represents the people (Am I gonna get fact checked by One of the resident libertarians?) And I think it’s appropriate that Congress is involved in the oversight because that would mean there would be accountability via the ballot box.
reddogblitz Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Magox said: And if not congress, then who? Congress represents the people (Am I gonna get fact checked by One of the resident libertarians?) And I think it’s appropriate that Congress is involved in the oversight because that would mean there would be accountability via the ballot box. Why does anyone? Use common sense on when things sound too outlandish to be true. Couple that with filtering technology to allow you to filter out the crap you don't want. Then it's up the consumer to determine what is true or not as opposed to someone spoon feeding to them what is true. That's a lot of power to give to anyone.
Warren Zevon Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 34 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: So I take it you ARE OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiters of truth and decency for the rest of us? I hope they don't Bring it. I don't like Uncle Joe or Trump but still think that Jack or Mark deciding what future presidents say that is safe for people to read or not. I think a better solution is to let it be a free for all. Anything and everything is permitted. Develop filtering technology that will allow you to filter out the crap you don't want. Facts don't change when someone else is in charge. What Trump said was not factual - period. As far as Mark Zuckerberg, he changed his tune today. He's on your side. 1 1
Recommended Posts