How many outlets recommend you reach out to them on twitter or Facebook? Why don’t they have other means of reach? In many cases twitter and Facebook are the only means of communication for certain types of interactions. I can’t reach out to Jack Dorsey on T-nation. I cannot counter an MSNBC article on T-nation. This is a forum, those are primary means of communication and they dominate the space.
You could have said the same thing about Standard Oil. There were other oil companies, but they could not compete against the behemoth that was Standard Oil. Similarly, no other communication platforms can legitimately compete with twitter and Facebook. They are monopolies and need to be antitrust-ed.
1 Like
That’s a good point, but I’ll bet you’re 100% convinced.
I am not 100% convinced of anything (well I am a 100% convinced I exist, but that is it).
Don’t know. I don’t have either of them, so I probably don’t pay attention.
I’ve accessed things just fine with my google account.
I haven’t come across this yet. Google sign in has worked for everything I do.
I’ve seen you try though. Just joking here Pat.
You couldn’t, because Standard Oil had control of the rail ways (at least a huge majority of them) and the only pipeline. If Facebook and Twitter owned the internet, then it would be a fair comparison.
I’d have just never guessed you are an opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What makes you say that?
Alrighty. Was just trying to get a feel for how and where you extend the sentiment you had expressed.
My opinion on the matter is social media sites shouldn’t do much censoring, bakers should just make everyone a cake if they want to buy one, and that we should include birth control in company insurance plans (it lowers abortion procedures after all). That opinion is separate from what I think people’s rights are.
1 Like
What makes me say that I’d have never guessed you oppose it? There probably aren’t a whole lot of folks with some of your other views that also oppose it.
What makes you think I oppose it?
This is a story of actual good journalism. Go Wolf!
Now, it’s obvious that Queen Nancy is holding up the bill 'til after the election to hurt Trump. She made that absolutely clear. I am impressed that Wolf actually held her feet to the fire for once. And she could not handle it. She wasn’t there to get asked questions, she was there to receive praise and slam Trump.
It reminds me of another video. This is the translation of what Pelosi is actually saying:
1 Like
I guess you may just be saying that you think there’s a 1% chance they can do as they please, so I’m not necessarily surprised.
Hmm, I am not familiar with all the wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I am opposed to having required quotas of certain demographics. Does that make me against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It is possible to be in support of some parts of a bill, and not others too.
Edit: I looked into it a bit more. The thing about that bill, is it is basically unenforceable anyways. A private company can almost always find a way to not hire someone for reasons other than for: sex, religion, race, color, sexual orientation, even if that is the reason they don’t want to hire them. Basically, it is a nice law that makes many people feel good, but doesn’t really do much.
To conclude, I support the bill, but recognize that it is mostly unenforceable (the ones getting caught are for the most part very stupid). I support it as a way of saying that I think it would be nice if people didn’t discriminate. At the same time I realize that the bill can’t work. For it to work it would have to force people to not be bigots, and I don’t think we should have thought crimes.
I am all for people suing when a company is stupid enough to document that they didn’t hire someone because they were an Eskimo, lesbian, atheist. I am not inconsistent here. See this quote.
That’s because it’s not even remotely true.
I am not even on social media. This is as close as I get. It’s not me they have to worry about.
They just suspended the Trump Campaign’s twitter feed and Kayleigh McEnany, the WH Press Secretary, because of the NY Post story. They are playing with fire and they are meddling in the election, actively. You don’t think they are about to head to court very shortly?
Here some proof:
The masks are off. This is digital warfare. And this affects all of us, not just the president. They suspended the Trump Campaign account because it linked to a old and famous news organization in the NY Post. No where the size of the NYT, but still it’s like Coke and Pepsi, with the Post being Pepsi. Not as big, but still huge and storied.
If they can suspend a presidential campaign, who did not even break any rules what can they do to you?
Not Kayleigh. They have crossed the line with that.
In all seriousness, if they become publisher and not a user content provider (social media), wouldn’t they be allowed to have almost any content outside of libel, slander, pornography, etc.? Would it be illegal for Facebook to only publish views consistent with BLM?
I am not saying this is the right thing to do, but can they do it legally? I am actually asking here.
I don’t really know. These companies have had to testify before congress before, and it doesn’t really seem to change much. I think their big risk is losing customers.
It is my opinion that a matter like this can be handled by the market. They do something a good portion of the population doesn’t like, that portion of the population should stop using the platform. I bet that gets them to do a 180 on censoring pretty quickly.
Only the portion on their platforms.
1 Like
Oops
2 Likes
They are monopolies, the only thing stopping full control of the flow of information is Google isn’t in on it. Add Google and it’s China and Google ain’t the cleanskin it once was.
And fuck these assholes for making me sound like a conspiracy theorists. LOL
1 Like