OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 18, 2019 21:14:48 GMT -6
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 18, 2019 21:19:48 GMT -6
Yup
|
|
poiple
Drengr (837)
Sep 12, 2018
Valhalla
|
Post by poiple on Mar 18, 2019 21:23:04 GMT -6
I don’t know what the answer is with social media companies or for the other media.
A free press is vital to our democracy and as such it enjoys wide latitude and privileges. But the press isn’t free anymore. It’s now used as a propaganda arm for whatever flavor billionaire owns it and they use it to further their empire, not for the good of the citizenry.
I think it’s time to break up and regulate these outlets. If you want to own a media company you don’t get to own anything else? It doesn’t sound workable but I don’t know what another solution would be.
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 18, 2019 21:28:59 GMT -6
I don’t know what the answer is with social media companies or for the other media. A free press is vital to our democracy and as such it enjoys wide latitude and privileges. But the press isn’t free anymore. It’s now used as a propaganda arm for whatever flavor billionaire owns it and they use it to further their empire, not for the good of the citizenry. I think it’s time to break up and regulate these outlets. If you want to own a media company you don’t get to own anything else? It doesn’t sound workable but I don’t know what another solution would be. Agree it might be time since they weaponized them. Thing is Nunes and right are not asking for censorship they are asking for less. Their point is that Twitter is not applying rules equally and they will win. Discovery is gonna be fun.
|
|
|
Post by nodakviking on Mar 18, 2019 23:22:36 GMT -6
I don’t know what the answer is with social media companies or for the other media. A free press is vital to our democracy and as such it enjoys wide latitude and privileges. But the press isn’t free anymore. It’s now used as a propaganda arm for whatever flavor billionaire owns it and they use it to further their empire, not for the good of the citizenry. I think it’s time to break up and regulate these outlets. If you want to own a media company you don’t get to own anything else? It doesn’t sound workable but I don’t know what another solution would be. I agree with breaking them up but disagree with regulating them. There should be more stringent restrictions on mergers and acquisitions going forward. Every time anybody develops anything to challenge google or Facebook they are bought up. Regulating them just means putting more politicians and bureaucrats in charge and we know how that ends-bribes, payoffs, donations, kick backs etc, etc, etc,.... The more options people have the more self regulating they have to be for broad appeal.
|
|
|
Post by nodakviking on Mar 18, 2019 23:33:22 GMT -6
No it wasn't ever corroborated when it was released. It was a "please God, let this be true" story your side ran with. The FBI knew it was a fake and they still gave it legs. You're going to sit here and tell me there's not bias or that your side's bias isn't dangerous when they carried water for Hillary? The news spent an eternity talking about Trump pissing on a bed with whores which wasn't backed up with ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL while ignoring Hilary destroying evidence and using her charity to fund campaigns illegally. You look at Obama and his connection prior to running for office. Look at the church he was attending. Can you honestly say that if a conservative had all those shady individuals in his past that the media would ignore that and focus on his opponents VP's IQ instead?
Come on man, you can disagree on policy, but you are not helping your credibility if you can't even acknowledge the points made about this liberal bias.
Again, stop with the fox....you realize we get our news for a ton of other sources? Of course you would all mock those right? You also realize many of our sources like Red State for example backed people that were not the conservatives first choice for president? That's just an example. Don't make this about a referendum on Fox, I'm not going to defend them or their credibility. I"m sure you will find bias on that channel, but as I said, that bias is far less harmful than censoring and entire side of the political spectrum.
Lol, the media controls Trump? Here I thought is was the Russians, or was it martians with a fisting fetish that pull the strings? Which boogyman is it today?
That guy went after many conservatives in the media when running. He's the last one you could say is controlled. BTW, which person could be more detrimental to the country while working for the president: A former fox news employee, or communist....cough cough...Valerie Jarrett...cough cough
Lol you voted us into nothing, we won because the people wised up.
How did a president who had the lowest GDP for his entire post war presidency save us? How did a president with the lowest employment rate for minorities help us? How did the president who had the slowest economic recovery save the country?
A weakened dollar, lost gains in the mideast, a wreaked Libya and a failed healthcare progame are his legacy. Oh wait, he did see to it that gays can get married and illegals can go to college so I guess he has something to his credit.
All that being said, I'm not going to pretend the GOP has done a swell job every time they've had power. For one, the party is run by those who've adopted failed liberal polices. It's also not easy to fix the damage done by liberalism over an entire century in a 4 year presidential term.
As far as Clinton's legacy, you can thank Newt and Dick Morris for that one. Had they not won, Billy would've been governing way differently. He was just smart enough to see that the country wasn't as liberal as he was.
I will also pose this question to you. What MSM network had even one media personality appear with any candidate or representative on stage with them? I know ONE president had 2 TV media/news organization personalities appear with them on stage. Care to answer who that was and what network those TV personalities worked for? I am guessing you won't choose to address this. I'm not seeing your point. Maybe the question in unclear. You have a problem with Hannity and someone else from Fox. I'm not sure of the relevance but at least don't obfuscate when asking for an equivalent. I prefer they make their allegiances known rather than selling themselves as journalists with no agenda... theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 19, 2019 6:57:30 GMT -6
Whatever left accuses anyone of means they are doing it: We see it time and time and time and time again...
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 19, 2019 7:05:52 GMT -6
I don’t know what the answer is with social media companies or for the other media. A free press is vital to our democracy and as such it enjoys wide latitude and privileges. But the press isn’t free anymore. It’s now used as a propaganda arm for whatever flavor billionaire owns it and they use it to further their empire, not for the good of the citizenry. I think it’s time to break up and regulate these outlets. If you want to own a media company you don’t get to own anything else? It doesn’t sound workable but I don’t know what another solution would be. Break up, yes. Regulate, no. Regulation would be unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. It would be nice to find a way for them to self regulate, but even that seems problematic. I don't know what the answer is either but at the rate we are going the only foreseeable outcome is an end of the U.S.A. as we know it.
|
|
JimmyinSD
Thegn (2,889)
Jun 29, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by JimmyinSD on Mar 19, 2019 7:31:42 GMT -6
I don’t know what the answer is with social media companies or for the other media. A free press is vital to our democracy and as such it enjoys wide latitude and privileges. But the press isn’t free anymore. It’s now used as a propaganda arm for whatever flavor billionaire owns it and they use it to further their empire, not for the good of the citizenry. I think it’s time to break up and regulate these outlets. If you want to own a media company you don’t get to own anything else? It doesn’t sound workable but I don’t know what another solution would be. Break up, yes. Regulate, no. Regulation would be unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. It would be nice to find a way for them to self regulate, but even that seems problematic. I don't know what the answer is either but at the rate we are going the only foreseeable outcome is an end of the U.S.A. as we know it. what publicly controlled medium of exchange is twitter not playing nice with? people dont want the govt involved with the net, i would put twitter as internet type entity and as long as they arent yelling fire in a crowded theater I dont see why they cant censor the content exchanged on their medium. if we had assholes come in here and bashing the Vikings non stop...(oh wait, bad example) but you get my meaning, they dont get any public funding... they are just a private medium that is made avaialable to the general public but I am sure when yall signed up it is very clearly stated that they control the content of their forum. they arent a phone company with its cable running through public right of ways free of charge, they arent using FCC controlled frequencies (not directly anyway). there should be no breaking up or regulation talk, not in a free country anyway. I dont like what they are doing, but I wouldnt want the govt coming into my brick and mortar store and telling me that I have to cater to people I dont want to (i dont agree with a lot of shit that is already done to private businesses) if conservatives dont like how they are being treated by twitter.... then use or start something different, dont act like a liberal and get all butt hurt and try and force them to bend to your whims.... take your ball, and your wallet, and go home. 2 reasons I dont use most social media like twitter... the lack of social skills displayed on most forums/apps/sites/etc, and the fact that I am supporting something/people that doesnt carry my personal views...if twitter is run by wealthy liberals... and those wealthy liberals are the core of the funding those efforts to take away a conservative position in our country... why in the hell would I fight to be able to support them?
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 19, 2019 7:51:43 GMT -6
Break up, yes. Regulate, no. Regulation would be unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. It would be nice to find a way for them to self regulate, but even that seems problematic. I don't know what the answer is either but at the rate we are going the only foreseeable outcome is an end of the U.S.A. as we know it. what publicly controlled medium of exchange is twitter not playing nice with? people dont want the govt involved with the net, i would put twitter as internet type entity and as long as they arent yelling fire in a crowded theater I dont see why they cant censor the content exchanged on their medium. if we had assholes come in here and bashing the Vikings non stop...(oh wait, bad example) but you get my meaning, they dont get any public funding... they are just a private medium that is made avaialable to the general public but I am sure when yall signed up it is very clearly stated that they control the content of their forum. they arent a phone company with its cable running through public right of ways free of charge, they arent using FCC controlled frequencies (not directly anyway). there should be no breaking up or regulation talk, not in a free country anyway. I dont like what they are doing, but I wouldnt want the govt coming into my brick and mortar store and telling me that I have to cater to people I dont want to (i dont agree with a lot of shit that is already done to private businesses) if conservatives dont like how they are being treated by twitter.... then use or start something different, dont act like a liberal and get all butt hurt and try and force them to bend to your whims.... take your ball, and your wallet, and go home. 2 reasons I dont use most social media like twitter... the lack of social skills displayed on most forums/apps/sites/etc, and the fact that I am supporting something/people that doesnt carry my personal views...if twitter is run by wealthy liberals... and those wealthy liberals are the core of the funding those efforts to take away a conservative position in our country... why in the hell would I fight to be able to support them? It's tough to disagree with what you say but I think the reason they are now finding themselves in a legal bind is they are not enforcing their own terms and agreements equally. "learn to code" is a ban-able offense but "I'd love to punch that kid (a minor) in the face" isn't. And on and on and on. The conservative stuff they ban is not even provided a reason. One reason to support the lawsuits is at the very least it brings attention to the despicable behavior.
|
|
JimmyinSD
Thegn (2,889)
Jun 29, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by JimmyinSD on Mar 19, 2019 8:04:11 GMT -6
what publicly controlled medium of exchange is twitter not playing nice with? people dont want the govt involved with the net, i would put twitter as internet type entity and as long as they arent yelling fire in a crowded theater I dont see why they cant censor the content exchanged on their medium. if we had assholes come in here and bashing the Vikings non stop...(oh wait, bad example) but you get my meaning, they dont get any public funding... they are just a private medium that is made avaialable to the general public but I am sure when yall signed up it is very clearly stated that they control the content of their forum. they arent a phone company with its cable running through public right of ways free of charge, they arent using FCC controlled frequencies (not directly anyway). there should be no breaking up or regulation talk, not in a free country anyway. I dont like what they are doing, but I wouldnt want the govt coming into my brick and mortar store and telling me that I have to cater to people I dont want to (i dont agree with a lot of shit that is already done to private businesses) if conservatives dont like how they are being treated by twitter.... then use or start something different, dont act like a liberal and get all butt hurt and try and force them to bend to your whims.... take your ball, and your wallet, and go home. 2 reasons I dont use most social media like twitter... the lack of social skills displayed on most forums/apps/sites/etc, and the fact that I am supporting something/people that doesnt carry my personal views...if twitter is run by wealthy liberals... and those wealthy liberals are the core of the funding those efforts to take away a conservative position in our country... why in the hell would I fight to be able to support them? It's tough to disagree with what you say but I think the reason they are now finding themselves in a legal bind is they are not enforcing their own terms and agreements equally. "learn to code" is a ban-able offense but "I'd love to punch that kid (a minor) in the face" isn't. And on and on and on. The conservative stuff they ban is not even provided a reason. One reason to support the lawsuits is at the very least it brings attention to the despicable behavior. the thing is... just like i mentioned before.. conservatives wanting twitter to treat everybody the same is exactly the same as liberals wanting to tell the baker that they have to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. these are private businesses and they should be allowed to run them the way they choose. let the consumer decide if they are just or not, keep the govt the fuck out IMO and with legal challenges to private enterprise that is just inviting the govt in by setting legal precedents that will be bent and torutured to fit future liberal positions. we all lose.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 19, 2019 8:10:51 GMT -6
It's tough to disagree with what you say but I think the reason they are now finding themselves in a legal bind is they are not enforcing their own terms and agreements equally. "learn to code" is a ban-able offense but "I'd love to punch that kid (a minor) in the face" isn't. And on and on and on. The conservative stuff they ban is not even provided a reason. One reason to support the lawsuits is at the very least it brings attention to the despicable behavior. the thing is... just like i mentioned before.. conservatives wanting twitter to treat everybody the same is exactly the same as liberals wanting to tell the baker that they have to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. these are private businesses and they should be allowed to run them the way they choose. let the consumer decide if they are just or not, keep the govt the fuck out IMO and with legal challenges to private enterprise that is just inviting the govt in by setting legal precedents that will be bent and torutured to fit future liberal positions. we all lose. I get it but it's not the best analogy either. We have a right to free speech but not cakes. Plus, it is MUCH easier to find another baker than it is another social platform.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 19, 2019 8:16:50 GMT -6
Free speech is FUNDAMENTAL to the success of this country. The constitution forbids congress from restricting free speech but it is a long held tradition that the protection extends beyond congress. As that tradition erodes, so erodes the country.
|
|
|
Post by nodakviking on Mar 19, 2019 8:20:21 GMT -6
Break up, yes. Regulate, no. Regulation would be unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. It would be nice to find a way for them to self regulate, but even that seems problematic. I don't know what the answer is either but at the rate we are going the only foreseeable outcome is an end of the U.S.A. as we know it. what publicly controlled medium of exchange is twitter not playing nice with? people dont want the govt involved with the net, i would put twitter as internet type entity and as long as they arent yelling fire in a crowded theater I dont see why they cant censor the content exchanged on their medium. if we had assholes come in here and bashing the Vikings non stop...(oh wait, bad example) but you get my meaning, they dont get any public funding... they are just a private medium that is made avaialable to the general public but I am sure when yall signed up it is very clearly stated that they control the content of their forum. they arent a phone company with its cable running through public right of ways free of charge, they arent using FCC controlled frequencies (not directly anyway). there should be no breaking up or regulation talk, not in a free country anyway. I dont like what they are doing, but I wouldnt want the govt coming into my brick and mortar store and telling me that I have to cater to people I dont want to (i dont agree with a lot of shit that is already done to private businesses) if conservatives dont like how they are being treated by twitter.... then use or start something different, dont act like a liberal and get all butt hurt and try and force them to bend to your whims.... take your ball, and your wallet, and go home. 2 reasons I dont use most social media like twitter... the lack of social skills displayed on most forums/apps/sites/etc, and the fact that I am supporting something/people that doesnt carry my personal views...if twitter is run by wealthy liberals... and those wealthy liberals are the core of the funding those efforts to take away a conservative position in our country... why in the hell would I fight to be able to support them? I think that is why they have to tighten up the regulations on mergers and acquisitions. It' like Rockefeller and Carnegie owning so much of industry. They can buy out or strangle any potential competition or options consumers might potentially get. It' funny how similar times are to when Teddy Roosevelt went after Tameny Hall and the Monopolies and went about finishing the Panama Canal. And they do use public utilities, my internet is delivered over the cable systems which run through the same right of ways and infrastructure as the phone lines and other utilities. The problem comes when they claim they aren't a 'publisher' subject to laws like libel and such but then they edit content. If you are editing content you are a publisher.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 19, 2019 8:25:11 GMT -6
These are tricky waters, no doubt about it. Times are changing and how to handle these new technologies needs to be discussed. Free expression is even more important in times like these.
Bottom line is the left has shown no ability to debate the issues. Instead they work to shut down the discussion.
|
|