REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have finally banned blocked censored Infowars' Alex Jones ?

POSTED BY: JAYNEZTOWN
UPDATED: Monday, May 20, 2019 04:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1356
PAGE 1 of 2

Monday, August 6, 2018 1:01 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 6, 2018 1:20 PM

JAYNEZTOWN



These days you would have to be living under a rock to not know who this Alex Jones 'infowars' character is.... for those of you who don't do interwebs and watch a lot of tv, he begins in Texas in the 90s a kind of doomsday gun nut talking of end of the world stuff and global conspiracy, he might be the ranting doomsday preacher you see on mainstream tv once in a while...if Alex Jones appeared on normal tv he is a kind of conspiracy person who would make normies say 'Who the F-ck Was That'?

I was mostly introduced to infowars by a crazy firefly fan here called PirateNews. This PirateNews dude still posts here sometimes, very much a conspiracy 911 'truther' guy who tried running his own station in TN, you would come across Pirate News posts questioning main stream news, he talked about his experience in life, his time in England and talked of cars, he would say CNN, Fox, BBC and all these reports were fake...I think John at PirateNews also posted around the webs as PirateNews on old school conspiracy forums and bulletin boards like prisonplanet and the david icke forums.

I often called out Pirate News, I called him crazy, a conspiracy nut, insane etc However what PirateNews did was in a ways kind of 'free' or 'brave' or crazy 'patriotic' or just plain conspiracy crazy like some end of the world preacher apocalypse dude you forgot to take his meds? i'm not sure what to describe it and the conspiracy webbs. This was at a time when George Bush Jnr, George W. Bush 43rd President of the United States went aroun saying You are Either With Us or With the Terrorists, he passed the Patriot Act and lied saying Saddam had WMDs and was responsible for 911. Very few of us took PirateNews serious he was this crazy ranting rambling guy.

Looking back on things I realize PirateNews did not always get it wrong, sometimes some of his 'conspiracy' came out true and even if only say 10% or 15% was true, then it was a scary thing. Could world governments be that criminal incompetant and corrupt?

Guys like Pirate News I feel were getting their info and conspiracy from the more free, anarchy, blogs of conspiracies and Alex Jones Info Wars parts of the interwebs

Pirate News is mostly gone...last I heard from him when he was coherant he was in some kind of paranoia and panic with the Law maybe? His media seems to be mostly shut down....nobody here really spoke for PirateNews when he was in trouble he was just some bothersome annoying loud preacher to many of us

Now 'they' who ever they is, they these elites seem to actually exist.... have gone for the Big Guys batshit crazy radio shock-jock Alex Jones himself

infowars, Alex Jones was probably the number 1 guy in the alternative Anti-media guys, a big powerful alt-media and conspiracy pusher, talked about wars, and poison in the water and air and food, fake wars and elite bloodlines and banks, you name it he talked of it with his shows drawing millions of views daily

Most of the time Alex never really found "proof" but in a free society like America he did start digging and he woudl find stuff that would make you question the official mainstream media narrative

Alex Jones he ranted against the media and elites for years said their were weird molestations and rape in hollywood and went as far as to say Devil worshiping pedophiles basically run 'the New World Order'.

Alex Jones would also say MLK, John Lenon, Princess Diana, JFK were all murdered to cover up what they knew about the New World Order, or because they were going to stop the weird secret society of globalist internatinalist elites

He recently went kind of hippie with his foods saying to take natural meds and avoid all the Fluoride in water, toxic medical stuff etc

If mainstream media f-cked up and he basically became an alternate reality twilight zone outer limits version of the news
Or is it possible the Leftwingers and Neo-Liberal tech companies have censored all alt media, conspiracy and conservative voices out of existince?

Alex Jones seemed to be kind of a gun nut maybe in a ways he was pro-American

He would also rant a lot about the FEMA concentration camps. Facebook now deleted 4 pages belonging to Alex Jones and InfoWars

There is also a lawsuit brought by parents of victims in the Sandy Hook school shooting, many big events and attacks Alex Jones blames as false, or CGI or UFO lizard laiens or staged or false flags or something?

He had plenty of failed predictions, he was a doomsday preacher, they say he pushed the recent Hollywood panic and the #Pizzagate conspiracy

Alex Jones has now been silenced from the interwebs

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 12, 2018 10:28 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Our Pro Censorship Dem-Bots here should watch this.

It features Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore who are both liberals. Jimmy Dore actually spit on Alex Jones several years ago on camera too.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Alex Jones isn't the only one who's been banned or shadow-banned. There seems to be a big uptick in censorship activity by FB, Twitter, YouTube etc prior to the November elections. People who may become unavailable are those like Dave of X22, London Paul, SGT report, Gerald Celente, Harley Schlanger, Jim Willie (Goldenjackass), Tom Luongo, The Saker, etc.

Some of these people are really smart; they all provide a unique perspective and quite often I hear things that put some puzzle pieces together. (And then on occasion they'll take a big flying leap into chemtrails or something.)

For example, I was just listening to Tom Luongo and his take on what's happening with Turkey. I thought this was particularly trenchant.



The best family-life example I can think of is a bad divorce: Both partners (USA and Turkey) want out of the marriage (NATO/dollar). The more powerful of the partners may have even tried to kill the other ... details are murky. They are BOTH looking to escalate into crisis whatever differences they may have. But coming to that point of actual dissolution is difficult, as each seeks greatest advantage out of the divorce, to divide up friends, and to pin the blame on the other. So altho a breakup is certain, it may be delayed.

Some of the more conspiracy-minded bloggers like Dave X22 believe that this clamp-down of alternate media precedes a major "false flag" engineered by the deep state prior to the elections, and that the deep state simply doesn't want any alternate information pathways to exist.

I personally think that the commercial internet enterprises like Google/YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter. Microsoft etc have their own globalist interests at heart and that they're enmeshed with our deep state ... nothing specific going one, but just pre-election/ Mueller investigation news-management, so that nothing like the Hillary debacle happens again.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Cooperate Or Die: In Private Meeting, Top Facebook Exec Threatened News Outlets

During a closed-door and off-the-record meeting last week, top Facebook executive Campbell Brown reportedly warned news publishers that refusal to cooperate with the tech behemoth's efforts to "revitalize journalism" will leave media outlets dying "like in a hospice."

Reported first by The Australian under a headline which read "Work With Facebook or Die: Zuckerberg," the social media giant has insisted the comments were taken out of context, even as five individuals who attended the four-hour meeting corroborated what Brown had stated.

"Mark doesn't care about publishers but is giving me a lot of leeway and concessions to make these changes," Brown reportedly said, referring to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. "We will help you revitalize journalism... in a few years the reverse looks like I'll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice."

As The Guardian reported on Monday, Facebook is "vehemently" denying the veracity of the comments as reported by The Australian, referring to its own transcript of the meeting. However, Facebook is refusing to release its transcript and tape of the gathering.

Brown's warning about the dire prospects for news outlets that don't get on board with a future in which corporate giants like Facebook are the arbiters of what is and isn't trustworthy news comes as progressives are raising alarm that Facebook's entrance into the world of journalism poses a major threat to non-corporate and left-wing news outlets.

As Common Dreams reported in July, progressives' fears were partly confirmed after Facebook unveiled its first slate of news "segments" as part of its Facebook Watch initiative.

While Facebook claims its initiative is part of an effort to combat "misinformation," its first series of segments were dominated by such corporate outlets as Fox News and CNN.

Reacting to Brown's reported assertion that Zuckerberg "doesn't care about publishers," Judd Legum, who writes the Popular Information newsletter, argued, "Anyone who does care about news needs to understand Facebook as a fundamental threat."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-14/cooperate-or-die-private-mee
ting-top-facebook-exec-threatened-news-outlets


The internet behemoths also threaten progressive and left-wing sources as well. Something that liberals might want to take into account.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:11 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


you know what is amazing, if youtube, facebook whatever censor, block, ban ....you will still find clips where people talk about Jones and infowars, conspiracy, whatever

there will still be an internet

Bill Maher shuts down cheers for Alex Jones ban: 'Everybody gets to speak'
https://www.real.video/5826012087001


https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=ryD-TdkRnGc

https://peertube.video/videos/watch/388e9d00-8b67-4721-92ce-512c767026
db


https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/879189660931325952
InFoWaRs


Isaac Kappy
https://www.pscp.tv

daily motion news
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28md2y

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WzDRQ9nm-vY/

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=YjV5_1533791979

that said I think infowars always was paranoid pirate news level bullshit

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2019 12:02 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Paul Joseph Watson banned, will the truther type be outcast will they be left to roaming 4Chan, Liveleak, Gab or the Darkweb?
https://invidio.us/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8 Facebook bans an Alex Jones channel, Milo Yiannopoulos and other far-right figures - anti-Muslim figurehead Laura Loomer and Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam group, Paul Joseph Watson now BANNED BY FACEBOOK & INSTAGRAM

With Decrease of Internet Privacy and Censorship, Decentralization May Be The Cure
https://beincrypto.com/the-internet-is-sick-and-blockchain-may-be-the-
cure/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=blockchain&utm_content=sne



Clown world goes mainstream?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3730320/posts
"Girls" Track Final Sprinter Champs: 3 out of 4 are TRANNIES ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2019 1:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"never let a good crisis go to waste"

The whole "Russian hacking" story, which will turn out to be a complete psyops, terror attacks, etc are all being used to strangle free speech on the excuse that we need to be "protected" from "propaganda".

Despite the fact that many of these event will turn out as having been fabricated or paid for by our "seccurity state", the strangling of free speech will not be reversed unless the FCC requires it.

This is one of those trends moving in the background that needs serious activism, not "Trump colluded* with Russia".

But liberaloids don't care about free speech, only that they get to control it. They will scream "fascist" all day long, all the while promoting fascism. (And yes, I mean the corporate/authoritarian-government-meld kind of fascism.)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 5, 2019 1:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, is there anywhere a list of who has been deplatformed/ banned/ shadowbanned?

I know that Alex Jones has. I would listen to him now and again, and he'd go off the rails with his "lizard people" rant, but OTOH he sometimes reported true events or trends that nobody else would. In my view, he was a person to (mostly) ignore, but he didn't break any of rules about hate speech or libel, so ...?

Paul Joseph Watson. I used to listen to him more frequently than Alex Jones; having heard something like a dozen of his opinions I think I have a pretty good sampling of what he posted. He would skewer some of the liberaloid trends like sexualized art, or the banning of Yani, but aside from being ascerbic and funny, I see no reason whatsover to deplatform him.

James Woods, banned from Twitter. I think I've seen a tweet or two of his; I thought they were pretty tame stuff. Did he post hate speech or defame people or incite violence or threaten anyone?

Who else?

The news comes out in dribs and drabs ... creeping censorship by the tech giants. What is the full scope?

And then, if they're banning on content (and not because people are violating laws like making threats and incitement to violence or defamation) doesn't that make these platforms "publishers", with all of the responsibility that that implies?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 4:37 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Alex Jones has now been silenced from the interwebs



Simply not true. His infowars web site still ranks pretty high for traffic volume in the US. He is free to say whatever he wants there, just not on someone else’s dime.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 4:39 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, is there anywhere a list of who has been deplatformed/ banned/ shadowbanned?

I know that Alex Jones has. I would listen to him now and again, and he'd go off the rails with his "lizard people" rant, but OTOH he sometimes reported true events or trends that nobody else would. In my view, he was a person to (mostly) ignore, but he didn't break any of rules about hate speech or libel, so ...?

Paul Joseph Watson. I used to listen to him more frequently than Alex Jones; having heard something like a dozen of his opinions I think I have a pretty good sampling of what he posted. He would skewer some of the liberaloid trends like sexualized art, or the banning of Yani, but aside from being ascerbic and funny, I see no reason whatsover to deplatform him.

James Woods, banned from Twitter. I think I've seen a tweet or two of his; I thought they were pretty tame stuff. Did he post hate speech or defame people or incite violence or threaten anyone?

Who else?

The news comes out in dribs and drabs ... creeping censorship by the tech giants. What is the full scope?

And then, if they're banning on content (and not because people are violating laws like making threats and incitement to violence or defamation) doesn't that make these platforms "publishers", with all of the responsibility that that implies?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .



Your sentence structure in this post reminds me of Jaynestown’s ... interesting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 4:44 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Our Pro Censorship Dem-Bots here should watch this.



I’m a pro business rights advocate. Consumers have responsibilities too, they aren’t Free to behave anyway they want to, nor should they be. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in and started yelling at your customers, would you throw up your arms and say, “O-well! Free Speech!” ???? Duh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 5:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:


So, is there anywhere a list of who has been deplatformed/ banned/ shadowbanned?

I know that Alex Jones has. I would listen to him now and again, and he'd go off the rails with his "lizard people" rant, but OTOH he sometimes reported true events or trends that nobody else would. In my view, he was a person to (mostly) ignore, but he didn't break any of rules about hate speech or libel, so ...?

Paul Joseph Watson. I used to listen to him more frequently than Alex Jones; having heard something like a dozen of his opinions I think I have a pretty good sampling of what he posted. He would skewer some of the liberaloid trends like sexualized art, or the banning of Yani, but aside from being ascerbic and funny, I see no reason whatsover to deplatform him.

James Woods, banned from Twitter. I think I've seen a tweet or two of his; I thought they were pretty tame stuff. Did he post hate speech or defame people or incite violence or threaten anyone?

Who else?

The news comes out in dribs and drabs ... creeping censorship by the tech giants. What is the full scope?

And then, if they're banning on content (and not because people are violating laws like making threats and incitement to violence or defamation) doesn't that make these platforms "publishers", with all of the responsibility that that implies. -SIGNY

Your sentence structure in this post reminds me of Jaynestown’s ... interesting.- GSTRING

Another tinfoil hat moment from GSTRING? Interesting.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 5:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:


I’m a pro business rights advocate. GSTRING

Yep. I always knew you were a fascist. Thanks for admitting it.
Quote:

Consumers have responsibilities too, they aren’t Free to behave anyway they want to, nor should they be. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in and started yelling at your customers, would you throw up your arms and say, “O-well! Free Speech!” ???? Duh. GSTRING
Bad analogy. Customers come into a restaurant to eat, not to listen to random people spout off. People use social media to communicate, that IS the purpose, is it not? So when people are banned because they use social media for its intended purpose ....

But there's a different issue at play besides free speech or even EULAs: Platforms are exempted from all kinds of liability (defamation, fraud, hate speech, incitement to violence etc) because THEY claim that they don't control the content, so the responsibility goes to the person who posts. It's a specific LEGAL exemption that applies to social media: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The exemption was granted to social media JUST BECAUSE they claim not to control content.

With the people who have been banned, deplatformed, demonetized, or shadow-banned, there isn't even the remote possibility that they're "Russian" and that they might represent even a whisper of Russian influence; these people have been banned BECAUSE of their content.

So now it looks to me like the platforms have crossed the line into "publishers" and no longer deserve the exemption that they like to claim.

I hope somebody files a nice big fat juicy lawsuit against them. Not on "freedom of speech" grounds but on that Section 230 exemption.

That, after all, is the American Way.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 10:04 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I'll be alright with letting entities like Facebook and Twitter censor stuff when they don't allow politicians to platform, and Silicon Valley multi-national businesses aren't being given tax breaks that amount to them paying as much as the Catholic church pays in taxes every year.

These social media corporations are essentially an arm of the government that is just far enough removed and the details obfuscated that they can get around any legality surrounding censorship by claiming "muh big business".

It's all bullshit. And mark my words if it were people on the left that were being de-platformed every other day you'd be crying about it right now too. That day will come. I'll remember to check up on your thoughts about it when it does.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 3:41 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:


I’m a pro business rights advocate. GSTRING

Yep. I always knew you were a fascist. Thanks for admitting it.
Quote:

Consumers have responsibilities too, they aren’t Free to behave anyway they want to, nor should they be. If you owned a restaurant and someone came in and started yelling at your customers, would you throw up your arms and say, “O-well! Free Speech!” ???? Duh. GSTRING

Bad analogy. Customers come into a restaurant to eat, not to listen to random people spout off. People use social media to communicate, that IS the purpose, is it not? So when people are banned because they use social media for its intended purpose ....

But there's a different issue at play besides free speech or even EULAs: Platforms are exempted from all kinds of liability (defamation, fraud, hate speech, incitement to violence etc) because THEY claim that they don't control the content, so the responsibility goes to the person who posts. It's a specific LEGAL exemption that applies to social media: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The exemption was granted to social media JUST BECAUSE they claim not to control content.

With the people who have been banned, deplatformed, demonetized, or shadow-banned, there isn't even the remote possibility that they're "Russian" and that they might represent even a whisper of Russian influence; these people have been banned BECAUSE of their content.

So now it looks to me like the platforms have crossed the line into "publishers" and no longer deserve the exemption that they like to claim.

I hope somebody files a nice big fat juicy lawsuit against them. Not on "freedom of speech" grounds but on that Section 230 exemption.

That, after all, is the American Way.






Supporting small businesses is fascist? The stupid sh@t you post. What country were you raised in? Do you use any products or services provided by any businesses? So, according to you, you support fascism. Yeah, the stupid sh@t you post!

And, no, it's not a perfect analogy, but neither is yours. More to the point, we shouldn’t f@cking need one - the concept should be bloody obvious. If you knew anyone that ran their own business - even a soup cart - you’d know customers can be entitled @ssholes who think they should be able to do whatever the hell they want regardless of owner’s rights or other users’ rights. You’re the perfect example of a consumer who is consumed with their own desires and screw everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 4:37 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.

For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get these.

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-use-twitter-a
lerts


If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.





Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 6, 2019 4:58 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Infowars has been banned from Twitter, but it seems to have found a new home over on Trump's Twitter feed.

The president evidently believes Infowars is useful to him. Maggie Haberman of The New York Times said the tweets over the weekend were "reminiscent of candidate Trump in 2015, for whom folks who listen to Alex Jones were a solid group of supporters to his primary candidacy."

Trump is simultaneously trying to tear down credible sources for news, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN. He was questioning why these news organizations have the ability to be on Twitter -- while saying that Infowars should be reinstated. It's nuts.

www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/media/infowars-trump/index.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1:57 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.
CC - They control the content on their service, but not the Internet, as it should be. If you think Twitter is the Internet then you’re an idiot. And if using Twitter is so important perhaps dumbsh@t should have used it according to their guidelines? It’s pretty hard to get thrown off unless you’re a moron or a professional agitator or both. Not to mention, people quit Twitter and Facebook etc all the time and manage to live normal lives. You’re bitching about nothing again.

6 - For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get alerts.
CC - omg! No gov alerts! Everyone must use Twitter! I’ve never seen one in years. What do people without Twitter do??? Move to another country? That’s so lame.

6 - If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.
CC so what do you and Rue and Sig4brains and jsf do for alerts? I bet none of you are on Twitter, even though according to you it’s so vital. More whining about nothing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.
CC - They control the content on their service, but not the Internet, as it should be. If you think Twitter is the Internet then you’re an idiot. And if using Twitter is so important perhaps dumbsh@t should have used it according to their guidelines? It’s pretty hard to get thrown off unless you’re a moron or a professional agitator or both. Not to mention, people quit Twitter and Facebook etc all the time and manage to live normal lives. You’re bitching about nothing again.

6 - For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get alerts.
CC - omg! No gov alerts! Everyone must use Twitter! I’ve never seen one in years. What do people without Twitter do??? Move to another country? That’s so lame.

6 - If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.
CC so what do you and Rue and Sig4brains and jsf do for alerts? I bet none of you are on Twitter, even though according to you it’s so vital. More whining about nothing.



It's not whining about nothing.

You have no concept of what the future holds. If somebody told you that everybody would be walking around with computers in their pockets that were 1,000 times more powerful your desktop PC was, and told you how this was going to change the world, you would have laughed.

Venues today are starting to make you download apps to your phone that take great liberties with your personal information in order to get a "secure" ticket that can't be duplicated. There are events today that you can't even get into without a smart phone, such as the upcoming Blizzcon.

As these machines are being forced upon people over the coming years by excluding people from being able to do things without them, we might find ourselves unable to buy food without one some day.




But all of this is beside the point...


Twitter and Facebook are the Government. They don't pay taxes and they are the social platform for politicians. They have no right to de-platform anybody, and it is unconstitutional censorship when they do.

The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because they don't censor people you like to watch now.

They're not censoring people for threats or advocating violence. They're censoring people because of their political beliefs.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:53 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're not talking about small businesses. We're talking about multi-national corporations in Silicon Valley that have a monopoly on public discourse via the internet.
CC - They control the content on their service, but not the Internet, as it should be. If you think Twitter is the Internet then you’re an idiot. And if using Twitter is so important perhaps dumbsh@t should have used it according to their guidelines? It’s pretty hard to get thrown off unless you’re a moron or a professional agitator or both. Not to mention, people quit Twitter and Facebook etc all the time and manage to live normal lives. You’re bitching about nothing again.

6 - For instance, the US Government chooses Twitter and ONLY Twitter to send its emergency alerts to users with smart phones. You need to have an active account to get alerts.
CC - omg! No gov alerts! Everyone must use Twitter! I’ve never seen one in years. What do people without Twitter do??? Move to another country? That’s so lame.

6 - If the same service were provided with any competitors like Gab, this would be a different story. But if you are de-platformed from Twitter, you can no longer get any emergency broadcasts on your phone, let alone have a voice online.
CC so what do you and Rue and Sig4brains and jsf do for alerts? I bet none of you are on Twitter, even though according to you it’s so vital. More whining about nothing.



It's not whining about nothing.

You have no concept of what the future holds. If somebody told you that everybody would be walking around with computers in their pockets that were 1,000 times more powerful your desktop PC was, and told you how this was going to change the world, you would have laughed.

Venues today are starting to make you download apps to your phone that take great liberties with your personal information in order to get a "secure" ticket that can't be duplicated. There are events today that you can't even get into without a smart phone, such as the upcoming Blizzcon.

As these machines are being forced upon people over the coming years by excluding people from being able to do things without them, we might find ourselves unable to buy food without one some day.




But all of this is beside the point...


Twitter and Facebook are the Government. They don't pay taxes and they are the social platform for politicians. They have no right to de-platform anybody, and it is unconstitutional censorship when they do.

The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because they don't censor people you like to watch now.

They're not censoring people for threats or advocating violence. They're censoring people because of their political beliefs.


Congratulations. You've become part of the authoritarian shill army of the fascists you hate so much.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:47 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because they don't censor people you like to watch now.



The people I like don’t lie through their assholes, or try to use social media to promote lies. Infowars dude is an obvious liar and agitator, not much different than Dump. He still uses Twitter to lie everyday btw, shows how hard it is to get shadow banned.

Find all the banned Twitter accounts you have problems with:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
How many are political?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1:21 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

"Dystopian Approach": SEC Blesses MasterCard's Idea Of Cutting Off Customers With Right-Wing Views

Blocking payments to individuals or groups by financial service firms impedes freedom of speech in a free society, journalist Ben Swann has told RT, following reports that MasterCard is allegedly on course to censor the far-right.

The New York-based firm is reportedly being forced by left-leaning liberal activists to set up an internal “human rights committee” that would monitor payments to “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”

“The problem is that everyone has their own views and, in a free society, the idea of a free society is that you are free to have your belief systems, as long as you’re not harming anyone else physically,” Swann told RT America.

“But your belief system belongs to you and you have the right be wrong. White supremacists have the right to be wrong.”

MasterCard is not the only holder of purse-strings that is mulling the selective banning of individuals from their services and funds. Patreon and PayPal have previously barred individuals from receiving payments using their platforms, due to their extreme views.

But unlike crowdfunding platforms, being cut off from one of the leading American multinational financial services corporations will, most likely, have a much greater impact on the financial stability of an individual or a group, especially after the US Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly blessed MasterCard’s undertaking.

By doing this, Swann believes the government granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”

The issue with such an approach, the investigative journalist argues, would lead to a wider crackdown on financial payments to anyone who the government would see as unfavorable.

“The fact that the SEC has given a green light to this essentially says the SEC supports the idea of censoring these groups in order to freeze out essentially anyone you don’t agree with,” the journalist said.

“It is such a dystopian 1984 world view and yet we’re living through it right now,” the journalist observed.

Watch the entire interview below:


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-07/dystopian-approach-sec-bless
es-mastercards-idea-cutting-customers-right-wing-views


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:


The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because they don't censor people you like to watch now.- SIX

The people I like don’t lie through their assholes, or try to use social media to promote lies. -GSTRING

Says the inveterate liar.

Quote:

Infowars dude is an obvious liar and agitator, not much different than Dump. He still uses Twitter to lie everyday btw, shows how hard it is to get shadow banned.

Find all the banned Twitter accounts you have problems with:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
How many are political?

Maddow is a liar. Most of the M$M are liars. Maybe THEY should be banned. Fortunately FOR YOU, lying is a free speech right, unless you're defaming someone or defrauding the public.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 2:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I'd imagine that if Trump were truly the fascist tyrant dictator that he's been accused of being thousands of times here now, and he were to put on blast the fact that Facebook and Twitter are arms of the government and subsequently shut down any dissenting opinions then we'd finally get people to realize that censorship IN ANY FORM is wrong.


In the meantime, I find it hilarious that the left in 2019 is defending the rights of mega-billions multi-national firms.

Man... you guys are so easy to manipulate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:02 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:


The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because they don't censor people you like to watch now.- SIX

The people I like don’t lie through their assholes, or try to use social media to promote lies. -GSTRING

Says the inveterate liar.

Quote:

Infowars dude is an obvious liar and agitator, not much different than Dump. He still uses Twitter to lie everyday btw, shows how hard it is to get shadow banned.

Find all the banned Twitter accounts you have problems with:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
How many are political?

Maddow is a liar. Most of the M$M are liars. Maybe THEY should be banned. Fortunately FOR YOU, lying is a free speech right, unless you're defaming someone or... .



Liar calls other people liars - right out of the Dump playbook. Good little worker troll!

Desperate much?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:04 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd imagine that if Trump were truly the fascist tyrant dictator that he's been accused of being thousands of times here now, and he were to put on blast the fact that Facebook and Twitter are arms of the government and subsequently shut down any dissenting opinions then we'd finally get people to realize that censorship IN ANY FORM is wrong.


In the meantime, I find it hilarious that the left in 2019 is defending the rights of mega-billions multi-national firms.

Man... you guys are so easy to manipulate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



You post so much stupid shit it’s amazing. How do you manage to pay bills every month?

So, did you look at the list of people kicked off Twitter? Where are the political acts banned like you were sure happened? Nice try, stooge. You don’t have the simple guts to be honest. Trump and sig4brains keep giving people like you (weak) the excuse to make shit up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:45 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd imagine that if Trump were truly the fascist tyrant dictator that he's been accused of being thousands of times here now, and he were to put on blast the fact that Facebook and Twitter are arms of the government and subsequently shut down any dissenting opinions then we'd finally get people to realize that censorship IN ANY FORM is wrong.


In the meantime, I find it hilarious that the left in 2019 is defending the rights of mega-billions multi-national firms.

Man... you guys are so easy to manipulate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



You post so much stupid shit it’s amazing. How do you manage to pay bills every month?

So, did you look at the list of people kicked off Twitter? Where are the political acts banned like you were sure happened? Nice try, stooge. You don’t have the simple guts to be honest. Trump and sig4brains keep giving people like you (weak) the excuse to make shit up.



Your arguments always consist of insulting people and saying, you're wrong. neener neener.

Consider it a charity that I even bother replying to you anymore.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:17 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'd imagine that if Trump were truly the fascist tyrant dictator that he's been accused of being thousands of times here now, and he were to put on blast the fact that Facebook and Twitter are arms of the government and subsequently shut down any dissenting opinions then we'd finally get people to realize that censorship IN ANY FORM is wrong.


In the meantime, I find it hilarious that the left in 2019 is defending the rights of mega-billions multi-national firms.

Man... you guys are so easy to manipulate.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



You post so much stupid shit it’s amazing. How do you manage to pay bills every month?

So, did you look at the list of people kicked off Twitter? Where are the political acts banned like you were sure happened? Nice try, stooge. You don’t have the simple guts to be honest. Trump and sig4brains keep giving people like you (weak) the excuse to make shit up.



Your arguments always consist of insulting people and saying, you're wrong. neener neener.

Consider it a charity that I even bother replying to you anymore.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



That’s because you are consistently wrong. You constantly avoid answering basic questions. You’re a bad faith a-hole as far as I can tell.
Example: Did you check out the list of people kicked off Twitter? No? Why not? Afraid it would prove you are wrong and full of over reach again? Sig was looking for the same thing - was she just insinuating a problem that doesn’t exist rather than actually wanting to know, because sowing discord is her stock and trade? (Trick question).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So GSTRING, have you stopped beating your boyfriend?

(Trick question.)
Quote:

Liar calls other people liars- GSTRING
Well, you call me a liar all the time. Seems you've stuck yourself with logical glue.

I don't lie. You OTOH often (untruthfully) SAY that I lie, but you've never been able to demonstrate one. You yourself have been caught in lies quite often - usually by misrepresenting what I and others have posted. MOST of the time you refuse to answer basic questions, but attack and defame instead.

So why don't you stop behaving like how you accuse others of behaving? Stop lying, stop being a jackass, stop defaming people, engage in meaningful conversation for a change. Or is that too much to ask?

BTW, I checked into that list of Twitter suspensions etc. Most of those suspended are on the conservative to far right end of the spectrum, which is what I was wondering about. Thanks for the info.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:26 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


lol

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:37 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol



So you didn’t read the link - not too surprised. You might have learned something - can’t have that!
So have you signed up for Twitter to get your gov alerts yet? Aren’t you concerned you’ll miss some? If you genuinely concerned about gov alerts I think you’d be all over Twitter by now.
What about when they were on tv - omg what did people without TVs do?!?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:44 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So GSTRING, have you stopped beating your boyfriend?

(Trick question.)
Quote:

Liar calls other people liars- GSTRING
Well, you call me a liar all the time. Seems you've stuck yourself with logical glue.

I don't lie. You OTOH often (untruthfully) SAY that I lie, but you've never been able to demonstrate one. You yourself have been caught in lies quite often - usually by misrepresenting what I and others have posted. MOST of the time you refuse to answer basic questions, but attack and defame instead.

So why don't you stop behaving like how you accuse others of behaving? Stop lying, stop being a jackass, stop defaming people, engage in meaningful conversation for a change. Or is that too much to ask?

BTW, I checked into that list of Twitter suspensions etc. Most of those suspended are on the conservative to far right end of the spectrum, which is what I was wondering about. Thanks for the info.



“Thanks for the info.” You could have googled it easily. Curious.

Yes, most annoying, freak show contestants are on the right - glad you noticed.

So, Sig, why don't you stop behaving like how you accuse others of behaving? Stop lying, stop being a jackass, stop defaming people, engage in meaningful conversation for a change. Or is that too much to ask?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 1:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Being a "freak show"

a) is in the eye of the beholder and
b) is a first amendment right and
c) does not, per se, violate platform rules

There are plenty of freak show people on the (so called) left. Rachel Maddow is a prime tin foil hat conspiracist and purveyor of fake news. Had she been banned? Look at REAVERBOT, he advocates violence against white conservatives and can no longer post anything except "Nazi", "troll", and "Russia". You yourself have no problems lying repeatedly about other people here.

As long as platforms control content, then they are acting as PUBLISHERS and should have their liability exemption stripped



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 3:06 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I'm just going to let time prove me right on this one.

Enjoy your censorship while it's seemingly going your way, bud.



BTW... anybody hear about the 100 people laid off at CNN?

Can't remember if I put that in the predictions thread or not, but I've said it more than once here that it was coming.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:11 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm just going to let time prove me right on this one.



Why wait? Have you got a Twitter account so you can get all those Gov alerts you’re so worried about?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:20 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Being a "freak show"

a) is in the eye of the beholder and
b) is a first amendment right and
c) does not, per se, violate platform rules

There are plenty of freak show people on the (so called) left. Rachel Maddow is a prime tin foil hat conspiracist and purveyor of fake news. Had she been banned? Look at REAVERBOT, he advocates violence against white conservatives and can no longer post anything except "Nazi", "troll", and "Russia". You yourself have no problems lying repeatedly about other people here.

As long as platforms control content, then they are acting as PUBLISHERS and should have their liability exemption stripped



Sighole’s: Lie, Deny, Agitate and Falsify machine just keeps rolling.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm just going to let time prove me right on this one.



Why wait? Have you got a Twitter account so you can get all those Gov alerts you’re so worried about?



I'm not worried about them. That's beside the point.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/04/28/as-the-government
-and-emergency-agencies-shift-to-twitter-what-happens-to-those-left-behind/#4fbb1a0978aa


Quote:

Twitter has truly become the realtime emergency alert platform of government.

Anyone can access these alerts even without being a Twitter user, but only those with active Twitter user accounts can actually respond to these emergency messages to request additional information or report emergencies in the event of 911 unavailability.

Yet, Twitter as a private company has the exclusive right to determine who it grants membership to. It can deny, suspend or revoke membership of any user for any reason at any time without appeal.

This was once the case with cellular phones as well, but their increasing use in emergency situations led to legislation forcing cellular companies to grant access to everyone for emergency use.



I don't imagine that it will be very long before civil suits are successful re-instating all of those who have wrongfully been de-platformed based off of this single issue alone.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 9:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Being a "freak show"

a) is in the eye of the beholder and
b) is a first amendment right and
c) does not, per se, violate platform rules

There are plenty of freak show people on the (so called) left. Rachel Maddow is a prime tin foil hat conspiracist and purveyor of fake news. Had she been banned? Look at REAVERBOT, he advocates violence against white conservatives and can no longer post anything except "Nazi", "troll", and "Russia". You yourself have no problems lying repeatedly about other people here.

As long as platforms control content, then they are acting as PUBLISHERS and should have their liability exemption stripped



Sighole’s: Lie, Deny, Agitate and Falsify machine just keeps rolling.

What GSTRING does when he doesn't have truth in his corner

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:54 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's beside the point.



That was Your point. Glad you see it now as nonsense.

In all seriousness - I checked out the rain thread. Best of luck sorting out your house and family and job issues. Really. This stuff we disagree about is mostly noise compared to those things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 9, 2019 8:18 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's beside the point.



That was Your point. Glad you see it now as nonsense.



That wasn't my point at all. I'm not shy about letting everybody in the RWED and the actual real world know that I have no desire to ever own a cell phone again, let alone a smart one. Hell... I don't even have cable TV or a television that is capable of getting the over the air HD stations either. I'm kicking it 1930's style here. If I hear the local air-raid siren and I care enough to do so, all I can do is turn on the alarm clock radio I have and set it to the emergency broadcast system.

I'm also not shy about letting people know I have no interest in facebook or twitter or instagram or any other social media platforms. I'll never own a device that invites Siri or OK Google into my home. I'd think at this point that would be abundantly clear from my posting history. I'd also think that it would be clear that I'm most comfortable being a loner and a long life of being on my own to figure things out has also made dealing with crisis on my own the way I prefer to do it.

I argue politics here with a reasonable level of anonymity. The government knows exactly who I am and where I live for sure. Or at least they could in 5 seconds if they ever felt the need to know. None of you guys do though. And I'm not posting my own asshole opinions on social media with my name where I've seen friends and family destroy their relationships.

This is not about me at all. I don't think I could be any more clear about that.

Quote:

In all seriousness - I checked out the rain thread. Best of luck sorting out your house and family and job issues. Really. This stuff we disagree about is mostly noise compared to those things.


Yeah. Thanks man. I actually started off the post to you different here, but it's nice having some rare instances where we can actually display a little humanity toward each other. Color me touched.

Short of a few days here and there where I kind of hit near-panic mode, I'd say I'm taking a lot better than I expected I would. For the first time in maybe 15 years, I have absolutely no clue what my future holds, yet it's not the end of the world.

I'll figure something out. I always do. At least when I'm sober... and I haven't even been tempted by the idea of drowning my sorrows this time around. Only took me 40 years to finally become an adult, I suppose. Better late than never.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 9, 2019 12:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


By the co-founder of Facebook

Quote:

It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

The last time I saw Mark Zuckerberg was in the summer of 2017, several months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. We met at Facebook’s Menlo Park, Calif., office and drove to his house, in a quiet, leafy neighborhood. We spent an hour or two together while his toddler daughter cruised around. We talked politics mostly, a little about Facebook, a bit about our families. When the shadows grew long, I had to head out. I hugged his wife, Priscilla, and said goodbye to Mark.

Since then, Mark’s personal reputation and the reputation of Facebook have taken a nose-dive. The company’s mistakes — the sloppy privacy practices that dropped tens of millions of users’ data into a political consulting firm’s lap; the slow response to Russian agents, violent rhetoric and fake news; and the unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention — dominate the headlines. It’s been 15 years since I co-founded Facebook at Harvard, and I haven’t worked at the company in a decade. But I feel a sense of anger and responsibility.

Mark is still the same person I watched hug his parents as they left our dorm’s common room at the beginning of our sophomore year. He is the same person who procrastinated studying for tests, fell in love with his future wife while in line for the bathroom at a party and slept on a mattress on the floor in a small apartment years after he could have afforded much more. In other words, he’s human. But it’s his very humanity that makes his unchecked power so problematic.

Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government. He controls three core communications platforms — Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — that billions of people use every day. Facebook’s board works more like an advisory committee than an overseer, because Mark controls around 60 percent of voting shares. Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered. He sets the rules for how to distinguish violent and incendiary speech from the merely offensive, and he can choose to shut down a competitor by acquiring, blocking or copying it.

Mark is a good, kind person. But I’m angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks. I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders. And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.

The government must hold Mark accountable. For too long, lawmakers have marveled at Facebook’s explosive growth and overlooked their responsibility to ensure that Americans are protected and markets are competitive. Any day now, the Federal Trade Commission is expected to impose a $5 billion fine on the company, but that is not enough; nor is Facebook’s offer to appoint some kind of privacy czar. After Mark’s congressional testimony last year, there should have been calls for him to truly reckon with his mistakes. Instead the legislators who questioned him were derided as too old and out of touch to understand how tech works. That’s the impression Mark wanted Americans to have, because it means little will change.

We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American.

It is time to break up Facebook.

We already have the tools we need to check the domination of Facebook. We just seem to have forgotten about them.

America was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person, because we are all fallible. That’s why the founders created a system of checks and balances. They didn’t need to foresee the rise of Facebook to understand the threat that gargantuan companies would pose to democracy. Jefferson and Madison were voracious readers of Adam Smith, who believed that monopolies prevent the competition that spurs innovation and leads to economic growth.

A century later, in response to the rise of the oil, railroad and banking trusts of the Gilded Age, the Ohio Republican John Sherman said on the floor of Congress: “If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity.” The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. More legislation followed in the 20th century, creating legal and regulatory structures to promote competition and hold the biggest companies accountable. The Department of Justice broke up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T.

For many people today, it’s hard to imagine government doing much of anything right, let alone breaking up a company like Facebook. This isn’t by coincidence.

Starting in the 1970s, a small but dedicated group of economists, lawyers and policymakers sowed the seeds of our cynicism. Over the next 40 years, they financed a network of think tanks, journals, social clubs, academic centers and media outlets to teach an emerging generation that private interests should take precedence over public ones. Their gospel was simple: “Free” markets are dynamic and productive, while government is bureaucratic and ineffective. By the mid-1980s, they had largely managed to relegate energetic antitrust enforcement to the history books.

This shift, combined with business-friendly tax and regulatory policy, ushered in a period of mergers and acquisitions that created megacorporations. In the past 20 years, more than 75 percent of American industries, from airlines to pharmaceuticals, have experienced increased concentration, and the average size of public companies has tripled. The results are a decline in entrepreneurship, stalled productivity growth, and higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.

The same thing is happening in social media and digital communications.
Because Facebook so dominates social networking, it faces no market-based accountability. This means that every time Facebook messes up, we repeat an exhausting pattern: first outrage, then disappointment and, finally, resignation.

In 2005, I was in Facebook’s first office, on Emerson Street in downtown Palo Alto, when I read the news that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation was acquiring the social networking site Myspace for $580 million. The overhead lights were off, and a group of us were pecking away on our keyboards, our 21-year-old faces half-illuminated by the glow of our screens. I heard a “whoa,” and the news then ricocheted silently through the room, delivered by AOL Instant Messenger. My eyes widened. Really, $580 million?

Facebook was competing with Myspace, albeit obliquely. We were focused on college students at that point, but we had real identities while Myspace had fictions. Our users were more engaged, visiting daily, if not hourly. We believed Facebook surpassed Myspace in quality and would easily displace it given enough time and money. If Myspace was worth $580 million, Facebook could be worth at least double.

From our earliest days, Mark used the word “domination” to describe our ambitions, with no hint of irony or humility. Back then, we competed with a whole host of social networks, not just Myspace, but also Friendster, Twitter, Tumblr, LiveJournal and others. The pressure to beat them spurred innovation and led to many of the features that distinguish Facebook: simple, beautiful interfaces, the News Feed, a tie to real-world identities and more.

It was this drive to compete that led Mark to acquire, over the years, dozens of other companies, including Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. There was nothing unethical or suspicious, in my view, in these moves.

One night during the summer of the Myspace sale, I remember driving home from work with Mark, back to the house we shared with several engineers and designers. I was in the passenger seat of the Infiniti S.U.V. that our investor Peter Thiel had bought for Mark to replace the unreliable used Jeep that he had been driving.

As we turned right off Valparaiso Avenue, Mark confessed the immense pressure he felt. “Now that we employ so many people …” he said, trailing off. “We just really can’t fail.”

Facebook had gone from a project developed in our dorm room and chaotic summer houses to a serious company with lawyers and a human resources department. We had around 50 employees, and their families relied on Facebook to put food on the table. I gazed out the window and thought to myself, It’s never going to stop. The bigger we get, the harder we’ll have to work to keep growing.

Over a decade later, Facebook has earned the prize of domination. It is worth half a trillion dollars and commands, by my estimate, more than 80 percent of the world’s social networking revenue. It is a powerful monopoly, eclipsing all of its rivals and erasing competition from the social networking category. This explains why, even during the annus horribilis of 2018, Facebook’s earnings per share increased by an astounding 40 percent compared with the year before. (I liquidated my Facebook shares in 2012, and I don’t invest directly in any social media companies.)

Facebook’s monopoly is also visible in its usage statistics. About 70 percent of American adults use social media, and a vast majority are on Facebook products. Over two-thirds use the core site, a third use Instagram, and a fifth use WhatsApp. By contrast, fewer than a third report using Pinterest, LinkedIn or Snapchat. What started out as lighthearted entertainment has become the primary way that people of all ages communicate online.

The total number of users across Facebook’s platforms far exceeds the number on any rival platform. [ list with numbers of users follows]

Note: These figures do not necessarily reflect unique users. They are based on monthly active users, active user accounts or unique monthly visitors, and are current as of April.

Even when people want to quit Facebook, they don’t have any meaningful alternative, as we saw in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Worried about their privacy and lacking confidence in Facebook’s good faith, users across the world started a “Delete Facebook” movement. According to the Pew Research Center, a quarter deleted their accounts from their phones, but many did so only temporarily. I heard more than one friend say, “I’m getting off Facebook altogether — thank God for Instagram,” not realizing that Instagram was a Facebook subsidiary. In the end people did not leave the company’s platforms en masse. After all, where would they go?

Facebook’s dominance is not an accident of history. The company’s strategy was to beat every competitor in plain view, and regulators and the government tacitly — and at times explicitly — approved. In one of the government’s few attempts to rein in the company, the F.T.C. in 2011 issued a consent decree that Facebook not share any private information beyond what users already agreed to. Facebook largely ignored the decree. Last month, the day after the company predicted in an earnings call that it would need to pay up to $5 billion as a penalty for its negligence — a slap on the wrist — Facebook’s shares surged 7 percent, adding $30 billion to its value, six times the size of the fine.

The F.T.C.’s biggest mistake was to allow Facebook to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp. In 2012, the newer platforms were nipping at Facebook’s heels because they had been built for the smartphone, where Facebook was still struggling to gain traction. Mark responded by buying them, and the F.T.C. approved.

Neither Instagram nor WhatsApp had any meaningful revenue, but both were incredibly popular. The Instagram acquisition guaranteed Facebook would preserve its dominance in photo networking, and WhatsApp gave it a new entry into mobile real-time messaging. Now, the founders of Instagram and WhatsApp have left the company after clashing with Mark over his management of their platforms. But their former properties remain Facebook’s, driving much of its recent growth.

When it hasn’t acquired its way to dominance, Facebook has used its monopoly position to shut out competing companies or has copied their technology.

The News Feed algorithm reportedly prioritized videos created through Facebook over videos from competitors, like YouTube and Vimeo. In 2012, Twitter introduced a video network called Vine that featured six-second videos. That same day, Facebook blocked Vine from hosting a tool that let its users search for their Facebook friends while on the new network. The decision hobbled Vine, which shut down four years later.

Snapchat posed a different threat. Snapchat’s Stories and impermanent messaging options made it an attractive alternative to Facebook and Instagram. And unlike Vine, Snapchat wasn’t interfacing with the Facebook ecosystem; there was no obvious way to handicap the company or shut it out. So Facebook simply copied it.

Facebook’s version of Snapchat’s stories and disappearing messages proveddly successful, at Snapchat’s expense. At an all-hands meeting in 2016, Mark told Facebook employees not to let their pride get in the way of giving users what they want. According to Wired magazine, “Zuckerberg’s message became an informal slogan at Facebook: ‘Don’t be too proud to copy.’”

(There is little regulators can do about this tactic: Snapchat patented its “ephemeral message galleries,” but copyright law does not extend to the abstract concept itself.)

As a result of all this, would-be competitors can’t raise the money to take on Facebook. Investors realize that if a company gets traction, Facebook will copy its innovations, shut it down or acquire it for a relatively modest sum. So despite an extended economic expansion, increasing interest in high-tech start-ups, an explosion of venture capital and growing public distaste for Facebook, no major social networking company has been founded since the fall of 2011.

As markets become more concentrated, the number of new start-up businesses declines. This holds true in other high-tech areas dominated by single companies, like search (controlled by Google) and e-commerce (taken over by Amazon). Meanwhile, there has been plenty of innovation in areas where there is no monopolistic domination, such as in workplace productivity (Slack, Trello, Asana), urban transportation (Lyft, Uber, Lime, Bird) and cryptocurrency exchanges (Ripple, Coinbase, Circle).

I don’t blame Mark for his quest for domination. He has demonstrated nothing more nefarious than the virtuous hustle of a talented entrepreneur. Yet he has created a leviathan that crowds out entrepreneurship and restricts consumer choice. It’s on our government to ensure that we never lose the magic of the invisible hand. How did we allow this to happen?

Since the 1970s, courts have become increasingly hesitant to break up companies or block mergers unless consumers are paying inflated prices that would be lower in a competitive market. But a narrow reliance on whether or not consumers have experienced price gouging fails to take into account the full cost of market domination. It doesn’t recognize that we also want markets to be competitive to encourage innovation and to hold power in check. And it is out of step with the history of antitrust law. Two of the last major antitrust suits, against AT&T and IBM in the 1980s, were grounded in the argument that they had used their size to stifle innovation and crush competition.

As the Columbia law professor Tim Wu writes, “It is a disservice to the laws and their intent to retain such a laserlike focus on price effects as the measure of all that antitrust was meant to do.”

Facebook is the perfect case on which to reverse course, precisely because Facebook makes its money from targeted advertising, meaning users do not pay to use the service. But it is not actually free, and it certainly isn’t harmless.

We pay for Facebook with our data and our attention, and by either measure it doesn’t come cheap.

Facebook’s business model is built on capturing as much of our attention as possible to encourage people to create and share more information about who they are and who they want to be. We pay for Facebook with our data and our attention, and by either measure it doesn’t come cheap.

I was on the original News Feed team (my name is on the patent), and that product now gets billions of hours of attention and pulls in unknowable amounts of data each year. The average Facebook user spends an hour a day on the platform; Instagram users spend 53 minutes a day scrolling through pictures and videos. They create immense amounts of data — not just likes and dislikes, but how many seconds they watch a particular video — that Facebook uses to refine its targeted advertising. Facebook also collects data from partner companies and apps, without most users knowing about it, according to testing by The Wall Street Journal.

Some days, lying on the floor next to my 1-year-old son as he plays with his dinosaurs, I catch myself scrolling through Instagram, waiting to see if the next image will be more beautiful than the last. What am I doing? I know it’s not good for me, or for my son, and yet I do it anyway.

The choice is mine, but it doesn’t feel like a choice. Facebook seeps into every corner of our lives to capture as much of our attention and data as possible and, without any alternative, we make the trade.

The vibrant marketplace that once drove Facebook and other social media companies to compete to come up with better products has virtually disappeared. This means there’s less chance of start-ups developing healthier, less exploitative social media platforms. It also means less accountability on issues like privacy.

Just last month, Facebook seemingly tried to bury news that it had stored tens of millions of user passwords in plain text format, which thousands of Facebook employees could see. Competition alone wouldn’t necessarily spur privacy protection — regulation is required to ensure accountability — but Facebook’s lock on the market guarantees that users can’t protest by moving to alternative platforms.

The most problematic aspect of Facebook’s power is Mark’s unilateral control over speech. There is no precedent for his ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.

Facebook engineers write algorithms that select which users’ comments or experiences end up displayed in the News Feeds of friends and family. These rules are proprietary and so complex that many Facebook employees themselves don’t understand them.

In 2014, the rules favored curiosity-inducing “clickbait” headlines. In 2016, they enabled the spread of fringe political views and fake news, which made it easier for Russian actors to manipulate the American electorate. In January 2018, Mark announced that the algorithms would favor non-news content shared by friends and news from “trustworthy” sources, which his engineers interpreted — to the confusion of many — as a boost for anything in the category of “politics, crime, tragedy.”

Facebook has responded to many of the criticisms of how it manages speech by hiring thousands of contractors to enforce the rules that Mark and senior executives develop. After a few weeks of training, these contractors decide which videos count as hate speech or free speech, which images are erotic and which are simply artistic, and which live streams are too violent to be broadcast. (The Verge reported that some of these moderators, working through a vendor in Arizona, were paid $28,800 a year, got limited breaks and faced significant mental health risks.)

As if Facebook’s opaque algorithms weren’t enough, last year we learned that Facebook executives had permanently deleted their own messages from the platform, erasing them from the inboxes of recipients; the justification was corporate security concerns. When I look at my years of Facebook messages with Mark now, it’s just a long stream of my own light-blue comments, clearly written in response to words he had once sent me. (Facebook now offers this as a feature to all users.)

The most extreme example of Facebook manipulating speech happened in Myanmar in late 2017. Mark said in a Vox interview that he personally made the decision to delete the private messages of Facebook users who were encouraging genocide there. “I remember, one Saturday morning, I got a phone call,” he said, “and we detected that people were trying to spread sensational messages through — it was Facebook Messenger in this case — to each side of the conflict, basically telling the Muslims, ‘Hey, there’s about to be an uprising of the Buddhists, so make sure that you are armed and go to this place.’ And then the same thing on the other side.”

Mark made a call: “We stop those messages from going through.” Most people would agree with his decision, but it’s deeply troubling that he made it with no accountability to any independent authority or government. Facebook could, in theory, delete en masse the messages of Americans, too, if its leadership decided it didn’t like them.

Mark used to insist that Facebook was just a “social utility,” a neutral platform for people to communicate what they wished. Now he recognizes that Facebook is both a platform and a publisher and that it is inevitably making decisions about values. The company’s own lawyers have argued in court that Facebook is a publisher and thus entitled to First Amendment protection.

No one at Facebook headquarters is choosing what single news story everyone in America wakes up to, of course. But they do decide whether it will be an article from a reputable outlet or a clip from “The Daily Show,” a photo from a friend’s wedding or an incendiary call to kill others.

Mark knows that this is too much power and is pursuing a twofold strategy to mitigate it. He is pivoting Facebook’s focus toward encouraging more private, encrypted messaging that Facebook’s employees can’t see, let alone control. Second, he is hoping for friendly oversight from regulators and other industry executives.

Late last year, he proposed an independent commission to handle difficult content moderation decisions by social media platforms. It would afford an independent check, Mark argued, on Facebook’s decisions, and users could appeal to it if they disagreed. But its decisions would not have the force of law, since companies would voluntarily participate.

In an op-ed essay in The Washington Post in March, he wrote, “Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and I agree.” And he went even further than before, calling for more government regulation — not just on speech, but also on privacy and interoperability, the ability of consumers to seamlessly leave one network and transfer their profiles, friend connections, photos and other data to another.

Facebook isn’t afraid of a few more rules. It’s afraid of an antitrust case.

I don’t think these proposals were made in bad faith. But I do think they’re an attempt to head off the argument that regulators need to go further and break up the company. Facebook isn’t afraid of a few more rules. It’s afraid of an antitrust case and of the kind of accountability that real government oversight would bring.

We don’t expect calcified rules or voluntary commissions to work to regulate drug companies, health care companies, car manufacturers or credit card providers. Agencies oversee these industries to ensure that the private market works for the public good. In these cases, we all understand that government isn’t an external force meddling in an organic market; it’s what makes a dynamic and fair market possible in the first place. This should be just as true for social networking as it is for air travel or pharmaceuticals.

In the summer of 2006, Yahoo offered us $1 billion for Facebook. I desperately wanted Mark to say yes. Even my small slice of the company would have made me a millionaire several times over. For a 22-year-old scholarship kid from small-town North Carolina, that kind of money was unimaginable. I wasn’t alone — just about every other person at the company wanted the same.

It was taboo to talk about it openly, but I finally asked Mark when we had a moment alone, “How are you feeling about Yahoo?” I got a shrug and a one-line answer: “I just don’t know if I want to work for Terry Semel,” Yahoo’s chief executive.

Outside of a couple of gigs in college, Mark had never had a real boss and seemed entirely uninterested in the prospect. I didn’t like the idea much myself, but I would have traded having a boss for several million dollars any day of the week. Mark’s drive was infinitely stronger. Domination meant domination, and the hustle was just too delicious.

Mark may never have a boss, but he needs to have some check on his power. The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.

First, Facebook should be separated into multiple companies. The F.T.C., in conjunction with the Justice Department, should enforce antitrust laws by undoing the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions and banning future acquisitions for several years. The F.T.C. should have blocked these mergers, but it’s not too late to act. There is precedent for correcting bad decisions — as recently as 2009, Whole Foods settled antitrust complaints by selling off the Wild Oats brand and stores that it had bought a few years earlier.

There is some evidence that we may be headed in this direction. Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for reversing the Facebook mergers, and in February, the F.T.C. announced the creation of a task force to monitor competition among tech companies and review previous mergers.

How would a breakup work? Facebook would have a brief period to spin off the Instagram and WhatsApp businesses, and the three would become distinct companies, most likely publicly traded. Facebook shareholders would initially hold stock in the new companies, although Mark and other executives would probably be required to divest their management shares.

Until recently, WhatsApp and Instagram were administered as independent platforms inside the parent company, so that should make the process easier. But time is of the essence: Facebook is working quickly to integrate the three, which would make it harder for the F.T.C. to split them up.

Some economists are skeptical that breaking up Facebook would spur that much competition, because Facebook, they say, is a “natural” monopoly. Natural monopolies have emerged in areas like water systems and the electrical grid, where the price of entering the business is very high — because you have to lay pipes or electrical lines — but it gets cheaper and cheaper to add each additional customer. In other words, the monopoly arises naturally from the circumstances of the business, rather than a company’s illegal maneuvering. In addition, defenders of natural monopolies often make the case that they benefit consumers because they are able to provide services more cheaply than anyone else.

Facebook is indeed more valuable when there are more people on it: There are more connections for a user to make and more content to be shared. But the cost of entering the social network business is not that high. And unlike with pipes and electricity, there is no good argument that the country benefits from having only one dominant social networking company.

Still others worry that the breakup of Facebook or other American tech companies could be a national security problem. Because advancements in artificial intelligence require immense amounts of data and computing power, only large companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon can afford these investments, they say. If American companies become smaller, the Chinese will outpace us.

While serious, these concerns do not justify inaction. Even after a breakup, Facebook would be a hugely profitable business with billions to invest in new technologies — and a more competitive market would only encourage those investments. If the Chinese did pull ahead, our government could invest in research and development and pursue tactical trade policy, just as it is doing today to hold China’s 5G technology at bay.

The cost of breaking up Facebook would be next to zero for the government, and lots of people stand to gain economically. A ban on short-term acquisitions would ensure that competitors, and the investors who take a bet on them, would have the space to flourish. Digital advertisers would suddenly have multiple companies vying for their dollars.

Even Facebook shareholders would probably benefit, as shareholders often do in the years after a company’s split. The value of the companies that made up Standard Oil doubled within a year of its being dismantled and had increased by fivefold a few years later. Ten years after the 1984 breakup of AT&T, the value of its successor companies had tripled.

But the biggest winners would be the American people. Imagine a competitive market in which they could choose among one network that offered higher privacy standards, another that cost a fee to join but had little advertising and another that would allow users to customize and tweak their feeds as they saw fit. No one knows exactly what Facebook’s competitors would offer to differentiate themselves. That’s exactly the point.

The Justice Department faced similar questions of social costs and benefits with AT&T in the 1950s. AT&T had a monopoly on phone services and telecommunications equipment. The government filed suit under antitrust laws, and the case ended with a consent decree that required AT&T to release its patents and refrain from expanding into the nascent computer industry. This resulted in an explosion of innovation, greatly increasing follow-on patents and leading to the development of the semiconductor and modern computing. We would most likely not have iPhones or laptops without the competitive markets that antitrust action ushered in.

Just breaking up Facebook is not enough. We need a new agency, empowered by Congress to regulate tech companies. Its first mandate should be to protect privacy.

The Europeans have made headway on privacy with the General Data Protection Regulation, a law that guarantees users a minimal level of protection. A landmark privacy bill in the United States should specify exactly what control Americans have over their digital information, require clearer disclosure to users and provide enough flexibility to the agency to exercise effective oversight over time. The agency should also be charged with guaranteeing basic interoperability across platforms.

Finally, the agency should create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media. This idea may seem un-American — we would never stand for a government agency censoring speech. But we already have limits on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, child pornography, speech intended to provoke violence and false statements to manipulate stock prices. We will have to create similar standards that tech companies can use. These standards should of course be subject to the review of the courts, just as any other limits on speech are. But there is no constitutional right to harass others or live-stream violence.

These are difficult challenges. I worry that government regulators will not be able to keep up with the pace of digital innovation. I worry that more competition in social networking might lead to a conservative Facebook and a liberal one, or that newer social networks might be less secure if government regulation is weak. But sticking with the status quo would be worse:

If we don’t have public servants shaping these policies, corporations will

Some people doubt that an effort to break up Facebook would win in the courts, given the hostility on the federal bench to antitrust action, or that this divided Congress would ever be able to muster enough consensus to create a regulatory agency for social media.

But even if breakup and regulation aren’t immediately successful, simply pushing for them will bring more oversight. The government’s case against Microsoft — that it illegally used its market power in operating systems to force its customers to use its web browser, Internet Explorer — ended in 2001 when George W. Bush’s administration abandoned its effort to break up the company. Yet that prosecution helped rein in Microsoft’s ambitions to dominate the early web.

Similarly, the Justice Department’s 1970s suit accusing IBM of illegally maintaining its monopoly on personal computer sales ended in a stalemate. But along the way, IBM changed many of its behaviors. It stopped bundling its hardware and software, chose an extremely open design for the operating system in its personal computers and did not exercise undue control over its suppliers. Professor Wu has written that this “policeman at the elbow” led IBM to steer clear “of anything close to anticompetitive conduct, for fear of adding to the case against it.”

We can expect the same from even an unsuccessful suit against Facebook.

Finally, an aggressive case against Facebook would persuade other behemoths like Google and Amazon to think twice about stifling competition in their own sectors, out of fear that they could be next. If the government were to use this moment to resurrect an effective competition standard that takes a broader view of the full cost of “free” products, it could affect a whole host of industries.

The alternative is bleak. If we do not take action, Facebook’s monopoly will become even more entrenched. With much of the world’s personal communications in hand, it can mine that data for patterns and trends, giving it an advantage over competitors for decades to come.

I take responsibility for not sounding the alarm earlier. Don Graham, a former Facebook board member, has accused those who criticize the company now as having “all the courage of the last man leaping on the pile at a football game.” The financial rewards I reaped from working at Facebook radically changed the trajectory of my life, and even after I cashed out, I watched in awe as the company grew. It took the 2016 election fallout and Cambridge Analytica to awaken me to the dangers of Facebook’s monopoly. But anyone suggesting that Facebook is akin to a pinned football player misrepresents its resilience and power.

An era of accountability for Facebook and other monopolies may be beginning. Collective anger is growing, and a new cohort of leaders has begun to emerge. On Capitol Hill, Representative David Cicilline has taken a special interest in checking the power of monopolies, and Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ted Cruz have joined Senator Warren in calling for more oversight. Economists like Jason Furman, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, are speaking out about monopolies, and a host of legal scholars like Lina Khan, Barry Lynn and Ganesh Sitaraman are plotting a way forward.

This movement of public servants, scholars and activists deserves our support. Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-faceboo
k-zuckerberg.html


Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, is a co-chairman of the Economic Security Project and a senior adviser at the Roosevelt Institute.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 9, 2019 8:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

This movement of public servants, scholars and activists deserves our support. Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.



That's the one thing that makes this situation so sticky...

In almost any case I'd abhor the idea of the Government stepping in and "fixing" things. On the surface though, unlike the thousands of things our bloated and much-larger-than-it-should-have-ever-become government does every day, this is EXACTLY the type of thing our government was designed to defend its people against.

I find it extremely disappointing that the human race has been proven to be so hive-minded and easily homogenized to where something like Facebook could have even ever gained as much power as it has.

It's hopeful that alternative platforms to Facebook and Youtube and other social media are on the rise, but they're a bucket of water in an ocean and most of the MSM is constantly labeling anybody who defects and uses them "alt-right" or some other "basket of deplorables" phrase.

It's not surprising the MSM would do this. For nearly a decade, the MSM has been smearing Youtube and its users because they've been loosing viewership steadily since this type of interactive social media has risen up. Even today as they've made a large presence on Youtube and the algorithms have been redesigned to constantly make their stories trending above the users that made Youtube what it is today, they only get a small fraction of the views that independent journalists get there. They're losing a lot of money. CNN laying off 100 people this week is just more evidence of this.

With Trump in office, I doubt we'll ever see any Article 11/13 style legislation made in America, but the next time we have a Democrat president and house/senate majority, I could see this happening.

I don't' know what the answer is. I think if the government does anything, it should be limited only to breaking up these monopolies, and not a damn thing more. I feel it already pulls to many strings when it comes to social media by being able to influence its behavior via all the tax breaks. I don't want to ever see social media of any type become an official arm of the government, but I already am very uneasy about how much and the type of influence it already exerts over it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 9, 2019 10:51 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Siggy’s Long copy-n-paste post.

Thanks for pointing out why using Facebook was such an important part of Russia’s attack on our democracy. And, for the same reasons, why the gov can NEVER have too much power over any platform. Trump already uses Twitter to lie and spew propaganda everyday. If he controlled other large media then say goodbye to democracy in our life time. That’s not hyperbole - already trying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2019 3:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Siggy’s Long copy-n-paste post.

Thanks for pointing out why using Facebook was such an important part of Russia’s attack on our democracy. And, for the same reasons, why the gov can NEVER have too much power over any platform.

Huh? This says exactly the oppsotie of what you intended. I think. I believe what you meant to say is ... And why the government can't have ANY power over any platform

In any case, this person is not arguing for government control of platforms, but breaking them up and letting competition providing the feedback.

Say, aren't you for "Medicare for all"? How does that fit into your "business rights" scenario?

Quote:

Trump already uses Twitter to lie and spew propaganda everyday. If he controlled other large media then say goodbye to democracy in our life time. That’s not hyperbole - already trying.
Maddow spouts lies every day. The NYT spouts lies every dy, as does CNN and WaPo. Just because they publish stuff that's against Trump doesn't mean any of it is true. But once you get rid of competition, then all you'll hear is one POV.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE nk. men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2019 8:53 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Siggy’s Long copy-n-paste post.

Thanks for pointing out why using Facebook was such an important part of Russia’s attack on our democracy. And, for the same reasons, why the gov can NEVER have too much power over any platform. Trump already uses Twitter to lie and spew propaganda everyday. If he controlled other large media then say goodbye to democracy in our life time. That’s not hyperbole - already trying.



Well... to be fair, the wikipedia article you sent me to read does cover why Trump has a platform even though there have been calls for him to be de-platformed.

Quote:

In September 2017, Twitter responded to calls[7] to suspend U.S. President Donald Trump's account, clarifying that they will not do so as his tweets are "newsworthy".[8]


Which, at the end of the day, sums up exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Wouldn't you rather have him tweeting his thoughts out there for everyone to read? Those who were always going to believe him will believe him. Those that wouldn't, won't. Those in the middle can read it and take it for what it's worth.

If he was de-platformed, you wouldn't have much of an idea of his thoughts on anything, would you?

I mean, take Mike Pence for instance. In May of 2019, it would almost be forgivable for somebody to forget who he even was. I bet if somebody did one of those "on the street" surveys you see on late night TV and asked the question "Who is Mike Pence?", there'd be a lot of people who would honestly have forgotten he's our current VP. The guy is a shadow. I can't recall hearing a peep out of him for over a year about anything. And if by some freak of nature an impeachment was made that actually resulted in Trump being ousted and Pence taking his place, he's an absolute unknown. You couldn't even begin to predict what he would do as President, other than maybe going over his brief stint as Governor of Indiana and what he did while he was there.



That goes for everybody, in my book. I think the freaking KKK should have a platform there, so long as they're not riling up hate mobs, activly engaging in serious threats or linking to their own sites where they do such stuff. I feel the same about the Black Isrealites, or even ISIS (or whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days).

De-platforming anybody just forces them to share their thoughts in secret. It pushes them into the dark corners of the internet and also serves to justify their reasoning and anger and behavior.

I want to see anything and everything these people from all sides have to say. So they can be ridiculed. So they can be mocked. So their ideas can be destroyed.

Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing, CC. We are the ONLY country who has a constitutional right to it. If we start picking and choosing citizens who have that right, well... history shows that nothing good ever comes of that. Ever.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:01 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


That’d be true if it wasn’t wrong. These people haven’t had their “free speech” denied. Why aren’t you complaining that the NYTimes isn’t publishing their thoughts? Why aren’t you mad at Fux for not interviewing some lefties? People don’t have a Right to have their speech published everywhere they want it just because they have a thought.
How about spam? I bet spammers think of their email and robo calls as “speech” - should we protect that? “Free speech” - it’s more complicated than it used to be, and it’s definitely not always a beautiful thing. You want it to be easy - sorry, getting it right isn’t easy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:04 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maddow spouts lies every day. The NYT spouts lies every dy, as does CNN and WaPo. Just because they publish stuff that's against Trump doesn't mean any of it is true. But once you get rid of competition, then all you'll hear is one POV.



Cites?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:49 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:
That’d be true if it wasn’t wrong. These people haven’t had their “free speech” denied. Why aren’t you complaining that the NYTimes isn’t publishing their thoughts? Why aren’t you mad at Fux for not interviewing some lefties? People don’t have a Right to have their speech published everywhere they want it just because they have a thought.
How about spam? I bet spammers think of their email and robo calls as “speech” - should we protect that? “Free speech” - it’s more complicated than it used to be, and it’s definitely not always a beautiful thing. You want it to be easy - sorry, getting it right isn’t easy.



What is happening now isn't getting it right. If you think it is, then you or anybody you support politically are never the type of people who should be in charge of the country. Period.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2019 2:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:
That’d be true if it wasn’t wrong. These people haven’t had their “free speech” denied. Why aren’t you complaining that the NYTimes isn’t publishing their thoughts? Why aren’t you mad at Fux for not interviewing some lefties? People don’t have a Right to have their speech published everywhere they want it just because they have a thought.
How about spam? I bet spammers think of their email and robo calls as “speech” - should we protect that? “Free speech” - it’s more complicated than it used to be, and it’s definitely not always a beautiful thing. You want it to be easy - sorry, getting it right isn’t easy.

You REALLY don't know how to read, do you? Or maybe it is that you don't know how to think?

I have posted many times that once you have to PAY to have your speech heard, it is no longer "free". And I don't mean "free" (as in beer) I mean "free" (as in freedom).

I HAVE been objecting to the control that MONEY has on free speech, because MONEY controls which speech is heard and which speech isn't.

Jeez, you're stupid.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
nk?
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Need some help summing up Sig and Kiki's intentions
Wed, July 24, 2019 02:41 - 7 posts
JO 753 for Prezident!
Wed, July 24, 2019 02:38 - 449 posts
It should be titled "What Idiots Possibly Think"
Wed, July 24, 2019 00:41 - 95 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Tue, July 23, 2019 22:42 - 2389 posts
The 4-Squad Ultra-Racist Anti-American Unpatriotic Bimbos.
Tue, July 23, 2019 17:32 - 17 posts
Ethics complaints (marriage, immigration, student loan and tax fraud; and perjury) filed against lIhan Omar
Tue, July 23, 2019 17:29 - 5 posts
Who Is Running In 2020?
Tue, July 23, 2019 15:36 - 134 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Tue, July 23, 2019 15:23 - 2809 posts
The secret plot to depose Trump
Tue, July 23, 2019 15:19 - 164 posts
The Most Racist U.S. Presidents
Tue, July 23, 2019 15:13 - 2 posts
Senate Race 2020
Tue, July 23, 2019 15:11 - 6 posts
Mueller Investagation Is Over
Tue, July 23, 2019 15:03 - 896 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL