Random Political News

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:19 am

Buc2 wrote:Dem game plan...continued civil unrest.

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that civility in America can only begin again if Democrats win back the House or Senate this fall.

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."

Fuuuck her

Like she gives a **** about anyone but herself.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby deltbucs » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:20 am

So Ted Cruz's campaign slogan is apparently "Tough As Texas". LOL!!

Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:21 am

deltbucs wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Dem game plan...continued civil unrest.


Fuuuck her

Like she gives a **** about anyone but herself.

Yeah, I'm not sure why anybody still puts her in front of a camera. Every time I hear her name at this point its just "Ugh.... this **** again...".
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:17 am

I want one

Image
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13166
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 541 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:27 am

bucfanclw wrote:
deltbucs wrote:Fuuuck her

Like she gives a **** about anyone but herself.

Yeah, I'm not sure why anybody still puts her in front of a camera. Every time I hear her name at this point its just "Ugh.... this **** again...".

Yep. **** her.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13802
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:44 am

DreadNaught wrote:I want one

Image



I'm in.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 327 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:45 am

Also "American AF" is cool AF for a company name
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 327 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:44 pm

Good article here in The Atlantic;

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.


Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture.

The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.


If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. As one 40-year-old American Indian in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:

It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because you never know what to say. So political correctness in that sense is scary.

The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.

If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.



Political tribe—as defined by the authors—is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.

There is, however, plenty of additional support for the idea that the social views of most Americans are not nearly as neatly divided by age or race as is commonly believed. According to the Pew Research Center, for example, only 26 percent of black Americans consider themselves liberal. And in the More in Common study, nearly half of Latinos argued that “many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated,” while two in five African Americans agreed that “immigration nowadays is bad for America.”

In the days before “Hidden Tribes” was published, I ran a little experiment on Twitter, asking my followers to guess what percentage of Americans believe that political correctness is a problem in this country. The results were striking: Nearly all of my followers underestimated the extent to which most Americans reject political correctness. Only 6 percent gave the right answer. (When I asked them how people of color regard political correctness, their guesses were, unsurprisingly, even more wildly off.)

Obviously, my followers on Twitter are not a representative sample of America. But as their largely supportive feelings about political correctness indicate, they are probably a decent approximation for a particular intellectual milieu to which I also belong: politically engaged, highly educated, left-leaning Americans—the kinds of people, in other words, who are in charge of universities, edit the nation’s most important newspapers and magazines, and advise Democratic political candidates on their campaigns.

So the fact that we are so widely off the mark in our perception of how most people feel about political correctness should probably also make us rethink some of our other basic assumptions about the country.

It is obvious that certain elements on the right mock instances in which political correctness goes awry in order to win the license to spew outright racial hatred. And it is understandable that, in the eyes of some progressives, this makes anybody who dares to criticize political correctness a witting tool of—or a useful idiot for—the right. But that’s not fair to the Americans who feel deeply alienated by woke culture. Indeed, while 80 percent of Americans believe that political correctness has become a problem in the country, even more, 82 percent, believe that hate speech is also a problem.

It turns out that while progressive activists tend to think that only hate speech is a problem, and devoted conservatives tend to think that only political correctness is a problem, a clear majority of all Americans holds a more nuanced point of view: They abhor racism. But they don’t think that the way we now practice political correctness represents a promising way to overcome racial injustice.

The study should also make progressives more self-critical about the way in which speech norms serve as a marker of social distinction. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the affluent and highly educated people who call others out if they use “problematic” terms or perpetrate an act of “cultural appropriation.” But what the vast majority of Americans seem to see—at least according to the research conducted for “Hidden Tribes”—is not so much genuine concern for social justice as the preening display of cultural superiority.

For the millions upon millions of Americans of all ages and all races who do not follow politics with rapt attention, and who are much more worried about paying their rent than about debating the prom dress worn by a teenager in Utah, contemporary callout culture merely looks like an excuse to mock the values or ignorance of others. As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:

The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don’t term it right you discriminate them. It’s like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don’t know. But if you don’t know then there is something seriously wrong with you.

The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.

In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real, when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13166
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 541 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:58 pm

Anyone read that leaked Google memo titled 'The Good Censor'?

Not good...
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13166
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 541 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:14 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Anyone read that leaked Google memo titled 'The Good Censor'?

Not good...

I read a summary of it. "Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms filter content". I think that's pretty obvious and I don't really care about it.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Buc2 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:16 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Anyone read that leaked Google memo titled 'The Good Censor'?

Not good...

I read a summary of it. "Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms filter content". I think that's pretty obvious and I don't really care about it.

Yeah. They've been doing that for a while. I don't see the big deal either.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11522
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 952 times
Been thanked: 400 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:18 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Anyone read that leaked Google memo titled 'The Good Censor'?

Not good...

Have you?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:38 pm

This is going to the same place we went before and I've changed my opinion a little on the subject.

Many are pushing for the argument that if they are restricting or censoring content they are liable for the content posted on their sites. The issue people are jumping on is the graphic where it says "publisher" "editor" under it as they are admitting to being that and then arguing that they are violating a loose interpretation of the Communications Decency Act. Basically people are looking for more government intervention into social media. If these platforms loose protections, like many from the right are aiming at, they will be forced to remove anything remotely offensive consistently.

I just don't get that perspective from "small government" supporters. Who cares if they limit content, even content that you may side with or believe to be non-threatening? You have a choice not to use said platform. This would impact Google less than Facebook, Twitter, or You Tube.

Because things you believe to be innocuous are removed by private liberal companies you want to blow them up?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:56 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:This is going to the same place we went before and I've changed my opinion a little on the subject.

Many are pushing for the argument that if they are restricting or censoring content they are liable for the content posted on their sites. The issue people are jumping on is the graphic where it says "publisher" "editor" under it as they are admitting to being that and then arguing that they are violating a loose interpretation of the Communications Decency Act. Basically people are looking for more government intervention into social media. If these platforms loose protections, like many from the right are aiming at, they will be forced to remove anything remotely offensive consistently.

I just don't get that perspective from "small government" supporters. Who cares if they limit content, even content that you may side with or believe to be non-threatening? You have a choice not to use said platform. This would impact Google less than Facebook, Twitter, or You Tube.

Because things you believe to be innocuous are removed by private liberal companies you want to blow them up?

I kinda agree with you, except that considering them private companies basically assumes that there are other competitive businesses. But these companies don't have real competition. That makes them institutions, which can be regulated.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:03 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:This is going to the same place we went before and I've changed my opinion a little on the subject.

Many are pushing for the argument that if they are restricting or censoring content they are liable for the content posted on their sites. The issue people are jumping on is the graphic where it says "publisher" "editor" under it as they are admitting to being that and then arguing that they are violating a loose interpretation of the Communications Decency Act. Basically people are looking for more government intervention into social media. If these platforms loose protections, like many from the right are aiming at, they will be forced to remove anything remotely offensive consistently.

I just don't get that perspective from "small government" supporters. Who cares if they limit content, even content that you may side with or believe to be non-threatening? You have a choice not to use said platform. This would impact Google less than Facebook, Twitter, or You Tube.

Because things you believe to be innocuous are removed by private liberal companies you want to blow them up?

I kinda agree with you, except that considering them private companies basically assumes that there are other competitive businesses. But these companies don't have real competition. That makes them institutions, which can be regulated.

No. The internet is a utility. Not the sites.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13802
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:04 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:This is going to the same place we went before and I've changed my opinion a little on the subject.

Many are pushing for the argument that if they are restricting or censoring content they are liable for the content posted on their sites. The issue people are jumping on is the graphic where it says "publisher" "editor" under it as they are admitting to being that and then arguing that they are violating a loose interpretation of the Communications Decency Act. Basically people are looking for more government intervention into social media. If these platforms loose protections, like many from the right are aiming at, they will be forced to remove anything remotely offensive consistently.

I just don't get that perspective from "small government" supporters. Who cares if they limit content, even content that you may side with or believe to be non-threatening? You have a choice not to use said platform. This would impact Google less than Facebook, Twitter, or You Tube.

Because things you believe to be innocuous are removed by private liberal companies you want to blow them up?

I kinda agree with you, except that considering them private companies basically assumes that there are other competitive businesses. But these companies don't have real competition. That makes them institutions, which can be regulated.

1. I don't classify them as a normal/typical business as there is not cost of entry to the customer outside of their information. They aren't any sort of need and it's completely voluntary to use them. There's no reason for the government to intervene just because they don't have traditional competition.
2. Just because they can be regulation, doesn't mean they should. I don't think they should be regulated obviously as stated above.

The provision in the Communications Decency Act that protects them as a platform had the intentions of protecting things that did not generate their own content. It's easy to articulate that these companies are not generating their own content, even if they are directing it with moderation/censorship. It's a political play from a group that preaches about smaller government and less restrictive business. It's hypocritical.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:11 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I kinda agree with you, except that considering them private companies basically assumes that there are other competitive businesses. But these companies don't have real competition. That makes them institutions, which can be regulated.

No. The internet is a utility. Not the sites.

So, you are anti-regulation of for-profit companies?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:11 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I kinda agree with you, except that considering them private companies basically assumes that there are other competitive businesses. But these companies don't have real competition. That makes them institutions, which can be regulated.

No. The internet is a utility. Not the sites.

I don't think the internet is a utility, but it's closer to one than the sites.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:14 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:No. The internet is a utility. Not the sites.

So, you are anti-regulation of for-profit companies?

Image
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:21 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:No. The internet is a utility. Not the sites.

So, you are anti-regulation of for-profit companies?

Not sure how you drew that conclusion.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13802
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:32 pm

Maybe I misunderstood. The way that these companies (calling them sites is silly, they are massive corporations) are able to shape and control information, I think it make sense to regulate them.

Do you disagree?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:34 pm

Ken Carson wrote:Maybe I misunderstood. The way that these companies (calling them sites is silly, they are massive corporations) are able to shape and control information, I think it make sense to regulate them.

Do you disagree?

I do and I don't. For the same reasons we always pause when considering stuff like this.

Not that it matters. Nothing will be done.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13802
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:58 pm

MY view is these major tech companies have become the new public square where ideas, content, and commentary are shared. Being such, I'm not comfortable with them deciding what speech/content to filter for me to access and what isn't. These companies don't have competition, so if the alternative option is 'don't use it' I think that is a telltale sign something should be done.

If there is going to be censorship, which seems to be the case since we all seem agree that these companies censor and filter content. I want there to be publicly elected oversight (regulation) instead of the current situation where it's decided in a board room with no transparency.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13166
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 541 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:07 pm

DreadNaught wrote:MY view is these major tech companies have become the new public square where ideas, content, and commentary are shared. Being such, I'm not comfortable with them deciding what speech/content to filter for me to access and what isn't. These companies don't have competition, so if the alternative option is 'don't use it' I think that is a telltale sign something should be done.

If there is going to be censorship, which seems to be the case since we all seem agree that these companies censor and filter content. I want there to be publicly elected oversight (regulation) instead of the current situation where it's decided in a board room with no transparency.


The same elected oversight you are against running healthcare? The same terrible elected oversight that handled the Supreme Court nomination process? Really?

At what point did these companies lose the ability to make their own decisions and become a public square? 1 million subscribers? Is the government nationalizing these companies? Their profits will obviously be regulated as well if this is what you want as they won't have the same autonomy over advertisements or how to allocate money/positioning their market space. I thought you were against net neutrality?

Outside of your time and usage you have no right to these companies. You understand the hypocrisy, right?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:15 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:MY view is these major tech companies have become the new public square where ideas, content, and commentary are shared. Being such, I'm not comfortable with them deciding what speech/content to filter for me to access and what isn't. These companies don't have competition, so if the alternative option is 'don't use it' I think that is a telltale sign something should be done.

If there is going to be censorship, which seems to be the case since we all seem agree that these companies censor and filter content. I want there to be publicly elected oversight (regulation) instead of the current situation where it's decided in a board room with no transparency.


The same elected oversight you are against running healthcare? The same terrible elected oversight that handled the Supreme Court nomination process? Really?

At what point did these companies lose the ability to make their own decisions and become a public square? 1 million subscribers? Is the government nationalizing these companies? Their profits will obviously be regulated as well if this is what you want as they won't have the same autonomy over advertisements or how to allocate money/positioning their market space. I thought you were against net neutrality?

Outside of your time and usage you have no right to these companies. You understand the hypocrisy, right?


My issue is the censorship and filtering are being done by a company whose leadership has a political base and thus has a preferred outcome.

There is competition in healthcare. If you don't like your company or plan you can switch. YT, Google, FB, Twitter have no alternative.

Ideally I don't want the government involved in any private business, but in this case transparency is important and thus they are the lesser evil. That isn't the case with healthcare.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13166
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 541 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:21 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
The same elected oversight you are against running healthcare? The same terrible elected oversight that handled the Supreme Court nomination process? Really?

At what point did these companies lose the ability to make their own decisions and become a public square? 1 million subscribers? Is the government nationalizing these companies? Their profits will obviously be regulated as well if this is what you want as they won't have the same autonomy over advertisements or how to allocate money/positioning their market space. I thought you were against net neutrality?

Outside of your time and usage you have no right to these companies. You understand the hypocrisy, right?


My issue is the censorship and filtering are being done by a company whose leadership has a political base and thus has a preferred outcome.


That's their right. If it were a conservative owner of Facebook would you have an issue with it?

DreadNaught wrote:There is competition in healthcare. If you don't like your company or plan you can switch. YT, Google, FB, Twitter have no alternative.

There's no need for Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, etc. There's no reason for the government to step in. It's not a right.

DreadNaught wrote:Ideally I don't want the government involved in any private business, but in this case transparency is important and thus they are the lesser evil. That isn't the case with healthcare.


Why is transparency more important? Because you don't agree with the chosen message?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:10 pm

Google controls vastly more information than the US government. The government cannot be trusted and so there are tons and tons of layers of oversight.

Are we really all good with Google controlling all this information without regulation? They are infinitely more corruptible than our government.

I don’t think this is particularly partisan, unless you like their politics.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:28 pm

Ken Carson wrote:Google controls vastly more information than the US government. The government cannot be trusted and so there are tons and tons of layers of oversight.

Are we really all good with Google controlling all this information without regulation? They are infinitely more corruptible than our government.

I don’t think this is particularly partisan, unless you like their politics.


The information that Google controls differs vastly from the US Government. That's a bad comparison.

It is a partisan issue by definition. Individuals who are pro business and against government intervention/big government vs. those who aren't. Libertarians and most conservatives claim to be of this group, but just like many things in politics some jump away from their normal ideologies because it affects them personally, i.e. their internet usage. It's also a partisan issue because many conservatives are citing their anger not because these sites are censoring,but what they are censoring. They are publicly upset about the conservative and right wing content that is being censored. There are plenty of people here who side with me. Look no further than the Net Neutrality thread to see this. I'm completely against government intervention in this case.

edit: Ken, I expect you to be for regulation here and I have no issue with that. I don't agree with it, but it's a difference in political views. It's also basically the only liberal viewpoint, that I know of, that you hold.

My big issue and source of my anger is all of the people who argue free market/pro business who argued AGAINST net neutrality want to prevent FB, Twitter, YT etc. from censoring because they are censoring conservative material. That pisses me off because it's blatant hypocrisy.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Commander Bubbles » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:38 pm

Buc2 wrote:Dem game plan...continued civil unrest.

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that civility in America can only begin again if Democrats win back the House or Senate this fall.

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."


This rhetoric seems to be catching on.

"Michelle [Obama] always says ‘When they go low, we go high,'" Holder told the crowd. "No. No. When they go low, we kick them."

-Eric Holder


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... 1593189002
User avatar
Commander Bubbles
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:27 am
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Random Political News

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:22 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Google controls vastly more information than the US government. The government cannot be trusted and so there are tons and tons of layers of oversight.

Are we really all good with Google controlling all this information without regulation? They are infinitely more corruptible than our government.

I don’t think this is particularly partisan, unless you like their politics.


The information that Google controls differs vastly from the US Government. That's a bad comparison.

It is a partisan issue by definition. Individuals who are pro business and against government intervention/big government vs. those who aren't. Libertarians and most conservatives claim to be of this group, but just like many things in politics some jump away from their normal ideologies because it affects them personally, i.e. their internet usage. It's also a partisan issue because many conservatives are citing their anger not because these sites are censoring,but what they are censoring. They are publicly upset about the conservative and right wing content that is being censored. There are plenty of people here who side with me. Look no further than the Net Neutrality thread to see this. I'm completely against government intervention in this case.

edit: Ken, I expect you to be for regulation here and I have no issue with that. I don't agree with it, but it's a difference in political views. It's also basically the only liberal viewpoint, that I know of, that you hold.

My big issue and source of my anger is all of the people who argue free market/pro business who argued AGAINST net neutrality want to prevent FB, Twitter, YT etc. from censoring because they are censoring conservative material. That pisses me off because it's blatant hypocrisy.

Curious what line of work you are in. Asking because in marketing, we utilize a lot of google data. They know where many people are 24 hours a day, where you shop, who you associate with, what sort of things you are interested in, and many MANY other things that could be used against you if they wanted to.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests