YouTube Extends Trump's Suspension For a Second Time (cnet.com) 199
YouTube on Tuesday said it's again extending its suspension of former President Donald Trump, who's been banned from posting videos to his channel since Jan. 12. Comments on Trump's videos will also remain disabled indefinitely. CNET reports: "In light of concerns about the ongoing potential for violence, the Donald J. Trump channel will remain suspended," a YouTube spokesperson confirmed to CNET. "Our teams are staying vigilant and closely monitoring for any new developments." YouTube first extended Trump's suspension last week, saying it would reevaluate the situation in a week. The company gave no indication on Tuesday of how long the latest extension would last.
YouTube has a three-strikes policy when it comes to policing its platform. Three infractions within a 90-day period results in being permanently kicked off the platform. The first strike typically comes with a one-week ban that prohibits the posting of new content. A second strike comes with a two-week ban. YouTube also suspended Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's lawyer, from a program that allows partners to make money from ads on their videos, after Giuliani broke YouTube's rules by repeatedly sharing election misinformation.
Over the last three years, YouTube's Partner Program paid out more than $30 billion to creators, artists, and media organizations.
YouTube has a three-strikes policy when it comes to policing its platform. Three infractions within a 90-day period results in being permanently kicked off the platform. The first strike typically comes with a one-week ban that prohibits the posting of new content. A second strike comes with a two-week ban. YouTube also suspended Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's lawyer, from a program that allows partners to make money from ads on their videos, after Giuliani broke YouTube's rules by repeatedly sharing election misinformation.
Over the last three years, YouTube's Partner Program paid out more than $30 billion to creators, artists, and media organizations.
Trump and his associates (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump and his associates are cannot keep from passing on lies or even generating new lies. It is what they do.
Just recently I got a newsletter from the Hillsdale college president informing me of the 1984 Orwellian like dangers of the NY Times 1619 Project on how it attempts to rewrite history. The conservative source (Hillsdale college) rails on for 2 pages of the dangers without ever even addressing the clear and present dangers of Trump and his associates that attempt daily to rewrite reality and produc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
an unbiased conservative or liberal source
Is that the political equivalent of what "a neutral positive or negative charge" would be in physics?
Re:Trump and his associates (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditionally the Political Lies are often in the form of not following their campaign promises. This is often not from the politician trying to decieve you, but due to the reality that such promises may not be practical.
These are not good lies, but we expect them.
Trump lies were constant and around a single focus of making him look good. Dispite that many of the lies were obvious, and outlandish. If they stopped there I think it would be tolerated. However they just got worse where they convince those who believed in him to do actions which were harmful and/or illegal.
Who choses the censor? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure. But does that justify censorship? Who gets to be the censor?
Trump reveled in the term "Fake News". Anything he did not like was fake news. And he was the president, with a majority of senate and now the judiciary. Trump came within a whisker of winning a second term.
So if the government chooses the censor, then you are saying that Trump would be the man. Or you want private corporations to be the censors because you have faith in big business?
Do you really want to advocate more censorship?
Be c
Re: Who choses the censor? (Score:2)
Private platform means your free to censor. I don't know what you are calling for a boycott or regulation? The latter is as heinous as the concept of a government censorvin America. I can completely get behind the former. I stopped using Facebook 10 or more years ago. However, I live in China so I don't use YouTube because I am too lazy to have a VPN and ultimately I am complacent with some government oversight of the press, just to avoid an abudance of "fake news". Frankly I enjoy the fact newspapers
Re:Who choses the censor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. But does that justify censorship? Who gets to be the censor?
Yes. And simply put, the owner of the megaphone gets to decide who gets to use it, as long as they don't violate the law, say by denying access to a user because of ethnicity.
Trump reveled in the term "Fake News". Anything he did not like was fake news. And he was the president, with a majority of senate and now the judiciary. Trump came within a whisker of winning a second term.
So if the government chooses the censor, then you are saying that Trump would be the man.
No. That's not what's being said. The government has plenty of its own megaphones. They can buy advertising time. They can issue press statements. Trump used all of the government-sanctioned megaphones to spew overt, demonstrable, provable falsehoods. Plus he used the free megaphones provided by companies. That's how he almost won. By abusing both government and non-government megaphones.
Or you want private corporations to be the censors because you have faith in big business?
I want private corporations to be the censors despite my lack of faith in big business. Let that sink in for a minute.
The Trump experiment showed us a few things. First, it showed us what egregious abuse of voice-amplifying social media looks like. Second, it showed us that the social media companies won't shut down high-profile abusive users until those users are lame ducks, powerless to retaliate. We - the masses - know those things now. I have faith in civilization to learn from mistakes. Precisely what form that takes, I don't know. Maybe the next Trump to arise triggers a mass exodus. If Mybookfacetwitspace2024 enables the next demagogue dictator-wannabe, maybe the masses will mostly log off, taking their precious PII with them. Maybe something else. But it has to be the social media companies banning abuse because that's something we - the citizens - literally cannot.
Do you really want to advocate more censorship?
Yes, please. Also, don't pretend that's abhorrent. Again, civilization iterates and evolves. Not to invoke the big-bad lightly, 50 years ago, tween porn was just another fetish. Civilization collectively decided - over time - that wasn't okay. More censorship happened. It's difficult to make an argument that was wrong, and not just because you'll get accused.
Be careful what you wish for that your wish may be granted.
Yes, thank you. We'll be careful. It's not like we haven't thought this one through, or we're children or something.
Or maybe you just think that the deplorables should not have any voice and not be allowed to vote. Again, be careful for what you wish for.
See, it's around here that the discussion starts to go off the rails. Nobody here said any of that. Or anything like it. Or anything hinting at it. It's a rabid fabrication you've created to try to demonize people who disagree with you.
Cut. It. Out.
Bad people should still get a say. Trump should get a vote. Heck, I'm of the opinion that convicted felons should get a vote. The censorship being discussed isn't about suppressing any individuals rights. It's about saying that it's okay and probably even morally responsible for social media companies to not enable abusive content. Think of it like a bartender being responsible for not over-serving a patron, and taking away the keys of anyone who obviously shouldn't drive.
The big issue is why so many people supported that garbage. That is the big thing that needs to somehow be addressed.
I explain it this way: people believe wha
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> Yes. And simply put, the owner of the megaphone gets to decide who gets to use it, as long as they don't violate the law, say by denying access to a user because of ethnicity.
Um, that is already the case. You might be interested to learn that Facebook and witter have banned Trump, for example.
This is about the government imposing rules on what those corporations must ban. And those rules are rather vague. And presumably any sites that allowed the wrong things to be said would be prosecuted and shut
Re: (Score:2)
The government certainly has a say, which is why kiddie porn is illegal. Yes, I went there, because if you think that **nothing** should be banned, including plots to capture and hang elected officials, then you support allowing **everything**.
The government exists to represent the will of the society, and society has decided that kiddie porn is unacceptable. Society also gets to decide that planning attacks on the Capitol Building is unacceptable, and whether the attack is being planned by followers of D
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it like a bartender being responsible for not over-serving a patron, and taking away the keys of anyone who obviously shouldn't drive.
Or a restaurant that refuses to serve fat people :P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, please. Also, don't pretend that's abhorrent. Again, civilization iterates and evolves. Not to invoke the big-bad lightly, 50 years ago, tween porn was just another fetish. Civilization collectively decided - over time - that wasn't okay. More censorship happened. It's difficult to make an argument that was wrong, and not just because you'll get accused.
Censorship is abhorrent. Furthermore, I think you would agree with me if you didn't have your partisan blinders on.
There are many ways to deal with the problems of social media, why do you jump to censorship? Something is wrong with that. Look for alternatives.
For example, Facebook has been marking posts with "fact check" links. This not only answers the falseness without censorship, but also motivates posters to avoid getting fact checked (by not posting lies, or unsupported statements).
Re:Who choses the censor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is abhorrent. Furthermore, I think you would agree with me if you didn't have your partisan blinders on.
Sorry, no. Not an American. Nothing partisan about my viewpoint. I have the moral opinions I have because of those opinions, not because any named group of politicians pretend to espouse them.
There are many ways to deal with the problems of social media, why do you jump to censorship?
Well, not the least in extreme cases it's the best answer. You may disapprove of it, but I don't, so why should I avoid it? Again, understand that there's a world of difference between "you're not allowed to say you believe in God" and the raft of lies the ex-President set afloat.
Something is wrong with that. Look for alternatives.
For example, Facebook has been marking posts with "fact check" links. This not only answers the falseness without censorship, but also motivates posters to avoid getting fact checked (by not posting lies, or unsupported statements).
Okay, first up... that's a great start. And fits in with my suggestion that civilization will adapt solutions to the new problems we've discovered. But what happens when the Great Leader keeps doing it? Remember... we know many, many people want to believe the lies. And we know that no amount of fact-checking and documenting the truth gets through to them. They happily consume the lies, and just get angry at "this is disputed". The harm continues.
I also repeat that I really don't see Youtube suspending Trump's account to be censorship. He is allowed to speak as much as he wants. He's just not allowed to use their system for amplifying his voice.
Re:Who choses the censor? (Score:4, Insightful)
...because no one but an American is allowed to express their views about America?
And you want to whinge about "cancel culture" from others? You're as guilty as anyone else.
Not to mention the utter mis-characterisation of what the other person said.
You see, this is the reason that others don't want to have a civil discourse with you: you seem unable to control yourself enough to have one.
You have rights. But you don't have all the rights you think you have just because you happen to feel entitled to them. You just come off as a spoilt child.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is usually because there are pragmatic reasons for voting one candidate over the other. There’s only two parties, sometimes
Re: (Score:3)
Your whole reply starts from your basic thinking that everyone who voted for Trump was an idiot who fell for his lies and then there is some wisdom (which you have stumbled upon yourself but are graceful enough to think others might be nudged towards) in learning Trump lied.
You are not alone. There is nothing to learn from someone who has not learned anything from those who suppo
Re: (Score:3)
Your whole reply starts from your basic thinking that everyone who voted for Trump was an idiot who fell for his lies
Well, we know that's not true, and there are two types of trump voter: wealthy, and stupid. Trump was only ever going to pursue the interests of the upper class, because he has never, ever pursued the interests of anyone but trump.
Trump promised the poor members of his base a lot of stuff, and delivered none of it. So that really drives home the fact that poor people who voted for Trump got fucked over. A lot of us told them that was what was going to happen, and they ignored history, and then what we told
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why you'll lose in the end. Because myopic assholishness NEVER ends well.
We all lose when dumbshits act like dumbshits.
We all lose when people refuse to admit they made mistakes.
Republicans' main method of operation is to never admit a mistake, always blame a failing on someone else.
Until and unless Republicans grow the fuck up and admit their mistakes, Republicans will always be harmful to the union and to democracy.
Re:Who choses the censor? (Score:5, Informative)
Your whole reply starts from your basic thinking that everyone who voted for Trump was an idiot who fell for his lies and then there is some wisdom (which you have stumbled upon yourself but are graceful enough to think others might be nudged towards) in learning Trump lied.
Not one word of what I wrote indicates that. First of all, there is a difference between someone who voted for Trump and someone who believe the lies he told. Some of his economic policies may appeal to some voters, for instance. It's entirely understandable for someone to vote for him despite the lies, because they wish his promises to be enacted. But this topic is about the suspension of his YouTube account, to suppress further lies. Regardless of if someone approves of his policies (aside from lying), the lying should be stopped.
You are not alone. There is nothing to learn from someone who has not learned anything from those who supported Trump. There are legitimate concerns that you don't want to talk about because they affect your bottomline. Legitimate concerns are not going away.
No, don't try to demonize me. Don't assume there are things I don't want to talk about, and don't talk about my bottom line. Because you're wrong. I'm willing to discuss reality. I'm cognizant and concerned with a lot of the issues impacting the US and the world at large. And I'm aware that not everything Trump proposed was bad, wrong, or evil. But - again - the topic at hand is the lying, and the consequent banning.
If Trump lied, and some people believed it, who gives a shit.
I do. First, a president lying has serious consequences. Second, the cause for the desire to lie and the desire to believe the lies is worth thinking about.
You are the bourgeoisie who is after the centrists because we pose a challenge to far-leftists ideologues that work in your favor. That's the reality.
What. The. Actual. Fuck?
Friend, I'm just this guy, you know? I'm not elite. I'm not outside of the middle-class. I'm not "after" anyone except bullshit artists. I don't know - or care - what a centrist is. I only dimly understand the "left versus right" thing and I don't believe in it. I believe in judging people on the merit of their actions. I believe in judging issues on their individual merit. There isn't such a thing as a person who mirrors my views (which evolve as I grow and learn) let alone a political party. I'm just an average Joe.
More... I'm not American. Attributing American-o-centric motivations to me is... way, way off-topic and off-base.
Our deplorables represent all of us, but your deplorables "have their heart in the right place" or "standing up to a system of oppression" or "victims" etc.
No, man. There's no "deplorables" in my world. I'm not out to demonize anyone. But I am willing to explain why I think it's okay for a private platform to deny service to someone who repeatedly and relentlessly uses it to spew bullshit. Which I did. You're free to disagree. You're even free to go psycho and spew random hateful accusations at me regarding my reasoning. I mean... until and unless Slashdot decides to suppress you. (Or me.)
It is not going to end well. Trump was a buffoon but he was the only one saying stuff we wanted acknowledged. Instead of going after Trump and dismantaling any system where he might get some support, Democrats could have acknowledged some wrong doing on their part. They had 4 years. They have doubled down.
This is "whatboutism". It's useless. Don't over-complicate things.
Pick a Trump lie. For instance, any of the ones downplaying COVID-19. No De
Re:Who choses the censor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. But does that justify censorship? Who gets to be the censor?
Well now, it isn't censorship. Trump can go on his other outlets and say whatever he likes. But he's not allowed to demand I set up a social media site in my house.
The whole far rights version of censorship is like that. Demanding that their right to spout whatever they want overrides private property rights. And also demanding that they and only they have freedom of speech. This is illustrated exactly in Trump's veto of the defense bill demanding that section 230 be repealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Even to the point of issueing executive orders. It was a campaign promise of his that he was going to allow his minions to sue, sue, sue any social media they didn't like - I'm trying to look that up.
There you have it. Whine Bawl, crying about how poorly they are treated, then attempt to throttle opposing view. I'm really surprised that the people who are aghast at poor old Donald's poor treatment, claiming his first amendment rights are being violated when he attempted to throttle opposing views.
Re:Who choses the censor? (Score:5, Informative)
He lost by less than 1% of the vote.
Did you fail elementary school math? Biden won by roughly 4.5%, 81 million to 74 million.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
America has a perverted system in which votes per state are all or nothing. If you look, you will see that a 1% swing across all states would easily re-elect Trump. Those are the rules.
Further, people that insult the intelligence of others are generally displaying limited intellectual ability of their own.
Troll Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that my original posting got -1 Troll is interesting.
It clearly was not a troll, but a reasoned argument. People may disagree, that is fine. But here we have a discussion about censorship. And those who favor censorship are quick to attempt to censor those that disagree with them.
Re: (Score:2)
America has a perverted system in which votes per state are all or nothing. If you look, you will see that a 1% swing across all states would easily re-elect Trump. Those are the rules.
The rules are that we don't elect a president by popular vote. Each state decides how to cast its electoral votes, in whatever way they want. They can flip a coin if they'd like. Discussions about nationwide vote totals are as irrelevant as discussions about whether the Superbowl winner has more fans than the loser... that's not how the decision is made.
I've never been a huge fan of the electoral college, but I have to say that I've come to really appreciate it in the last few months. It provides a level
Re:Trump and his associates (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you suppose the Biden administration and it's associates will lie? Clearly all presidents have lied. I'm not sure why Trump is so special in this case.
Most politicians lie about what they're going to do if they get elected, or occasionally about past personal/private events (such as Bill Clinton lying about his sexual relationships). Trump freely and constantly lied about the most basic, public, and easily verifiable facts. Nobody could argue against people that believed his lies because they were completely divorced from reality.
Re:Trump and his associates (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump and his associates are cannot keep from passing on lies or even generating new lies. It is what they do.
Just recently I got a newsletter from the Hillsdale college president informing me of the 1984 Orwellian like dangers of the NY Times 1619 Project on how it attempts to rewrite history. The conservative source (Hillsdale college) rails on for 2 pages of the dangers without ever even addressing the clear and present dangers of Trump and his associates that attempt daily to rewrite reality and produces lies and disinformation daily.
The 1619 project is crap.
The 1776 commission (Score:3)
Like most ideological projects, it wanted to control present thought by editing history.
It's interesting how quickly the 1776 commission report fell into the memory hole:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archiv... [archives.gov]
And worse (Score:2)
From the point of view of those offended by it, it essentially says that our problems are not external. That is, America is fair; people who are having problems need to change their behavior.
The Crowd hates to hear that one...
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone capable of lying should be silenced!
Re:Lies (Score:4, Informative)
Lots of judges (including Trump-appointed judges) looked at the evidence in the lawsuits. Every lawsuit that alleged fraud was laughed out of court. So many people did look at the evidence, but even conservative judges determined that it did not show fraud.
To be fair, not all "evidence" shown on right-wing media was included in the lawsuits. That's because made-up "facts" are legal when shown to gullible idiots, but cause lawyers-in-jail when shown to judges. This is not for unproven "evidence", but for faked "evidence". From this we can show that evidence shown on OANN and Newsmax, but not shown to judges, is faked to appeal to gullible idiots.
Please, please don't be a gullible idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of judges (including Trump-appointed judges) looked at the evidence in the lawsuits. Every lawsuit that alleged fraud was laughed out of court.
Yes, all zero of them.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you explain Trump appointed judges tossing out every case?
Re:To hear evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
You really don't know how the american legal system works do you? Are you just gullible and repeating what someone else said, or do you really believe that any random scrawl submitted to a court causes a jury trial?
But you don't even need to know how our legal system works. You can just read some of the opinions that the judges wrote.
Seriously, please read the opinions. Many of them are short and easily understandable.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence gets inspected in a courtroom, not rejected by politicized judges. That's how our legal system works.
At some point it would seem resonable to look at the opinions in a substantial number of cases and accept that this is in fact how the legal system works.
Re: (Score:2)
What media blockade? I read right-wing media and they had nothing but talk about the "stolen" election. I also read media that cares about evidence, and they also covered the "stolen" election, though they pointed out that without any proof, the allegations were not going to go very far.
Many, many people "looked into" the evidence. That they found that most of the evidence was hearsay (and not even believable hearsay) is not proof of a massive coverup; it instead implies that the evidence was made up to
Re: (Score:2)
I think looking at the court documents is very worthwhile and here's a link with a list of cases to help you get started https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Re:To hear evidence (Score:5, Informative)
No allegations of fraud were brought before any judge in any case.
Lawyers are very aware that if they lie about claiming fraud THEY will lose their license to practice. Even Giuliani admitted in open court that the lawsuits did not show or claim fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump talked fraud but that is not what his lawyers argued in court. They argued technicalities with the voting laws in the state and claimed they violated the State Constitution. Please stop spreading the lies about fraud.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Lies only emerge when investigated. For example, we might investigate that election and actually look at what he alleges is proof of the fraud.
Except the con artist never alleged fraud in any of his court cases. Here is a short list [time.com] of court cases where the con artist or his supporters explicitly stated they were not claiming any fraud in the elections.
So if the very people claiming there was "fraud" in the election didn't present any evidence of said "fraud" in their court cases, and in fact went out of their way to deny their cases were about "fraud", what is there to look at?
Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
People on the right view the Steele dossier with the same dismissive attitude as you now view the Guiliani filings. At least both sides were correct at least once. Americans don’t even realize they are all the same - not surprising, you’re all the same monkeys in the same jungle. You’re just digging yourselves further into your two warring clans.
Re: (Score:3)
As a non-American, I can’t tell you how similar the rhetoric in your last statement matches the same we heard about Russia and Trump in 2016
Really? It's not remotely the same.
In 2016, Russia did try to influence the election by swaying voters. This isn't in dispute, and never really was, but Clinton conceded and Democrats accepted the result. There was some whining and some pro-forma protests in Congress, but no one important ever argued that the election was fraudulent and certainly no one important ever argued that the outcome should be changed. The "Not my president" cries on the left weren't an argument that the election was wrongly-de
Re: (Score:2)
You’re just digging yourselves further into your two warring clans.
On that we agree.
Freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
To think thoughts that the guardians of freedom approve, but if you do anything else, you are going to get banned and shut out of the conversation.
It's funny how democracy has inverted itself in just 245 years.
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
It amazes me how the D party went from "pro speech" to censorous old people in a matter of a decade. I don't really understand it.
The R party went from censorously trying to prevent flag-burning to being censorous old people in the same amount of time, but I kind of expect it of them.
Stupid Party and Evil Party (Score:2)
I don't like the GOP; I never have. They seem to be crass opportunists trying to cash in on people from previous generations, convincing them that the Christian libertarianism on offer is "conservative." And they have conserved what exactly? If they were for real, they would be all-in on traditionalism and Half Earth. Instead we get money and Jesus, plus defense.
On the other hand, the Left used arguments for freedom when it benefited them, but then turned around and made that into, "We stand for the ONE RIG
Re: (Score:2)
...Consequently, we're stumbling down the path to tyranny...
That's a problem. It does appear that Republics eventually devolve into tyrannies when citizens can't overcome the failure modes of Republics.
Re: (Score:2)
The media was pretty right wing until fairly recently. The newspapers were owned by old rich powerful people who skew pretty strongly to the right. The left needed strong freedom of speech, both in law and in spirit in order to be heard at all.
New media (if that's a term we can still use) is a lot more left wing. There's very little restricting the left from saying what they want. "#KillAllMen", "There's no god!" "Fuck the cops" all above board and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is not a town square. It is the equivalent of a person shouting inside a shopping mall and being asked to leave. The mall is private property and can ask anyone to leave at any time.
Trump is supposedly a billionaire. He can't figure out a way to make is own platform to speak from?
So silly (Score:2)
Following a certain court case that I've already cited here, it depends on how the mall is used.
If it's like a town square, rights follow accordingly.
Even more, if you have no problem with "bake the gay cake," you probably have no philosophical problem with free speech on privately owned but public spaces.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I have deep concerns about the amount of power the tech giants have, but lets be honest, NOBODY has gotten more second third fourth chances than Trump
Right back in 2017 people where asking why they'd get slapped with a suspension for being even slightly rude on facebook while the president was constantly breaking the rules and getting off scott free.
They even had to make a special rule just for trump that, well, he didnt have to follow the rules as much.
When people cry about censorship on social media regards to trump they SHOULD be asking WHY he got so much special access while the rest of us had to hide under rocks to avoid the all seeing ban hammer. The real outrage is it took till so late in his term to get banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 245 years ago we cancelled the Tories, so there is that.
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube is legally allowed to prevent anyone from speaking on their platform.
I am legally allowed to criticize them for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then sit there and cry.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on the current law, that's true. However, I think they should also be legally responsible for what's on their platform if they want to use it to control speech.
We need to revise section 230 to remove protection for platforms that don't act as common carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no right to have no consequences during or after spewing your free speech. Don't like getting kicked off a service after you agreed to their terms once again you're free to spew it anywhere else public.
Re:Let's talk values (Score:5, Insightful)
In an open discussion, it helps if people are honest, factual and attached to reality.
You do understand the difference between a company town (which for all intents and purposes was the local government) and Youtube? Which is why Marsh vs Alabama is totally irrelevant. Also, Peckingham vs North Carolina is about the 1A rights of sex offenders, which is violated if the government banned them from the internet and social media, it was never about "big tech".
Both cases boils down to that the government (or the de facto government) cannot block speech, because that violates the 1A amendment. When someone successfully can prove that an internet platform is the de facto government the cases may be somewhat relevant, until then they are just red herrings.
The ones talking about "privately owned public spaces" are the ones who want to force themselves and their views on others, they want an audience. They want the government to force private companies and their owners to give up their rights. It seems to me there has been an upsurge in people channeling Karl Marx and his central tenets about the working-class revolution and seizing the means of production. Funny that, communism is in vouge for some...
Re: (Score:3)
Do we care about an Open Discussion, or not?
If so, it doesn't matter much who owns the infrastructure; we are speaking of our values as a society.
In this case, we have inverted our original values and become what we feared.
> Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
There is also the legal question of privately owned public spaces:
http://www.amerika.org/politic... [amerika.org]
So do we want cyberspace, or walled gardens? Open discussion, or The Narrative (only)?
These are questions for our civilization and we're about to decide them.
The idea that privately owned platforms could be considered public squares has been tried, the bar that you have to pass is that they have to exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
One wonders (Score:2)
After all, conservatives failed to censor you as widely as you censor them.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, conservatives failed to censor you as widely as you censor them.
And that is the crux of the matter. Humans are a problem.
Donald Trump, Fox News, and Distortion of the News (Score:2, Informative)
Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth [amazon.com]
More information (Score:5, Informative)
History of right wing media in the US since the 1980s [imgur.com].
Trump apparently plans to become MUCH more damaging:
Trump campaign had paid $2.7M to organizers of rally ahead of Capitol riot: report [thehill.com].
why stop here (Score:2, Insightful)
Because non mainstream is fine (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube, FB et al were fine ignoring the dog whistles until actual violence happened (and was perpetrated against powerful people in Congress). It's pretty clear Trump intends to keep riling up his base, either to soak up donations he gets to pocket or in the hopes their next violent coup will succeed. Nobody sane wants to platform somebody like that.
Oh, and Fox News, OAN and Newsmax (Score:2)
Trump was the mainstream (Score:2)
He won the election, remember? Hitler was mainstream too, and extremely popular in Germany after the Battle of France. Both Putin and Xi are genuinely popular in their countries and would easily win elections even without the need to cheat.
Be careful for what you wish for. Conformity to the mainstream is very dubious.
Dogwhistles (Score:2, Informative)
What were the dogwhistles? And how did they take effect before the crowd from his speech reached Congress? Also, why did the Capitol police fold so easily, after not beefing up security on the day, considering that they are under control by Democrats?
I don't trust the narrative. You have to dig down into a situation for facts and nuance, and it seems to me that almos
Re: (Score:2)
That's a dodge (Score:2)
"Fight" is routinely used in political discourse. You made a poor case, or none.
It is not a difference of opinion, (Score:2)
They disagree on what the facts are.
But, looks like lots of Republicans know what the facts are, and are still too scared to say it publicly. Rand Paul hems and haws, does not say openly "there is enough election fraud to have changed the out come." At the same time he refuses to say "there is not enough fraud to have changed the out come.". . Very clear he knows the election was not stolen by the Democrats. Just to
Re: (Score:2)
That's classic Rand Paul. He occasionally says something that makes it clear that he knows right from wrong, but then he always either immediately or in short order walks it back and goes on marching in lock step with his partners in crime. It's one of those things that can be counted on, along with death and taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake it 'til you break it (Score:2)
The slogan used to be Fake it 'til you make it, but it turns out it doesn't work with presidents. It's one thing for an inventor to lie to investors to hide problems with a product until these are fixed, because it's just money that's being wasted. It's another when the product you're trying to sell is trust and truth, where the lies destroy what you're trying to sell, and it even kills people. The public beta testing of Trump v0.1rc1 has been delayed until further notice.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile, YouTube runs favors for Biden... (Score:5, Insightful)
He got the most votes, not by his own merits, but by Trump's.
In other words, it is Trump's "fault" that you got Biden.
Re: (Score:2)
That unfortunately has been the situation for almost my entire adulthood, the last presidential candidate that I could have voted **for** was Carter in 1980. Ever since then it's just been a matter of voting against the other candidate. selecting the 'Lesser Evil' because the 'Greater Evil' is just too bad to contemplate.
Re:Meanwhile, YouTube runs favors for Biden... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The article links to the livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] the video on the white house page is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] I don't know if livestreams can be moved to videos but I've never seen it done and from the the ones I've seen they've been removed when the show has ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of NASA's live streams of launches and press conferences are re-listed as videos, frequently with the live comments column intact. I think Space X's are too.
Re: (Score:2)
My sincere apologies to all the Trumptards that I triggered into downvoting me. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you are not thinking about Ronald Regan? One of the two parties seem to think that the main quality for a president is being on a TV/Movie. Or maybe even for a governor.
Re: (Score:2)
...the main quality for a president is being on a TV/Movie. Or maybe even for a governor.
The famous Hollywood deep state?
Re: (Score:2)
You're on a roll today :)
Re:President Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regan was a good president, while I in hindsight disagree with many of his policies. But he was a good communicater to the public, where his ideas were clear, focused and rational.
Trump failed as all aspects of being a good president. He never bother to explain why he does what he commands. If pressed he comes up with some crazy talk where he just blames all the people who are against them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Lets agree that Trump failed in all aspect of being even a BAD president. :D
But the important thing here on this discussion is: never miss the opportunity for a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Regan was a good president, while I in hindsight disagree with many of his policies. But he was a good communicater to the public, where his ideas were clear, focused and rational.
Good communication skills don't make a good president. And those were gone before he left office, as his Alzheimer's progressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Good communication skills are an important part of being a good president.
While 33% of the population will blindly follow anyone who says they are member of the political party. An other 33% that will blindly follow anyone who says that they are a member of the opposing political party. We have 34% who needs some sort of explanation in order to be onboard.
America is a Democratic Republic, our representatives (This includes the president) will need to communicate to the public on what he is doing and wh
Re: (Score:2)
"Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males," their lawsuit charges."
Not sure I follow. What about the fact that Caucasians, or males, are in the vast majority at google.
Re:Fail to affirm the narrative (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know many caucasian males at Google and none of them have been fired for being caucasian or for being male. So that seems unlikely to be part of the reason.
The funny thing about "cancel culture" is that it is very, very old. When I was growing up, if someone was found to be gay, they were fired and evicted. "Cancelled". Before I was born, if you were suspected of being communist you were fired and evicted. Google the HUAC. And if you were african-american and found to be "uppity", well, the cancellation was often rather more abrupt and permanent.
Conservatives have been in favor of (and often the cause of) "cancel culture" for at least 100 years. The fact that they are now unhappy about it, but only when they are the target, is both hilarious and deeply sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. Arguably the history of cancel culture started in the US w/ the Boston Tea Party.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservatives have been in favor of (and often the cause of) "cancel culture" for at least 100 years. The fact that they are now unhappy about it, but only when they are the target, is both hilarious and deeply sad.
Did it ever occur to you that people who identify as 'Conservative' in 2021 are different people who identified as 'Conservative' 100 years ago? Different people with different opinions, just like how modern Democrats aren't all the same as older Democrats who created the KKK.
The fact that most humans don't live to be 100 should be a clue.
Racism, Misogyny, Homophobia etc are all forms of discrimination based on group identity, and you have just engaged in that same activity. Shame on you.
Re: (Score:3)
Did it ever occur to you that people who identify as 'Conservative' in 2021 are different people who identified as 'Conservative' 100 years ago?
Yes, notably, the people who identified that way 100 years ago are dead now. So what? People who identify as conservative are still telling the same lies and using the same defenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see the Supreme Court case in 2020 about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The effect of the case (though not the point of law under consideration) was "should you be allowed to fire and evict (cancel) people based on their sexual orientation."
Overwhelmingly, liberals said "no, you should not be able to fire and evict (cancel) people based on their sexual orientation". Conservatives mostly said "yes, you should be able to fire and evict (cancel) people based on their sexual orientation." You can also
Re: (Score:2)
Err, you do realize that prior to 1970, there were liberals and conservatives in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Google for "republican southern strategy" for how that changed, how the Republican party became more conservative (and more racist), which made the Democrat party more liberal.
Not all cities are under Democrat leadership. Most, but not all. And it turns out that crime is highly correlated to the size of the city, and not to the type of leadership. Numbers, how do they work?
So you're
Re:Fail to affirm the narrative (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure I follow. What about the fact that Caucasians, or males, are in the vast majority at google.
According to Google, 43.1% of their employees are Caucasian, and 48.5% are Asian. White males constitute 30.1% of Google's employees.
https://diversity.google/annual-report/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the fact that Caucasians, or males, are in the vast majority at google.
Even if they were that doesn't prevent them being attacked on gender or racial grounds.
It's possible to oppress a majority. It's possible to discriminate against a majority. It's also possible to claim a minority is in fact a majority and use that to claim justification for discriminating against them.
None of that makes it right.
Re: (Score:2)
They can now control any topic, get any law passed, and select who our next successful politicians will be.
Sorta like China I guess...
Quite the opposite actually.
In China, the state controlled the billionaires. (Ref: see Jack Ma)
In US, the billionaires controlled the state. (Ref: see Trump)
Pick your poison.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:2)
China isn't a problem. It's a left-over from the old British empire. Half of America has got China in their cupboards. Leave the pottery out of politics.
China funded Trump (Score:2)
But he closed his secret Chinese bank account when we found out about it.
Russia also funded Trump, according to his kids, who bragged about getting all the money they needed from Russia.