35 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Lol you say you haven't decided what is true and then give two examples of things you have decided aren't true.

Sorry to hear you think Sandy Hook was a hoax.

4 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yep. Liberal dogma is to silence anyone they disagree with. Well, that's not even true. Sarah Jeong got to tweet all the racist stuff she wanted to. But since she's a liberal, she gets a pass.

 

To put things in context:

 

The “controversy” over journalist Sarah Jeong joining the New York Times, explained

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

I see - you're using "network" as a short form of "social network".  I was reading it as the actual, physical network that carries your data.  Not that this helps clarify matters much.  You can't blame a company - or call it a monopoly - for being popular.  You can call it a monopoly if it abuses its popularity or take steps to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace.

 

Saying that Twitter is a monopoly is laughable, seeing as how it's barely keeping its head above the financial waters.  Has it ever been profitable?

 

 

Is that Google's fault?  If so, how do you "correct" it?  Artificially limit the number of web searches it can perform per hour?

 

 

I didn't understand it because you predicated this action on your loosely applied term "quasi-public good"; a term which I reject.  Whether private or public, a company has to follow laws.  What you seem to be saying is that they regulate themselves (i.e. they have rules and policies) because they don't want to be accused of breaking laws or being an accessory to lawbreaking.  Well okay... I don't rob banks because I don't want to be charged with not respecting laws.  Isn't this obvious?

Don't misunderstand me. I don't blame them at all. That's just that the economics of information (the digital economy is included in it) leads to quasi-monopolies. If It's a quasi-monopoly, it becomes a quasi-public good to which everyone should have access.

Then I just tried to explain their behaviour:

- respect laws, OK (although they may be overly cautious and more restrictive than the actual interpretation of laws),

- regulate in order to avoid opinion campaigns from political of religious groups, hmm... It starts to be another story

- any other criteria, hmmm....

 

Again, I am not putting the blame on them or assessing if they do it right or not. But I want to stress that there is a real issue on how to regulate these new quasi-public goods and who should regulate them.

 
Taking things our of context is very cute.
 
But basically, no - he never did what you imply. He said dumb stuff indeed but defending pedo's wasn't one of them.
 
But great attempt at character assassination - so much easier than rational debate isn't it?

You know, that things like "recordings" and "youtube" exist...don't you!?

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

To put things in context:

 

The “controversy” over journalist Sarah Jeong joining the New York Times, explained

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

 

Explained by a far-left Vox????

9 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Explained by a far-left Vox????

 

But hold on, Pedro.  I don't think she knows the difference between right and left, whether of politics or leg or hand.  Rather, she is just a #me-too Mad Cow type of neo-nazi feminist.  She would happily shut down the voices of all White Males, dead or alive....or all males, for that matter.

31 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Explained by a far-left Vox????

Vox has a left-wing stance, but is not "fake news".

 

"Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the left and highly factual based on proper sourcing. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/16/2018)"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

 

 

 

Like almost always, Jonathan Pie is on the point.

 

This is how we libertarian socialists think. 

 

 

It's leftists that are the most like Nazis. They assault people, harass them in public, try to silence people, ban books, want to ban guns, support the racist Planned Parenthood, etc.
 
Eventually, the market will dictate a price to these totalitarian thugs like Facebook, Twitter and one particular web site that is about Thailand (of course I couldn't possibly mean this one). Harassing a significant part of one's business is just plain STUPID.
 

Racist planned parenthood?
Whatever you are taking...take less!

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 hours ago, blazes said:

 

But hold on, Pedro.  I don't think she knows the difference between right and left, whether of politics or leg or hand.  Rather, she is just a #me-too Mad Cow type of neo-nazi feminist.  She would happily shut down the voices of all White Males, dead or alive....or all males, for that matter.

An example of right wing attempt to censor, again the hypocrisy is astounding.

4 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Explained by a far-left Vox????

Seems a very fair explanation to me. You have any objections to the explanation or only about the source?

7 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Explained by a far-left Vox????

 

I'll try to pick a source pandering to your political views next time. Not.

On 9/7/2018 at 9:22 AM, mercman24 said:

got facebook MONITORING me because i told some truths about the Muslim religion, even got a warning, any how i have been following the Goodwood Revival (huge classic car race event going to take place this weekend) and this morning i get, *this might be of interest to you* and its classic cars from Europe . wonder how they know i like classic car racing ?? HA HA

Perhaps you didn't state your "truths" about Islam as factual statements,

but rather in an  inciting hatred fashion.

18 hours ago, DM07 said:

Not that I want to interfere with your rant about how liberals are ruining the world, but...wasn't Milo the guy who defended pedophilia?

Just asking for a friend...

And he was banned from Twitter for

 

" In July 2016 he was permanently banned from Twitter for what the company cited as "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others", referring to a racist harassment campaign against African-American actress Leslie Jones Twitter says Yiannopoulos inspired"

 

He's basically a neo-nazi  pedophile apologist but not extremist in any way.

 

 

18 hours ago, connda said:

Time to take the monopolies Twitter and Facebook, declare them as public utilities, and regulate them as such. 

And get the NSA to oversee them.

Making them public would stifle free speech. Haven't you heard about the gag orders Trump administration has put on EPA?

On 9/7/2018 at 9:04 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

No they used the argument that Trump’s statements over Twitter were public and necessarily subject to comment because he was communicating via Twitter in his role as President.

 

Heholds public office, his statements were public,blocking people from seeing and commenting on his public comments was unconstitutional.

Thanks for the "non-exclamatory/shouting" explanation. I was not aware that blocking people stopped them seeing your posts on twitter - I thought it just meant they couldn't comment. 

Edited September 8, 20187 yr by SABloke

On 9/7/2018 at 8:33 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ll need to explain how removing hate mongers spreading their poison which is all rooted in lies threatens the sharing of ideas based on rational thought.

 

Also, it is not the ‘righwing’ that is being censored, it is extremist across the whole political spectrum who are spreading hatred and gross lies/conspiracy theories and/or other nation’s propaganda.

 

If that turns out to be predominantly right wingers it’s because it’s predominantly right wingers engaging in spreading hatred and gross lies/conspiracy theories and/or other nation’s propaganda.

 

free speech is actually under threat from "mainstreamism".

 

Mastercard and VISA are prime examples as well, in the past years they put a lot of pressure on third party processors and websites that don't break any laws but could be considered an "image risk" for MC or VISA to have their logo displayed on these sites as payment processors.

The same applies to paypal and other online payment processors.

 

Companies/Authors/Publishers that don't break any laws can be broken at any time at the whim of service provider companies that are in a semi-monopolistic position.

 

Among the list of "compulsory" democratic values, we find "protection of minorities". That's exactly what it is about, minority lifestyles, minority opinion, etc. needs to be protected from being crushed by the mainstream's market power.

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'll try to pick a source pandering to your political views next time. Not.

 

Or a neutral one. 

12 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Or a neutral one. 

So you don't like the source, but again, what is incorrect in the information provided?

Time you start reacting to the content.

Edited September 9, 20187 yr by stevenl