What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

fishonjazz said:
.View attachment 17020

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is an interesting propagandistic spin. In reality this data means the opposite of what is being presented. The truth being revealed there is an admission the government is lying about the scale of the problem by omitting food from the calculation of core inflation.

As a side note, you do know Jacobin.com is set up for the purpose of advocating Marxist Socialism, right? Your screenshot is literal communist propaganda.

en.wikipedia.org

Jacobin (magazine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Bucknutz said:
All the “book burning” bros here who promote that fake narrative, are you okay with this?


View: https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1823035468394754244?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Threatening action to shut down speech. Speech that the government can subjectively classify the context to whatever they feel like. I think I just heard this recently coming from a VP candidate.

You guys are obviously against this “book burning” right?
Click to expand...

I have not weighed in on the book burning issue, but I will weigh in here. Here in the united states, where we have a clear and unimpeachable right to freedom of speech (minus of course inciting speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.), yes this would be viewed as offensive by some of the population, but still allowed. Given the context of this being governed in the laws of the EU then the EU standard would apply. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the EU laws, it sure feels like it is, but if it is then if they want to continue having access to the EU on Twitter/X then they probably need to comply, as the laws of the United States do not govern other nations. Seems fairly clear to me.

Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold. I think the same for Facebook, et al. that they should all be willing to reduce the inflammatory content and reduced the targeting of children and young people in their addiction-generating algorithms, for example. But they have shown only a propensity to chase the almighty dollar regardless of who it harms or how much general harm it does in society. I think that is "more wrong" than what is being sought here in this letter.

Do I feel this is akin to book burning? No, not really. I mean I think an argument could be made, but to me this is not the same thing.
 
fishonjazz said:
.View attachment 17020

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah this kind of thing is simply out of control and a huge part of it is the loosening, and lack of enforcement of monopoly and anti-trust laws in the last few decades, from both sides of the aisle unfortunately. A side effect of rampant lobbying in that they pay off both sides to get what they want. So we still give oil companies huge tax breaks and even subsidies to the oil companies. In 2022 it is estimated that american tax payers gave the oil companies over $20 billion in hand outs all while prices jumped at the pump and they recorded record income and record profits. None of that is by chance, it is a result of systematic bribery of our elected officials to change laws then "look the other way" on everything else.

I know this is a heavily left-leaning source, but it checks out to various middle of the road sources as well. It is just more succinct here.

usa.oceana.org

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices. FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that...
usa.oceana.org usa.oceana.org
 
LogGrad98 said:
I have not weighed in on the book burning issue, but I will weigh in here. Here in the united states, where we have a clear and unimpeachable right to freedom of speech (minus of course inciting speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.), yes this would be viewed as offensive by some of the population, but still allowed. Given the context of this being governed in the laws of the EU then the EU standard would apply. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the EU laws, it sure feels like it is, but if it is then if they want to continue having access to the EU on Twitter/X then they probably need to comply, as the laws of the United States do not govern other nations. Seems fairly clear to me.

Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold. I think the same for Facebook, et al. that they should all be willing to reduce the inflammatory content and reduced the targeting of children and young people in their addiction-generating algorithms, for example. But they have shown only a propensity to chase the almighty dollar regardless of who it harms or how much general harm it does in society. I think that is "more wrong" than what is being sought here in this letter.

Do I feel this is akin to book burning? No, not really. I mean I think an argument could be made, but to me this is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
What was said? To force action, In this situation? It hasn’t even happened and there is a threat.

Edit: this is suppression of speech. Don’t like who’s speaking, threaten them.

Edit 2: attempted suppression

View: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823076043017630114?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ
 
Last edited:
Bucknutz said:
What was said? To force action, In this situation? It hasn’t even happened and there is a threat.

Edit: this is suppression of speech. Don’t like who’s speaking, threaten them.
Click to expand...
Sure. Then I recommend you say out of the EU for sure, since that seems to be the standard M.O. considering it was mentioned that other letters had been sent before that Twitter did not adhere to, so they were sending another one. That tells me this is a standard thing for them. So it could be presumed this is the way they operate in general. Not sure what recourse we have against the EU in general. Boycott maybe?

They mention the DSA and laws in the EU to which large online entities are responsible to adhere. Sounds like Twitter hasn't been adhering. I guess if that is the choice, and sure you could argue this is suppression of speech but it sure seems to be codified to me. In that case, pull out of the EU entirely and show them that way that you won't play by their rules. They can set the rules the member nations feels are important, and companies can choose where to do business. Twitter should just pull out of the EU entirely. That or sue I guess.
 
Bucknutz said:
All the “book burning” bros here who promote that fake narrative, are you okay with this?


View: https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1823035468394754244?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Threatening action to shut down speech. Speech that the government can subjectively classify the context to whatever they feel like. I think I just heard this recently coming from a VP candidate.

You guys are obviously against this “book burning” right?
Click to expand...

Why do I give a **** what happens in the EU?
 
Here is something on the EU DSA (Digital Services Act). This act has been challenged in court by google and amazon it looks like, but it also looks like it is being applied across the board. Of course the big boys do not want to be constrained, it makes it harder to generate views and clicks if they have to self-censor the most inflammatory and vile **** they traffic in. How can they get that sweet ad revenue from the incels if they can't stream the christchurch shootings live? You do realize this is the kind of content they are going after, right? They are also requiring transparency on the algorithms and how advertisers target users. Of course the big boys don't want to give this up, it might give families something to help break the hold they have on children in our society that drive the most ad revenue, and making it more public ensure that they have to answer to it in a public sphere, instead of in the shadows. So they can explain, IN PUBLIC, why boys aged 12-17 get more violent images thrown at them in a day than any other age group, for example, things like that. Also how they peddle and encourage outrage and fake media posts to rile up the masses so they stay glued to their computers to keep that ad revenue flowing, regardless of the damage done.

en.wikipedia.org

Digital Services Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

But if you check a few more sources you see this is the bulk of what they are after, transparency, not censorship. You can still get all the pissed off Donald Trump videos you want, while others can protest the share of sexually charged ads and other content thrown at pre-teens, especially girls, that has been shown to not only keep them glued to the computer or phone, but to also increase their acceptance of online grooming (yes that is another real category with big problems).

This is a far more nuanced and deep conversation than simply "muh rights!!" And you can bet that if the giant "evil" ones, such as google, facebook, amazon, and especially twitter are up in arms about it, then it is probably good for our society as a whole and we should probably support it.

By the way, the next demo that gets the most violent images are men aged 25-40 - prime incel territory, and the perpetrators of most of our mass shooting sprees worldwide, only their violent imagery is intermingled with subversive political messages as well, most of them fake and targeted to drive max outrage. There was even a time a few years ago when it was discovered that Russia was disseminating a lot of this on purpose, trying to destabilize western culture, aided and abetted by facebook, google and twitter, who were more than happy to use that to prop up their billionaire owners.

www.technologyreview.com

The Facebook whistleblower says its algorithms are dangerous. Here’s why.

Frances Haugen’s testimony at the Senate hearing today raised serious questions about how Facebook’s algorithms work—and echoes many findings from our previous investigation.
www.technologyreview.com www.technologyreview.com

Technical Difficulties

www.state.gov

So if we are going to discuss this, let's at least be intellectually honest about it.



Edit: by the way these are just some of the top google responses to these searches, after you scroll past a dozen scams shoved to the top to make google more money of course. There is a lot more out there about this, but a lot of the really good stuff starts on page 2.
 
LogGrad98 said:
So if we are going to discuss this, let's at least be intellectually honest about it.
Click to expand...
Then be intellectually honest. It is B.S. The government isn't prosecuting someone who did harm, or even prosecuting the person who said something which may have contributed to the mindset of the person who did harm, but instead they are prosecuting someone who has an ownership stake in a technology that some unrelated individual used to communicate words that a third person took as a call to action. If a government can prosecute someone two people removed from the action doer, someone who isn't a citizen of or even located in their jurisdiction, then the government can prosecute anyone anytime at will.

There should be consequences for foreign governments threatening American citizens in this manner.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold.
Click to expand...
What morals? Your morals, my morals, the government morals? This is the subjective part, I keep bringing up. I know for a fact, there are some posters on this site, which would be fine to suppress Trumps speech because it's the "moral" thing to do. Trump hasn't even said anything, yet its the "morally" right thing to do.

It's okay for me or the Government to "morally" suppress Kamala's interview because I subjectivly think it's hate speech.

This is Covid suppression debate all over. (Don't want to litigate that again)

More speech is better than less speech. Even if its lying, which posters do here, like flashlights in peoples asses.
 
Bucknutz said:
What morals? Your morals, my morals, the government morals? This is the subjective part, I keep bringing up. I know for a fact, there are some posters on this site, which would be fine to suppress Trumps speech because it's the "moral" thing to do. Trump hasn't even said anything, yet its the "morally" right thing to do.

It's okay for me or the Government to "morally" suppress Kamala's interview because I subjectivly think it's hate speech.

This is Covid suppression debate all over. (Don't want to litigate that again)

More speech is better than less speech. Even if its lying, which posters do here, like flashlights in peoples asses.
Click to expand...
Society's morals in general as defined by the voting public. We do this all the time. You're acting like nothing that is done in terms of setting laws or statutes are based in any sense of "morals" at all and that's just cherry picking. In fact most of our laws are based in racist puritanism, but hey, the devil you know, amirite? Hell, I should be able to date a 14 year old, marry her. I mean, why not? Because it's against your morals? I guarantee you a non-trivial part of society would disagree with you on that, push comes to shove. We legislate based on morals all the time. So why not regulate based on them as well. How much of this is free speech realistically and how much protecting the rich at the expense of the vulnerable, if you're being honest with yourself? Is this the specter of socialism the conservatives are so afraid of, that really they might have to deal with legislative and regulatory changes based on someone else's version of morality and not theirs? The devil you know indeed.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone even remotely concerned that the US seems to not have a functioning President when all indications are significantly more widespread conflict is about to significantly kick off in the Middle East as well as the other conflicts around the world ??
 
Douchebag K said:
Is anyone even remotely concerned that the US seems to not have a functioning President when all indications are significantly more widespread conflict is about to significantly kick off in the Middle East as well as the other conflicts around the world ??
Click to expand...

Not remotely, millions of others will die before i have to worry about my skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top