(06-07-2021, 11:11 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 11:09 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]White Claw isn't beer.
Its amazing that they don't see irony... For example twitter mad at Nigeria for freedom of speech, and me using "safe space" in regards to the left.
Lol, yeah. Twitter said they are a human right yet ban a conservative including a sitting president if they break wind. These aren't serious people.
(06-07-2021, 11:17 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 11:11 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Its amazing that they don't see irony... For example twitter mad at Nigeria for freedom of speech, and me using "safe space" in regards to the left.
Lol, yeah. Twitter said they are a human right yet ban a conservative including a sitting president if they break wind. These aren't serious people.
Yep and I want to be safely away from them in a space that does not include them. LOL
(06-07-2021, 11:17 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 11:11 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Its amazing that they don't see irony... For example twitter mad at Nigeria for freedom of speech, and me using "safe space" in regards to the left.
Lol, yeah. Twitter said they are a human right yet ban a conservative including a sitting president if they break wind. These aren't serious people.
You're halfway to a cogent argument.
Are you suggesting Muhammadu Buhari's human rights have been violated?
Or are you suggesting that it's not actually a human right to access whatever website you want to access?
(06-07-2021, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 11:17 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, yeah. Twitter said they are a human right yet ban a conservative including a sitting president if they break wind. These aren't serious people.
You're halfway to a cogent argument.
Are you suggesting Muhammadu Buhari's human rights have been violated?
Or are you suggesting that it's not actually a human right to access whatever website you want to access?
This is all subject to the owners of the site. Like, it is your right to try to log into duvalpride.com. But will they allow access? Mods, can we fix this glitch?
(06-07-2021, 09:35 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're halfway to a cogent argument.
Are you suggesting Muhammadu Buhari's human rights have been violated?
Or are you suggesting that it's not actually a human right to access whatever website you want to access?
This is all subject to the owners of the site. Like, it is your right to try to log into duvalpride.com. But will they allow access? Mods, can we fix this glitch?
Logging in (and posting) is more than just accessing.
(06-07-2021, 10:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 09:35 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]This is all subject to the owners of the site. Like, it is your right to try to log into duvalpride.com. But will they allow access? Mods, can we fix this glitch?
Logging in (and posting) is more than just accessing.
Is there an actual point somewhere in your blubbering mess of words?
Honestly we just need a law that says once you've become basically a Public Utility you must observe the laws of the land - namely the 1st Amendment over their ToC (which arbitrarily change based on whims and environment). I'm all for private business- but these tech giants cover so much of both personal and professional lives they have become a public utility.
That's what I've been saying for years. I would even go so far as to let the big tech companies regulate to the same level as local ordinances. I'd call it the Public Square Act. I'd also be open to removing anonymity from the internet.
(06-08-2021, 11:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's what I've been saying for years. I would even go so far as to let the big tech companies regulate to the same level as local ordinances. I'd call it the Public Square Act. I'd also be open to removing anonymity from the internet.
Wow, when did you become a Big Government advocate?
I am more for big government than your typical conservative. I am increasingly becoming more convinced that we aren't going to stuff the genie back in the bottle. So, this leaves me open to trying to solve some problems through regulation, with the focus toward free enterprise and anti-corruption.
That said, I don't get why conservatives would be against regulating big tech, especially not if we are simply redefining them as public utilities. The problem with that is it doesn't allow for the restriction of harassment. Hence, I would prefer that local ordinances (not federal) be allowed to regulate the ways in which speech can be censored for their citizens. This would apply not only to online speech, but to all speech regulation within that district. It would allow citizens to sue if they thought their rights were being infringed, and courts to determine weather or not they are correct. This, of course, would be a nightmare for big tech to navigate, but at least it would give individuals the most freedom of speech and the power to make changes against the corporations that regulate them. I don't consider that Big Government.
As for the removal of anonymity from the internet, this could be seen as a Big Government solution, and I don't really care. I don't mean with regards to shopping or browsing. However, I would like to have the ability to remove anonymity from users that are posting on forums. I think a lot of the hostility and negativity that is found on the internet is brought on by the "consequence free" ability to be a [BLEEP]. At least people should know their words can be associated with them. Think of it like caller ID. Look, if you want to make a wild, wild west forum where you remove accountability, go for it. I just don't think any site that is unwilling to verify user identity should have government protections. Sites that do check for authenticity should be free from all content posted to their sites.
Government should not just be able to redefine a private business and make it a "public utility", nor should they be able to tell a private business what "speech" they must allow in their shop. And anonymous speech is a political tradition that should be defended not emasculated.
How did that happen to at&t? What about ma-bell? That's not a private business. Conservatives greatest weakness is their inability to see how capitalism exploits the working class. Socialism is not the answer, but the system, as it currently stands, is broken.
(06-08-2021, 03:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]How did that happen to at&t? What about ma-bell? That's not a private business. Conservatives greatest weakness is their inability to see how capitalism exploits the working class. Socialism is not the answer, but the system, as it currently stands, is broken.
Which is funny.. broken into 13 companies... it has now consolidated into one giant company... it's 4 separate companies now.
(06-08-2021, 09:54 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Logging in (and posting) is more than just accessing.
Is there an actual point somewhere in your blubbering mess of words?
I was asking you the same question, but I was being polite.
Do you think the President of Nigeria is right to ban Twitter for all Nigerians? Your post wasn't clear.
(06-08-2021, 04:01 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2021, 03:54 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]How did that happen to at&t? What about ma-bell? That's not a private business. Conservatives greatest weakness is their inability to see how capitalism exploits the working class. Socialism is not the answer, but the system, as it currently stands, is broken.
Which is funny.. broken into 13 companies... it has now consolidated into one giant company... it's 4 separate companies now.
... and it wouldn't surprise me if those 4 companies were exploiting the llc loophole. The government has a responsibility to protect the people from corporate exploitation, and it can't because there's almost a borderline merging between our politicians and these conglomerates.
(06-08-2021, 05:16 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2021, 04:01 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Which is funny.. broken into 13 companies... it has now consolidated into one giant company... it's 4 separate companies now.
... and it wouldn't surprise me if those 4 companies were exploiting the llc loophole. The government has a responsibility to protect the people from corporate exploitation, and it can't because there's almost a borderline merging between our politicians and these conglomerates.
Which is why capitalism is good but corporate capitalism is bad. Bob’s Corner Grocery cannot buy a senator but Wal Mart certainly can.
I agree, which is why I object to the outdated conservative position that the government should not interfere in capitalism. It has to. Otherwise, crony capitalism will take its place. Conservatives really need to move away from the idea that all regulation is bad. I am also aware that corporations will manipulate regulation to their own end, so all regulation is not good, either. We really need new monopoly laws that focus on competition and anti-corruption.
(06-08-2021, 08:09 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, which is why I object to the outdated conservative position that the government should not interfere in capitalism. It has to. Otherwise, crony capitalism will take its place. Conservatives really need to move away from the idea that all regulation is bad. I am also aware that corporations will manipulate regulation to their own end, so all regulation is not good, either. We really need new monopoly laws that focus on competition and anti-corruption.
Agreed. I struggle where to draw the line though. I believe the first step would be a constitutional amendment that ALL bills be single item issues. No riders, no additional verbiage. One item, one vote. It would end lobbying as we know it and change cronyism.
I'm open to that idea. Another option is to limit bills to a certain amount of pages. What we're seeing with these 600 page bills is not acceptable. Especially when people receive their copy and are expected to vote on it within the hour.