Trump Wants To Regulate Google

[njbuff]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

It's always someone else's fault. Poor Trump. Such a victim all the time - thoughts and prayers big guy. But...

 

Just curious - In 2018, did China fire Homeland Security Advisory Tom Bossart, whose job was to coordinate a response to global pandemics?  Ah, you're right - that's Trump's job and of course Trump did not replace him.

 

Just curious - In 2018, was China supposed to replace Dr. Luciana Borio when she left her job as the NSC director for Medical and Bio-defense Preparedness? NOPE - that would be TRUMP.

 

Just curious - In 2018, did China stop funding the CDC's epidemic prevention activities in 39 out of 49 countries?  NOPE - that would be TRUMP.

 

Just curious - In 2019, was China supposed to replace Tim Ziemer, the NSC's Senior Director for Global Health Security and bio-defense? NOPE - that would be TRUMP.

 

Just curious - did China shut down the entire Global Health and Bio-defense Agency?  Ah, no? Oh, who did? TRUMP.

 

Since 2018 - Trump absolutely destroyed our pandemic preparedness and global infrastructure.

 

Jesus Christ you FASCISTS are so laughable.

 

Calling me a fascist?

 

What a disingenuous prick you are.

 

Blame Trump all you want liking the fvcking re.tarded leftist mermaid you are, but none of this is happening whatsoever if it weren't for communist China.

 

So spare me with your fake fvcking outrage about Trump.

 

Start ANY conversation with holding CHINA accountable, then we can have a debate on what Trump did or didn't do. 

 

I am not supporting or sticking up for Trump. I am supplying something you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about......... facts.

[B-Man]

11 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

Back to the thread............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

I'm sorry, the President of the United States shouldn't depend on SOCIAL MEDIA - a format originally designed for KIDS in college to communicate and connect - as his formal communication mechanism. 

 

Twitter should just boot the MF right from the platform.

 

I agree. but this is a different question.  And, SOCIAL MEDIA IS waaaaaaaaaaay beyond KIDS in college communicating about hot babes.

 

Back to my question.  Would you be OK in 5 years if a flaming republican gets in at Twitter and banishes Uncle Joe or whoever from the platform?

 

Thinking "Oh, I hate Trump so whatever they do to him is OK by me", is not smart.  They are setting a precedent.  To think it won't be used by your opposition to beat you over the head with it in the years ahead is questionable logic at best IMHO.  Nuclear option anyone?

 

Be careful what you ask for.

Edited May 28, 2020 by reddogblitz

[BillStime]

9 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Calling me a fascist?

 

What a disingenuous prick you are.

 

Blame Trump all you want liking the fvcking re.tarded leftist mermaid you are, but none of this is happening whatsoever if it weren't for communist China.

 

So spare me with your fake fvcking outrage about Trump.

 

Start ANY conversation with holding CHINA accountable, then we can have a debate on what Trump did or didn't do. 

 

I am not supporting or sticking up for Trump. I am supplying something you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about......... facts.

 

Oh, did I hit a nerve sunshine? I did. Good.

 

There is NO fact in your response  - all emotion; just like Trumpy.

 

You cannot argue the fact that the US was not prepared to take this on - even though the previous administration left them a blue print.  Obama should have just left a coloring book for the man child in office.

 

101,002 Americans are DEAD

1.7 MILLION CASES in the US

40 MILLION AMERICANS  = unemployed

 

If only Trump didn't destroy our infrastructure and ignore the COVID warnings as early as November.

 

Keep spinning "fvcking re.tarded"
 

 

 

[GG]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Back to the thread............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never mind that when the law was written in '96, Section 230 applied to the more traditional interpretation of ISPs, which are the companies that provide access (ATT, VZ Comcast, etc).  The law did not consider the vast spread of social networks and that they would look to fall under the ISP umbrella, even they don't provide access.

 

Look for this loophole to be closed as the first legislative step.  

[B-Man]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

There is NO fact in your response  - all emotion; just like Trumpy.   (Irony Alert)

 

You cannot argue the fact that the US was not prepared to take this on - even though the previous administration left them a blue print. (FALSE)

Obama should have just left a coloring book for the man child in office.(CHILDISH EMOTION)

 

101,002 Americans are DEAD                           

1.7 MILLION CASES in the US                          (Due to China Virus)                

40 MILLION AMERICANS  = unemployed

 

If only Trump didn't destroy our infrastructure (False) and ignore the COVID warnings as early as November. (Proven Lie)

 

Keep spinning "fvcking re.tarded"  (Irony Alert)

 

 

 

You make it too easy.

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

17 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I agree. but this is a different question.  And, SOCIAL MEDIA IS waaaaaaaaaaay beyond KIDS in college communicating about hot babes.

 

Back to my question.  Would you be OK in 5 years if a flaming republican gets in at Twitter and banishes Uncle Joe or whoever from the platform?

 

Thinking "Oh, I hate Trump so whatever they do to him is OK by me", is not smart.  They are setting a precedent.  To think it won't be used by your opposition to beat you over the head with it in the years ahead is questionable logic at best IMHO.  Nuclear option anyone?

 

Be careful what you ask for.

 

Bring it. I'm not responsible for what Joe Biden or the next President does no more than I hold you responsible for Trumps actions. 

 

Second - I don't live my life defending every move anyone makes - on either side  - like we see here with Trump Mafia - who can ONLY consume sugar coated Trump news.

 

6 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

You make it too easy.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, what?

[njbuff]

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Oh, did I hit a nerve sunshine? I did. Good.

 

There is NO fact in your response  - all emotion; just like Trumpy.

 

You cannot argue the fact that the US was not prepared to take this on - even though the previous administration left them a blue print.  Obama should have just left a coloring book for the man child in office.

 

101,002 Americans are DEAD

1.7 MILLION CASES in the US

40 MILLION AMERICANS  = unemployed

 

If only Trump didn't destroy our infrastructure and ignore the COVID warnings as early as November.

 

Keep spinning "fvcking re.tarded"
 

 

 

 

Yeah, you really have me unnerved.

 

Peddle all the bvllshit you want.

 

I will let the others argue with you.

 

You hate Trump so much, just get others to support you and vote him out in November.

 

Not much else I can say when someone is supporting a communist nation like China.

[B-Man]

 

 

President Trump To Sign Executive Order Targeting Facebook, Google, and Twitter for Blatantly Limiting Conservative Speech

 

FTA:

 

 

What Google (in particular) and Facebook and Twitter have carved out for themselves is essentially a monopoly. It is a monopoly based on the fiction that they are simply a way for people to interact when, in reality, they are operating very much to control not only the content presented on their platforms but the political context to be drawn from factual information.

 

Because of the market dominance of those companies and their ability to damage potential competitors (how, for instance, could an alternative platform survive if they were not allowed to use Google’s internet advertising network?) it simply is not feasible to compete with them in a meaningful way.

 

Since 2018, we’ve seen all these companies branch out from meddling in political spats and suspending people who tell newly unemployed journos to “Learn to Code,” to direct interference in the political process.. This is from my post The Story Of 8chan Shows Why There Is No Alternative To the Leftwing Social Media Giants:

A prime example of this is the decision by Twitter to suspend the Twitter account of Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign for encouraging violence when it tweeted a video of leftwing wackos, at least one of which appeared to be very chummy with Elizabeth “Ol’ 1/1024” Warren, at McConnell’s home shouting obscenities and threats of physical harm. This behavior is not new. During the 2018 campaign, Facebook pulled ads by Elizabeth Heng because she made reference to the fact that her parents had escaped from the Khmer Rouge genocide.

 

Had a radio or television station done this, they would have been in violation of federal election law.

 

In the case of President Trump’s tweet, he stated his opinion that mail in ballots were more susceptible to fraud than in-person voting. You can disagree with it (and reveal yourself to be an ignorant ass) if you wish, what you can’t do is fact check someone’s opinion. And all sane people know why they did this. They did it try to damage Trump politically.

 

How does this play out?

 

This order does not take place in a vacuum. Many Republican senators, particularly Missouri’s Josh Hawley, have been chomping at the bit for the chance to go after the social media monopolies because of their obvious hostility to free speech and their willingness to blatantly lie during Congressional testimony. Ordering the FCC to engage in rulemaking to define what Section 230 actually means sounds like a good step. The argument that this limits free speech is simply bizarre. And some of the numbskullery that it created is mindboggling:

 

{snip}

 

 

Section 230 has zero to do with the Constitution and under the Administrative Procedures Act the federal government is 100% free to define exactly how this part of the law will be interpreted. The First Amendment is also what allows people, including the President, to say whatever they wish without their words being forced to carry a disclaimer imposed by some goober in skinny jeans. By the way, isn’t Ed Buck’s buddy one of the guys who always lose their sh** whenever Citizens United is mentioned…the case that held that corporations do have free speech rights?

 

Whatever happens here, it is headed to court. And the current Supreme Court is much more likely to be attuned to the just how Twitter denying you access is very, very different from a billboard company refusing to sell you space or your local newspaper not running your letter to the editor. What is much more likely, given that anti-trust investigations of Google and Facebook are underway by the Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general, is that we see some behavior shifts as the management of those companies are waking up to the fact that the SJWs they’ve hired to police content are making them unnecessarily vulnerable to some very unpleasant consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, njbuff said:

 

Yeah, you really have me unnerved.

 

Peddle all the bvllshit you want.

 

I will let the others argue with you.

 

You hate Trump so much, just get others to support you and vote him out in November.

 

Not much else I can say when someone is supporting a communist nation like China.

 

Have a nice day!

[njbuff]

11 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Have a nice day!

 

I will if you shut the fvck up. ?

 

 

Just kidding

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

I will if you shut the fvck up. ?

 

 

Just kidding

 

lmao - I still like you as a Bills fan - lmao

[reddogblitz]

22 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Bring it. I'm not responsible for what Joe Biden or the next President does no more than I hold you responsible for Trumps actions. 

 

Second - I don't live my life defending every move anyone makes - on either side  - like we see here with Trump Mafia - who can ONLY consume sugar coated Trump news.

 

So I take it you ARE OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiters of truth and decency for the rest of us?  I hope they don't Bring it.

 

I don't like Uncle Joe or Trump but still think that Jack or Mark deciding what future presidents say that is safe for people to read or not.

 

I think a better solution is to let it be a free for all.  Anything and everything is permitted.  Develop filtering technology that will allow you to filter out the crap you don't want.

Edited May 28, 2020 by reddogblitz

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

So I take it you ARE OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiters of truth and decency for the rest of us?  I hope they don't Bring it.

 

I don't like Uncle Joe or Trump but still think that Jack or Mark deciding what future presidents say that is safe for people to read or not.

 

I think a better solution is to let it be a free for all.  Anything and everything is permitted.  Develop filtering technology that will allow you to filter out the crap you don't want.

 

The solution is simple - bounce ALL politicians from SOCIAL MEDIA.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[njbuff]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

lmao - I still like you as a Bills fan - lmao

 

Isn't that really the reason any of us are on this message board?

 

In all honesty, I admit I have no fvcking idea what I am talking about politically, but my brain has endless miles of useless Bills knowledge.

 

And Devils hockey too.

 

If I wanna talk politics, I would be better off trying to squeeze a third nipple.

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, Magox said:

 

I wouldn't trust them to do it on their own.  If they could have a regulated entity that is approved by congress to conduct the fact checks, details on what is and isn't censored and how the algorithmic search and display functionalities are conducted (which I would argue is even more important than the fact checking/censoring), then I'd be ok with it.

 

I don't trust the media nor big tech to conduct this.  

 

While we are at it, I think the media needs to be regulated.  

 

I read a really good article the other day in the WSJ from ex CBS chief Van Gordon Sauter which I highly recommend that people read.  He goes on to make the case not just that the media has made a huge leftward lurch especially now in the age of "resistance journalism" under Trump, where the mask has completely been taken off, but that the journalistic model is driven by finances as opposed to just giving straight news.  I've lamented over this for years on this board, that today's news is driven by affirmation bias.  People want to get their news where it comports with their pre existing held views.  If news organizations begin to start moving away from this, they will lose viewers, at least that's their calculation.  So the financial motive is to continue to keep providing what their base viewers want to digest.   And now in the age of Twitter, these so-called journalists want to become Twitter rock stars and the more gotcha moments they can provide for their followers, the larger their followings, likes and retweets they will get.  Which helps their careers out.  At least so they believe. 

I don't really trust Congress to do it either.  Who appoints these regulators and what guarantees they can remain politically neutral?

[Magox]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't really trust Congress to do it either.  Who appoints these regulators and what guarantees they can remain politically neutral?

 

No guarantee’s but at least there would be oversight.  And a more conscience entity that could lead to a better product.  
 

 

And if not congress, then who?   Congress represents the people (Am I gonna get fact checked by One of the resident libertarians?) And I think it’s appropriate that Congress is involved in the oversight because that would mean there would be accountability via the ballot box.

[reddogblitz]

4 minutes ago, Magox said:

And if not congress, then who?   Congress represents the people (Am I gonna get fact checked by One of the resident libertarians?) And I think it’s appropriate that Congress is involved in the oversight because that would mean there would be accountability via the ballot box.

 

Why does anyone?

 

Use common sense on when things sound too outlandish to be true. Couple that with filtering technology to allow you to filter out the crap you don't want.    Then it's up the consumer to determine what is true or not as opposed to someone spoon feeding to them what is true. 

 

That's a lot of power to give to anyone.

[Warren Zevon]

34 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

So I take it you ARE OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiters of truth and decency for the rest of us?  I hope they don't Bring it.

 

I don't like Uncle Joe or Trump but still think that Jack or Mark deciding what future presidents say that is safe for people to read or not.

 

I think a better solution is to let it be a free for all.  Anything and everything is permitted.  Develop filtering technology that will allow you to filter out the crap you don't want.

 

Facts don't change when someone else is in charge. What Trump said was not factual - period.

 

As far as Mark Zuckerberg, he changed his tune today. He's on your side.

[Magox]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Why does anyone?

 

Use common sense on when things sound too outlandish to be true. Couple that with filtering technology to allow you to filter out the crap you don't want.    Then it's up the consumer to determine what is true or not as opposed to someone spoon feeding to them what is true. 

 

That's a lot of power to give to anyone.

 

That's my personal view.  But if Big Tech is going to get in the business of censorship, fact checking and algorithmic prioritizations of how content is displayed, then there has to be oversight.

[B-Man]

Democrats Paying ‘Non-Political’ Social Media Influencers to Covertly Push Anti-Trump, Anti-GOP Agenda

 

The liberal Los Angeles Times came out with an odd article this week and you really had to read down into it to get to the real story.

 

It was titled “Democrats plot a counterattack on disinformation in hopes of taking back the White House.”

 

Basically, it was an article trying to blame Republicans for “disinformation,” asserting that “conservative conspiracy theories and “deep fake” videos race through the internet,” therefore justifying the Democratic reaction back to them. They falsely cited President Donald Trump being given hydroxychloroquine by his doctor and his tweets about mail-in voting fraud as stoking conspiracy theories.

 

Now, of course, it’s hard to get a bigger “conspiracy theory” and attempt to undermine an election and the whole presidency of President Donald Trump than the Russia collusion, paid for and spread by the Democrats.

 

Then they got down to it, although it was still a little couched.

A network of trustworthy messengers is essential, the experts say, to slowing the spread of debunked material. [….]

As Democrats draft their counteroffensive, they are looking beyond the traditional tools — paid advertisements, media fact-checkers and unevenly enforced social-media platform rules. They are rethinking who needs to be drafted into this fight, when to engage these messengers, and how to advance their own narratives.

The emphasis is on empowering diverse voices online who may only be loosely affiliated with the Biden campaign. How to best enlist those people is a point of tension.

Craig, who has worked for foreign clients in emerging democracies, is skeptical of the Main Street One model of hiring influencers with appeal in various targeted communities — for example, one group for older African Americans, another for single moms, another for devout churchgoers.

“I don’t want our country to move campaigning to this transactional pay-to-play system,” she said. “It then becomes the expectation of voters that we are paying for our support. I see this happen in my work abroad in places that are not functional democracies. It is not an effective way to organize and will have long-term consequences.”

The executives at Main Street One, though, say they are seeing results in state and local campaigns by mobilizing influencers who have common cause with the candidate or ballot issue. They point to Kentucky, where an influencer they engaged to help undermine support for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was a mom with the social media tagline “bourbon, basketball and God,” who wasn’t a political activist but drew their attention for posting her disgust over McConnell’s push to dismantle Obamacare.

Did you catch that? They’re paying social media influencers to promote Democrats/Democratic issues. So that person whom a young person may be following for fashion is now going to be covertly pushing Democrats.

“If you want a more credible messenger, you don’t want them to be as explicit in their political views,” said Hougland, who has launched an anti-Trump political action committee called Defeat Disinfo. “These are all people who make a part of their livelihood by being approached by brands or organizations to express their passions. They are comfortable with this ecosystem. While they are somewhat new to politics, we are comfortable with that.”

Translation: we’re paying them to be covert propagandists for us and trick people that they aren’t obvious political stooges.

 

 

More at the link: https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/05/28/dems-paying-social-media-influencers-to-covertly-push-candidates-agenda/

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

HERE’S A COPY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S Draft Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.

 

 

And here are some comments by Eugene Volokh on what Section 230 does and doesn’t do.

 

 

 

.

[Doc Brown]

14 minutes ago, Magox said:

No guarantee’s but at least there would be oversight.  And a more conscience entity that could lead to a better product.  
 

 

And if not congress, then who?   Congress represents the people (Am I gonna get fact checked by One of the resident libertarians?) And I think it’s appropriate that Congress is involved in the oversight because that would mean there would be accountability via the ballot box.

I don't hate the idea but there would need to be clearly defined standards about the purpose and limitations of such congressional committees.  They'd also have to address whether oversight is constricted to just the major social media platforms that are publicly traded or all social media platforms.

[Magox]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't hate the idea but there would need to be clearly defined standards about the purpose and limitations of such congressional committees.  They'd also have to address whether oversight is constricted to just the major social media platforms that are publicly traded or all social media platforms.

 

 

Personally, I'd rather not have it regulated.  That is provided of course that they stay out of the censorship, fact checking business.

 

I alluded to this earlier, but Google/Bing - search engines and social media platforms  should be open to examination on how their algorithms prioritize what is shown.  Sometimes I look up things and it's impossible to find it, you have to go through 2-3 pages of left wing views on something before a right leaning view is presented.  I don't think it's a conspiracy per se, but I do think they weight mainstream media outlets over others, which of course drives even more traffic to those sights which then gives it higher prioritization and it just snowballs. To me, this is something that is even more impacting and doesn't get nearly the attention that it should.

[B-Man]

 

Twitter Is Digging Its Own Grave

by Jazz Shaw,

 

FTA:

 

 

The real bottom line is that Twitter could have avoided all of this by remaining a platform, as I’ve been saying for years. As long as Twitter simply provided users with accounts and let them tweet what they wish without comment, they would be acting essentially as the 21st century equivalent of a corkboard in a college dormitory. If someone posts something offensive, the fault lies with the person pinning up the offending material, not the manufacturer of the corkboard.

 

Yes, there would be exceptions. Users violating the law by either posting child pornography, clearly slanderous or libelous defamations or similar offenses would probably place the legal burden on the company to quickly delete the offending content and cancel accounts to the best of their ability. But beyond that, they should be in the clear.

 

Now, however, they have claimed the title of “content provider” by providing editing services to tweets based on their own judgment. And that means they’re responsible for every single tweet that sees the light of day. They are no longer the innocent providers of access to a popular social media outlet. They are publishers, determining what viewers will or won’t see and how the message will be shaped. There are literally hundreds of millions of tweets far “worse” than Donald Trump’s that go up every day and they won’t be able to police them all. And that opens them up to a full range of possible legal problems.

 

Twitter could have stayed on the sideline and avoided this trap. If they really think that the President’s tweets are so misleading or terrible, they could have let the community make that decision and essentially leave Trump free to hoist himself on his own petard. But now that they’ve put on their editor’s hat, a new game is afoot. And I doubt they’re going to enjoy it.

 

More at the link: https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/05/28/twitter-digging-grave/

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

2 minutes ago, Magox said:

Personally, I'd rather not have it regulated.  That is provided of course that they stay out of the censorship, fact checking business.

 

I alluded to this earlier, but Google/Bing - search engines and social media platforms  should be open to examination on how their algorithms prioritize what is shown.  Sometimes I look up things and it's impossible to find it, you have to go through 2-3 pages of left wing views on something before a right leaning view is presented.  I don't think it's a conspiracy per se, but I do think they weight mainstream media outlets over others, which of course drives even more traffic to those sights which then gives it higher prioritization and it just snowballs. To me, this is something that is even more impacting and doesn't get nearly the attention that it should.

I read through google's explanation of their algorithm and am still confused.  Particularly their PageRank system.  It's not just traffic but also strength of the domain name along with how long the site has existed.  There's no denying the designers could easily manipulate the algorithm to fit their political points of view.  

[Magox]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

I read through google's explanation of their algorithm and am still confused.  Particularly their PageRank system.  It's not just traffic but also strength of the domain name along with how long the site has existed.  There's no denying the designers could easily manipulate the algorithm to fit their political points of view.  

 

Our team has got SEO guys always working on it.  It's complicated as hell, there is no real rhyme or reason.  But, certain kinds of traffic is weighted more than others, the volume of traffic, backlinking, referral/direct users etc etc.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

Our team has got SEO guys always working on it.  It's complicated as hell, there is no real rhyme or reason.  But, certain kinds of traffic is weighted more than others, the volume of traffic, backlinking, referral/direct users etc etc.

I can see how complicated it is as just reading what goes into it gives me a headache.  It does seem to favor mainstream media sources which slant left so you're pry correct right that they unintentionally favor left wing viewpoints.  Given about a third of the people click the first link that seems significant to me when shaping public discourse.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

That's my personal view.  But if Big Tech is going to get in the business of censorship, fact checking and algorithmic prioritizations of how content is displayed, then there has to be oversight.

 

.....and the objectively fair and balanced Bezos bought WaPo to get the facts out......

[Doc Brown]

3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

.....and the objectively fair and balanced Bezos bought WaPo to get the facts out......

God.  Don't get Trump started on him.  Amazon's made me a lot of money over the years.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

God.  Don't get Trump started on him.  Amazon's made me a lot of money over the years.

 

Capitalist-imperialist pig! How dare you profit on the backs of the proletariat?
 

[Buffalo_Gal]

48 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I read through google's explanation of their algorithm and am still confused.  Particularly their PageRank system.  It's not just traffic but also strength of the domain name along with how long the site has existed.  There's no denying the designers could easily manipulate the algorithm to fit their political points of view.  

The core updates are supposed to keep ahead of the bots and black hat techniques. Doesn't always work.  If you want to see the Google updates, MOZ keeps a list.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

16 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

God.  Don't get Trump started on him.  Amazon's made me a lot of money over the years.

 

..marry his ex and make even MORE.......

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

...think I have to wait for Al Gore to weigh in first....he would know........

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

"Bait and switch" - good way to put it.
 

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Are you OK with Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg as the arbiters of truth for the rest of us know nothings?  May be good for you now cuz they're "fact checking"  what you like.  What if say 5 years from now things change and the person at Twitter turns out to be a Republican plant and he/she starts "fact checking" the current seated D prez?

 

I find this an odd strategy by Twitter.  For years they and FakeBook and Instagram etc have said they are not a publisher responsible for content, they are only the pipes that carry the information.  Now they seem to be doing the opposite.  So does this open the door for categorizing them as publishers who can sued for libel etc.?

 

What? It's almost like you don't trust the honest and unbiased opinion of the fact checkers who think that Trump is an "Orange Nazi". I can almost say, with certainty, that these fine, upstanding people would never allow their work to be tainted by any hint of bias, as they fact check the actual literal super mecha-Hitler currently usurping power in the White House.

[Warren Zevon]

On 8/29/2018 at 11:10 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

Are Conservatives Going To Ask Government For A Social Media ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Or Learn To Take Risks And Compete?

https://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2018/08/29/conservatives-going-ask-government-social-media-fairness-doctrine-learn-take-risks-compete/

 

 

All the hubbub about anti-conservative bias in social media and search engine results is starting to remind me of those days when the left was complaining about conservatives dominating talk radio. That was before social media was even a thing, or at least before it was being used by anyone with a job.

 

The answer to the perceived unfairness we gave then is the same one we should give now: Let the market work.

 

Much more at the link:

 

 

.

 

An answer has been provided