Twitter

[JohnRoberts]

Got it. So it’s not really a public square thing (government owned), it’s a monopoly thing? Is it really a monopoly by legal definition? There are solutions if it is. So it’s not a free speech thing with monopoly taken out of the equation?

perhaps research rule 230 regarding internet speech wrt publishing

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

A little history for the younger crowd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

 

[Recording Engineer]

perhaps research rule 230 regarding internet speech wrt publishing

JR

What does well-established (continually challenged and updated) publisher liability protection after lawsuits against ISPs have to do with the reason we’re discussing where free speech and business decisions entwine right now? I must be missing something. What am I missing?

 

[Recording Engineer]

So it’s not a free speech thing with monopoly taken out of the equation?

 

[JohnRoberts]

What does well-established (continually challenged and updated) publisher liability protection after lawsuits against ISPs have to do with the reason we’re discussing where free speech and business decisions entwine right now? I must be missing something. What am I missing?

Big tech alternately amplifying or suppressing news stories on social media to benefit one partisan ideology to the detriment of others. This is abusing the legal protection they have been granted, making them effectively a publisher and responsible for the content (and censorship).

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

Can’t that argument be inserted anywhere, at any given time, at any point in history, for any political agenda? Not to say there’s not truth to the argument. I’m just saying, it’s a weak argument. The other side can always say the same and it’s just as true. Null and void comes to mind.

Regardless, say you’re right? It’s not like loopholes aren’t used and abused daily. So be it. Let the chips fall where they may. Social self-correction maybe? This might highlight some true problems (rather than political narratives) and encourage a further and deeper look and some change. Or not.

By the way, I love some of these terms that become a thing. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Fake News, etc. It’s usually a tell that it’s probably just regurgitation of political narratives (based on some truth).

 

[rob_gould]

Another blow to 'free' speech. When will this tyranny end!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/12/alex-jones-sandy-hook-hoax-lawsuit-damages

The Connecticut trial featured tearful testimony from parents and siblings of the victims, who told about how they were threatened and harassed for years by people who believed the lies told on Jones’ show.

Strangers showed up at their homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house. Mark Barden told of how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his seven-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Interesting note: Was just now watching Amanpour & Co. and she was interviewing a University professor in Tehran who was saying the likes of Facebook and Twitter are working with western governments to hide what’s really going on; that those protestors (and liking them the BLM protestors) are killing police and others there to protect the citizens. He kept saying the words Big Tech. Seems like he was trying to garnish some support from a certain persuasion in the west.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Interesting note: Was just now watching Amanpour & Co. and she was interviewing a University professor in Tehran who was saying the likes of Facebook and Twitter are working with western governments to hide what’s really going on; that those protestors (and liking them the BLM protestors) are killing police and others there to protect the citizens. He kept saying the words Big Tech. Seems like he was trying to garnish some support from a certain persuasion in the west.

Or, equally likely, he's telling the truth. I have some Persian friends here in the US. They know what's happening over there. Why is it that our press ignores it while spending so much time repeating tales of "The Ghost of Kiev" and the like non-stop?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Interesting note: Was just now watching Amanpour & Co. and she was interviewing a University professor in Tehran who was saying the likes of Facebook and Twitter are working with western governments to hide what’s really going on; that those protestors (and liking them the BLM protestors) are killing police and others there to protect the citizens. He kept saying the words Big Tech. Seems like he was trying to garnish some support from a certain persuasion in the west.

The Iran government is under increasing pressure from protests. This recent cycle apparently started when a woman arrested by the morality police for not properly wearing her head scarf (hijab), died while in custody. The protests have since spread to other sectors of the economy. Reportedly some 200 protestors have been killed with live ammunition fired into protests. Members of the Basij militia have been killed by protestors fought back. Attempting to suppress the protest spread Iran has throttled internet service in parts of the country.

Anti-regime protests have recently spread to Iran's oil and petrochemical industry.

This anti-government tension has been building for years. I suspect the hajib is just symbolic.

This is not widely reported in western media and governments trying to curry favor with Iran are keeping their distance.

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

Or, equally likely, he's telling the truth. I have some Persian friends here in the US. They know what's happening over there. Why is it that our press ignores it while spending so much time repeating tales of "The Ghost of Kiev" and the like non-stop?

Possibly. Although, I’d normally think more likely a narrative his government told him to put out; one he may or not truly believe.

Regardless, my real point was the very noticeable and repeated catch phrase. It was obviously very intentionally used, for a reason.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, had the media not proveably lied so frequently and obviously in the past decade or more, perhaps they would not have earned the moniker.

Or perhaps you aren't aware of the lies.

 

[Recording Engineer]

It seems as though my comments are purposely being missed. I’ve already said these catch phrases are established from some truth. It is also obvious they are being used for narratives on a national level (I’ve now noticed on an international level) and used as a catch-all in arguments. In my opinion, it dumbs-down, on purpose. It’s a traditional political move.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm not missing your comments, they just don't make sense. Why are you so sensitive? Much of our "news" media have failed us by systematically lying on a large scale. The moniker doesn't originate from "some truth," but from many lies and a near complete lack of apology or acknowledgement when they are exposed as such. The media is what is truly dumbing down America. It's a traditional propaganda move.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Then just say they’re not making sense and why rather than acting like I don’t believe or know that media lies (probably as much as anyone other group by the way) when I have acknowledged these catch phrases are started from valid truths (such as manipulation by the media), just a few posts up. Equally by both sides, I might add. Stop the BS.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Again lets try less "mano a mano" personal engagement and more inspection of objective facts...

Life does not have to be an endless argument.

JR

PS: Some people may be blocking certain members posts. I try not to block people, there are some I choose to ignore on a post by post basis. On social media I have some friends (cough ) that I block for 30 days at a stretch, because i can.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Objective facts:
The US media, which used to contain many respectable journalists, is now full of lying, biased propagandists skewed toward one party.

The only group that challenges this lying rate are the politicians and their spokespersons who are protected by media lies.

In a free society journalists (a.k.a. the media) have a responsibility to find and present objective facts. They have failed. It is ridiculous to excuse this behavior by trying to imply "everyone else does it, too" which is not even true.

 

[Recording Engineer]

A couple of disagreements:
1. That it’s one sided. To me, thinking it is, is truly not all that objective.
2. I’ve not seen anyone excuse this behavior here; only someone saying someone does.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Objective facts:
The US media, which used to contain many respectable journalists, is now full of lying, biased propagandists skewed toward one party.

The only group that challenges this lying rate are the politicians and their spokespersons who are protected by media lies.

In a free society journalists (a.k.a. the media) have a responsibility to find and present objective facts. They have failed. It is ridiculous to excuse this behavior by trying to imply "everyone else does it, too" which is not even true.

Media is supposed to be the fourth pillar of government AKA "the fourth estate" empowered to keep politicians and government honest. That does not appear to be the case these days.

Court testimony while under oath may be as close as we come to objective fact, since the testimony is subject to perjury charges for lying. I have joked in the past that politicians should be under oath and subject to perjury for lying to us. I am not holding my breath.

JR

PS; Again less personal jabs, more discussion about things.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Media is supposed to be the fourth pillar of government AKA "the fourth estate" empowered to keep politicians and government honest. That does not appear to be the case these days.

I’d argue that “these days” is the past 25 or so years; with the connection of 24-Hour TV “news”. Of course, one can argue that with radio “news”. I’m thinking the likes of Limbaugh.