Jump to content

US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Sanders-to-propose-canceling-entire-1-6-trillion-14032094.php

That's actually very reasonable

$5 tax on every $1000 in stock purchased

First, for arguments sake, let's say a trillion of dollars are exchanged every day, whether on equities, annuities, bonds, or materials.  That's $5 billion, a day, that gets taken out of the stock market.  

That's a significant amount of money, which leads me to my second point.  

Wall street would never allow such a bill to come to the floor, let alone pass both the House and Senate.  

Regardless, it's dumb policy.  

It rewards those who took out loans to go to college while punishes those scrimped and saved to pay for tuition and board upfront.  It punishes those who decided not to go to college because they thought they wouldn't be able to afford.

It does nothing to actually control higher education costs.  If anything, it gives post-secondary institutions all the more incentive to increase rates/prices since they know government will likely bail them out.  

The policy is a one time measure and says nothing concerning debt of students years to come.

It will proportionally benefit America's upper middle class, since they are more likely to finance advance college degrees (like masters or phd's) through debt.  

It's just terrible policy described as the worst form of pandering.  It's akin to much of what Trump does on a daily basis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 26.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    3957

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1525

  • classicrawker

    1519

  • soon

    1474

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

8 hours ago, Jakey Styley said:

I'm thinking about it from a policy perspective - you want to get the most utility out of every dollar spent. Allocating money towards those who were totally fine without it turns an already overly expensive program into something really massive without a proportional benefit in return.

Well I give credit for Sanders for giving oxygen to the debate. Do the details need to be ironed out, absolutely. But there does need to be some type of relief from this debt for a lot of people, you agree with this right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, downzy said:

First, for arguments sake, let's say a trillion of dollars are exchanged every day, whether on equities, annuities, bonds, or materials.  That's $5 billion, a day, that gets taken out of the stock market.  

That's a significant amount of money, which leads me to my second point.  

Wall street would never allow such a bill to come to the floor, let alone pass both the House and Senate.  

Regardless, it's dumb policy.  

It rewards those who took out loans to go to college while punishes those scrimped and saved to pay for tuition and board upfront.  It punishes those who decided not to go to college because they thought they wouldn't be able to afford.

It does nothing to actually control higher education costs.  If anything, it gives post-secondary institutions all the more incentive to increase rates/prices since they know government will likely bail them out.  

The policy is a one time measure and says nothing concerning debt of students years to come.

It will proportionally benefit America's upper middle class, since they are more likely to finance advance college degrees (like masters or phd's) through debt.  

It's just terrible policy described as the worst form of pandering.  It's akin to much of what Trump does on a daily basis. 

And that's why other proposals need to actually be discussed in the public space. You can't just whine about what Sanders is doing without a competing policy proposal. That's a very conservative thing to do, whine about leftist policy proposals while offering up nothing of substance to complete with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dazey said:

It’s funny how $1.6 trillion to wipe out student debt is too expensive yet $1 trillion on tax cuts for the top 1% was fine. 

Well one is dead money and the other promotes economic growth, its not hard to figure out :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Well one is dead money and the other promotes economic growth, its not hard to figure out :lol:

Not exactly true. Student debt relief would give a lot of middle class people extra disposable income which they'd then spend in the economy, spurring economic growth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And that's why other proposals need to actually be discussed in the public space. You can't just whine about what Sanders is doing without a competing policy proposal. That's a very conservative thing to do, whine about leftist policy proposals while offering up nothing of substance to complete with it.

Where am I saying the policy shouldn't be discussed in the public space?  Criticism of the policy isn't tantamount to shutting down debate.

Second, are the criticisms not valid?  You don't address any of this.  And associating said criticisms with conservative arguments against liberal policy proposals is kind of nuts since criticisms authored by conservatives often don't add up themselves and are often based on false pretences.  

There are other options out there. Particularly, Elizabeth Warren's plan that caps benefits at $50k and is geared towards lower-income Americans.  While it still does nothing to curb post-secondary education costs and could create a boondoggle for higher-education industry, at least it's means-tested and not geared towards the middle-upper class for degrees that will pay significantly higher salaries.  

2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Not exactly true. Student debt relief would give a lot of middle class people extra disposable income which they'd then spend in the economy, spurring economic growth. 

Don't think you picked up the sarcasm in Len's post.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren's proposal has some decent things in it. I think conservatives and right leaning folks could get on board if the free tuition going forward part is modified. There does need to be some cost control on even the public universities otherwise they'll just make those things more bloated than they already are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

Worth watching. 

Google's plan to prevent Trump, meddle in elections, social engineering etc.

 

 

Google deleted the video.

I'm glad there are people like Ted Cruz standing up against Google otherwise it would be awful. That story is being buried.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Silent Jay said:

Google deleted the video.

I'm glad there are people like Ted Cruz standing up against Google otherwise it would be awful. That story is being buried.

 

Yes, Americans are so blessed to have Joseph McCarthy 2.0 around to make noise about nonsense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, downzy said:

Yes, Americans are so blessed to have Joseph McCarthy 2.0 around to make noise about nonsense.  

You know, to be fair, if the big tech companies were all run by people of my political persuasion and were biased against other points of view, I would find it awfully hard to promote some type of fairness in the application of the tech. I may even brush it off as nonsense. I would like to think I'd be all for allowing everyone's opinion (with the exceptions of things like direct threats of violence, copyright violations, and porn), but I do admit it would be hard. I see where you're coming from here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

You know, to be fair, if the big tech companies were all run by people of my political persuasion and were biased against other points of view, I would find it awfully hard to promote some type of fairness in the application of the tech. I may even brush it off as nonsense. I would like to think I'd be all for allowing everyone's opinion (with the exceptions of things like direct threats of violence, copyright violations, and porn), but I do admit it would be hard. I see where you're coming from here.

But what proof does Cruz provide to prove that Google, or any company, is censoring conservative view points?

Everything he references is from Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe.  Look him up if you're not familiar.

He has a long history of running "sting" operations that are often the result of shady tactics, including forging/editing information/evidence in order to further his conservative agenda.  

If that's all Cruz has, then there's no there there.  It's just noise to rile up conservative paranoia about companies and an industry that does generally lean left, but has shown little to no activity to actually censor conservative view points.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a little more searching and as expected, the video O'Keefe wants us to believe demonstrates systematic bias within a company like Google has issues:

https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82

"In late May, I accepted an invitation to meet with a few people who claimed to be from “2 Step Tech Solutions”. They said they wanted to chat to me about a mentoring program for young women of color in tech, an area I’ve long been passionate about. We went for dinner at a restaurant in the Mission, San Francisco.

Unfortunately, I now know that these people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online. I now know they belong to a group called “Project Veritas”, which has done this to numerous other people working in the tech and other sectors.

Why did they do this to me? It seems they found that I had spoken publicly at Google I/O on Ethics, and they wanted someone who would give them juicy soundbites about tech’s alleged bias against conservatives. Over the course of a two hour dinner, I guess they think I delivered.

Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very publicabout the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me."

---------------------------------------------

What's embarrassing is that United States Senator chose to use materials from an organization with a shit track record.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also telling that the U.S. is inching closer to a war with Iran, the current President was credibly accused of rape (again), and conservatives in this thread want to discuss/debate whether we're fucked because Google is out to get Trump and conservatives.  

:facepalm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, downzy said:

It's also telling that the U.S. is inching closer to a war with Iran, the current President was credibly accused of rape (again), and conservatives in this thread want to discuss/debate whether we're fucked because Google is out to get Trump and conservatives.  

:facepalm:

Right because we can't talk about more than one issue at a time :facepalm:

I've also made my displeasure with Trump and his team on Iran very clear.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, downzy said:

I did a little more searching and as expected, the video O'Keefe wants us to believe demonstrates systematic bias within a company like Google has issues:

https://medium.com/@gennai.jen/this-is-not-how-i-expected-monday-to-go-e92771c7aa82

"In late May, I accepted an invitation to meet with a few people who claimed to be from “2 Step Tech Solutions”. They said they wanted to chat to me about a mentoring program for young women of color in tech, an area I’ve long been passionate about. We went for dinner at a restaurant in the Mission, San Francisco.

Unfortunately, I now know that these people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online. I now know they belong to a group called “Project Veritas”, which has done this to numerous other people working in the tech and other sectors.

Why did they do this to me? It seems they found that I had spoken publicly at Google I/O on Ethics, and they wanted someone who would give them juicy soundbites about tech’s alleged bias against conservatives. Over the course of a two hour dinner, I guess they think I delivered.

Project Veritas has edited the video to make it seem that I am a powerful executive who was confirming that Google is working to alter the 2020 election. On both counts, this is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, of course. In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016. Google has been very publicabout the work that our teams have done since 2016 on this, so it’s hardly a revelation.

The video then goes on to stitch together a series of debunked conspiracy theories about our search results, and our other products. Google has repeatedly been clear that it works to be a trustworthy source of information, without regard to political viewpoint. In fact, Google has no notion of political ideology in its rankings. And everything I have seen backs this up. Our CEO has said ”We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda.” He’s somewhat more powerful and authoritative than me."

---------------------------------------------

What's embarrassing is that United States Senator chose to use materials from an organization with a shit track record.  

Complains about biased Veritas. Posts link to biased post on Medium :facepalm:

If these allegations about Big Tech bias are so false, why are they making a fuss about a potential audit? If they are clean they can shove that in the right's face and come out on top.

 

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, downzy said:

But what proof does Cruz provide to prove that Google, or any company, is censoring conservative view points?

Everything he references is from Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe.  Look him up if you're not familiar.

He has a long history of running "sting" operations that are often the result of shady tactics, including forging/editing information/evidence in order to further his conservative agenda.  

If that's all Cruz has, then there's no there there.  It's just noise to rile up conservative paranoia about companies and an industry that does generally lean left, but has shown little to no activity to actually censor conservative view points.  

Well I actually use the platforms and have noticed guys on the right getting kicked off, and them not knowing what TOS they broke, meanwhile Antifa guys keeping their accounts. I would have used more concrete examples if I were Cruz, but there certainly is a there-there. Bottom line for me is these large platforms need to hold to first amendment protections because they are the way politics is discussed in this day and age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Complains about biased Veritas. Posts link to biased post on Medium :facepalm:

If these allegations about Big Tech bias are so false, why are they making a fuss about a potential audit? If they are clean they can shove that in the right's face and come out on top.

 

Again, you're not actually addressing the merits of the arguments.  Medium might be biased, but they don't have a rampant history of distortion or fabrication like Project Veritas.  

Name me an industry/business that would be fine with a government audit of their internal business operations?  

17 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Right because we can't talk about more than one issue at a time :facepalm:

I've also made my displeasure with Trump and his team on Iran very clear.

Really?  I must have missed your posts about Trump being accused by rape?

I also don't see much from other conservatives on this forum addressing yesterday and today's threats by Trump against Iran.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well I actually use the platforms and have noticed guys on the right getting kicked off, and them not knowing what TOS they broke, meanwhile Antifa guys keeping their accounts. I would have used more concrete examples if I were Cruz, but there certainly is a there-there. Bottom line for me is these large platforms need to hold to first amendment protections because they are the way politics is discussed in this day and age.

What platforms are you talking about?  

Again, I get the concern about large public platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., but smaller sites where there are viable alternatives aren't indicative of conservatives being censored due to ideological differences.

First amendment protections do not apply to private companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downzy said:

What platforms are you talking about?  

Again, I get the concern about large public platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., but smaller sites where there are viable alternatives aren't indicative of conservatives being censored due to ideological differences.

First amendment protections do not apply to private companies.

Well this legislation is written to only go after the large platforms, you have to have a large amount of views each month to even qualify. The smaller platforms like gab just don't matter.

That's why legislation is being proposed to deal with this. It's time for the libertarians on the right to get out of their stupor. I'm all for turning these companies into more utility like entities. Where the power company can't just turn off someone's power because they have unpopular political opinions. 

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downzy said:

Again, you're not actually addressing the merits of the arguments.  Medium might be biased, but they don't have a rampant history of distortion or fabrication like Project Veritas.  

Name me an industry/business that would be fine with a government audit of their internal business operations?  

Really?  I must have missed your posts about Trump being accused by rape?

I also don't see much from other conservatives on this forum addressing yesterday and today's threats by Trump against Iran.  

They might not like it, but if there's no there-there, this would be a mundane audit.

I have no idea what is going on with rape allegations.

I'm not even a conservative, I don't know what they're thinking. I've had plenty of arguments with them over their love for big business, foreign interventionism, and libertarian fantasies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, downzy said:

It's also telling that the U.S. is inching closer to a war with Iran, the current President was credibly accused of rape (again), and conservatives in this thread want to discuss/debate whether we're fucked because Google is out to get Trump and conservatives.  

:facepalm:

Did you buy her book?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

That's why legislation is being proposed to deal with this. It's time for the libertarians on the right to get out of their stupor. I'm all for turning these companies into more utility like entities. Where the power company can't just turn off someone's power because they have unpopular political opinions. 

Again, where are the examples of this happening?

And if it isn’t happening, why create legislation to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist?

Moreover, how does any of this get enforced?  Who decides whether someone’s first amendment rights were infringed because they were de-platformed?  Courts, with partisan appointed judges?  A committee, likely appointed by whatever party holds power in Congress?

At the end of the day, there’s nothing to stop conservatives from starting their own social networks. The analogy of having one’s electricity turned off isn’t accurate. There are other options one can create with respect to social media that are not viable with respect to connecting to the power grid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

They might not like it, but if there's no there-there, this would be a mundane audit

As I raised in my previous post, who is doing the auditing?  How do we know that the auditors aren’t biased/partisan themselves?  What if one or several of the auditors were partial to someone like Alex Jones and could look past his online abusive behaviour because they agree with his politics?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, downzy said:

Again, where are the examples of this happening?

And if it isn’t happening, why create legislation to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist?

Moreover, how does any of this get enforced?  Who decides whether someone’s first amendment rights were infringed because they were de-platformed?  Courts, with partisan appointed judges?  A committee, likely appointed by whatever party holds power in Congress?

At the end of the day, there’s nothing to stop conservatives from starting their own social networks. The analogy of having one’s electricity turned off isn’t accurate. There are other options one can create with respect to social media that are not viable with respect to connecting to the power grid. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/13/google-big-tech-bias-hurts-democracy-not-just-conservatives-column/1265020002/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7020081/Googles-left-wing-media-bias-CNN-New-York-Times-Washington-Post-favorites.html

And then you have guys non traditional guys on the dissident non traditional right that just get their twitter and youtube accounts banned or their account demonitized from youtube.

Again, I'm not a libertarian so I'm not going down that, oh just start your own nonsense. These are monopolies and they have too much power, plain and simple. I'm not a conservative, I don't want ANY business or individual getting too big or having too much influence. I'm not one of these conservative idiots that was all about the citizens united debacle. I want MORE speech and I want power more distributed. 

I think Hawley's bill is a good first step in making sure there is more speech. If you don't want to get sued, run a neutral platform, it's that simple.

49 minutes ago, downzy said:

As I raised in my previous post, who is doing the auditing?  How do we know that the auditors aren’t biased/partisan themselves?  What if one or several of the auditors were partial to someone like Alex Jones and could look past his online abusive behaviour because they agree with his politics?

Oh, they might be biased if the publicly known contributions to politicians were vastly one sided. Maybe that'd be a sign of bias...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

So this an interesting take on the effects of search platforms on elections.  

I do think it brings up some interesting questions, but I also take issue with some of the conclusions the author makes with respect to what the data reveals (or doesn't reveal).

He never stops to ask why results might favour one candidate over another.  I read the full article linked in the USA article he doesn't differentiate between those who would search for political information from search results versus those who get their information elsewhere.  Suffice it to say, I don't see any causality between those who are more likely to use Google and swaying their opinion.  The reality is that it's far more likely that Google users would be more inclined to support Clinton in 2016 than Trump.  While I don't have hard facts to prove that it doesn't take much to suss this out.  A disproportionate percentage of Trump's supporters would be older and a) less likely to use Google for political information; b) get their information from other sources (like Fox or cable news).  

Most of his bullet points are purely theoretical.  He states that if Google were to manipulate the autocomplete search it can turn a 50-50 split into a 90-10 split.  Really?  Two issues here.  First, is he accusing Google of actually manipulating the autocomplete function?  Again, there's not much evidence of such and the algorithms that power its search function are likely powering the autocomplete function.  Two, this test seems to be conducted in a vacuum whereby the only sources of political information his test subjects are receiving are from their interactions on Google.  Do such people exists?  I find it difficult to believe that election are won and lost because a significant number of voters are consuming all political information through the prism of Google Search.  

The other issue I have with the findings is that the outcomes of elections that one would assume left-leaning employees at Google would be against (or search results organically biased to favour progressive/liberal candidates) have not proved his findings all that important.  If Google/Facebook/Twitter or whatever social platform was biased against Trump, how did he end up winning?  Similarly, one would assume that Google's search results would be biased against Brexit, but there too it didn't seem to matter enough to really sway the election.  

Look, I'm clearly no expert in psychology in which this author is a clear authority, but where I feel he fumbles a bit is within the area of politics.  It's a myth that there are huge swaths of undecided voters.  There are some, but their numbers are usually exaggerated and often their vote is not determinative in regards to who win elections.  More recent elections have less to do with converting undecided than mobilizing supporters to the voting booths.  We can pull our hair out about the effects that organically biased search results can have on undecided voters, but most political experts will tell us that these voters are fewer in numbers and election results are less dependent on one candidate over another.

I've always faulted Democrats for putting too much emphasis on Russian-funded ads on social media platforms.  While I'm not saying it's not worth the efforts to stop it (from a pure principle basis), I also don't think Russian purchased Facebook ads were as determinative as Democrats want everyone to believe.  Ultimately, if the mind of a voter is made up because of Facebook ads and this ultimately tips the scales of an election, well, that democracy has bigger problems than Facebook ads.  

Then there are some of the more ludicrous claims by Epstein, like how Zuckerberg's get out the vote message to Clinton voters translated into 450k more votes for Clinton than she otherwise would have got.  Really?  We're led to believe that there were 450k people who would have stayed at home and not voted were it not for Zuckerberg's message?  Again, i've not analyzed his metrics or how he came to that conclusion, but that just doesn't make any sense considering everything I've studied on voting dynamics.

9 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Again, I feel like most of this is overstated for a couple of reasons.

The research provides no commentary on the organic nature of search rankings.  Search results consider what people are searching for in addition to a variety of other factors (particularly, how many other sites are linking to a ranked site).  It's not all that surprising that Fox News would rank lower than the Times or CNN since a disproportionate number of Fox News watchers are older and less likely to google stuff when compared to younger, more left-leaning internet users.  

The article claims that Google has unprecedented power to promote one source over another.  I suppose, but only if you truly believe that search results on Google are being manipulated by employees to suppress conservative view points.  What if more Google users are simply looking at sites like CNN and the NYT more than Fox News?  Why shouldn't the search algorithm rank left-leaning sites ahead of Fox news if users themselves prefer these online destinations.  I guess an argument could be made that it becomes a chicken and an egg situation whereby increase preference by a majority of users for one news site will reinforce rankings, thereby reinforcing that preference.  

But ultimately what is to be done about it?  Should Google ensure equal billing to all news sites despite user preferences for one or another?  Epstein claims he found more generous search results for Clinton in red states than for Trump.  But again, that doesn't really mean anything if within those red states the people more likely to use Google for searching election information are Clinton supporters.  I don't have time to read his actual report so perhaps he controls for this variable.  

9 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And then you have guys non traditional guys on the dissident non traditional right that just get their twitter and youtube accounts banned or their account demonitized from youtube.

All of those guys were banned for reasons other than their ultra-conservative viewpoints.  Alex Jones wasn't banned because he's a nut; he was banned for violating the terms concerning hate speech.  Hate speech is protected under the first Amendment relating to government employees, but not when it comes to private enterprises, which social platforms would fall under.  We certainly don't allow for hate speech on this forum.  For all intents and purposes this forum is a business and as owner I get to decide what kind of content I want on my forum.  I choose not to allow those who would express hatred towards various groups of people.

9 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

These are monopolies and they have too much power, plain and simple

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that per se, but I'm certainly not one who believes they are as big of a threat to our abilities to govern ourselves as some make them out to be.  

If Russia truly affected the 2016 election because of Facebook ads, well, that's really on America.  If people are going to base their vote based solely off of ads or shit they see on Facebook, then that country is doomed anyway.

9 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I think Hawley's bill is a good first step in making sure there is more speech. If you don't want to get sued, run a neutral platform, it's that simple.

But it's really not that simple.  

There's no set definition over what would be considered a "natural platform."  As I covered earlier, search results are organically generated based on a variety of factors that have no influence from the political ideology of whoever runs the company.  If in a market place of ideas one idea is simply better and stronger, shouldn't it get priority with respect to rankings if more people search for it and voice support in a variety of ways?  Should climate change skeptics get equal search result representation even though they're opinions are in the minority and have largely been dismissed by the overwhelming scientific community?  Should anti-vaxxer information be given the same priority despite it being based on junk science?  Absolutely not.  I do believe in a market place of ideas and I think there's space and room for all opinions, even those that are ill-informed.  But that shouldn't handcuff online social media and search companies to provide equal real estate.  

Also, Hawley's bill (btw, I don't think I could have a lower opinion of any Senator, other than maybe Sen Cotton or Cruz, than Hawley; truly one of the worst Senators in the Senate for a variety of reasons, but here's one example; I truly think he knows little about anything) would do more than just mandate platform neutrality (again, whatever that means).  It would basically basically kill Facebook, Google, and any and large content-hosting site because it would open them up to liability.  Essentially, it would likely break the internet.  

I would advise you to read this article that outlines what Hawley is attempting to do and why it's a terrible idea.  It also addresses my earlier points about the questionableness of conclusions that search results are biased in the first place.  If anything, read these bullet points:

  • Hawley’s bill foists these hazy yet sweeping rules on tech companies, prohibiting them from removing “political” speech without clearly explaining what content qualifies as “political.” It then puts these companies at the mercy of four unelected political appointees at the FTC. As former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright pointed out on Wednesday, these individuals have no expertise “in assessing the design or intent of algorithmic decisions over content,” much less “their disproportionate impact.” And tech companies will likely respond by currying favorwith the administration to preserve their immunity.
  • This legislation suffers from two glaring First Amendment infirmities, vagueness and overbreadth. Can Facebook no longer censor posts endorsing the Nazis—which are, after all, a political party? What about posts endorsing the Nazis’ “viewpoint” about, say, Jews? What constitutes a “political viewpoint,” anyway? Do bigoted ideas promoted by the National Fascist Party count? How about violent ideas touted by the Communist Party? Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would not only be forbidden from removing vile content; they would also be barred from creating an algorithm that disfavored abhorrent speech. How could any company establish compliance with these incredibly murky restrictions except to forgo moderation altogether?
  • This legislation suffers from two glaring First Amendment infirmities, vagueness and overbreadth. Can Facebook no longer censor posts endorsing the Nazis—which are, after all, a political party? What about posts endorsing the Nazis’ “viewpoint” about, say, Jews? What constitutes a “political viewpoint,” anyway? Do bigoted ideas promoted by the National Fascist Party count? How about violent ideas touted by the Communist Party? Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would not only be forbidden from removing vile content; they would also be barred from creating an algorithm that disfavored abhorrent speech. How could any company establish compliance with these incredibly murky restrictions except to forgo moderation altogether?
  • Even if you think big media companies are genuinely biased against conservatives, this bill cannot possibly be the solution. It would empower bureaucrats to interfere in the marketplace to punish tech companies that violate some inscrutable speech code—hardly a conservative proposition. The result would render a large swath of social media unusable, overrun by bigots and trolls and extremists who flood our feeds with repugnant content that masquerades as a “political viewpoint.” Hawley’s cure is worse than the putative disease because his diagnosis is incorrect: There just isn’t anything wrong with Section 230. There are many problems with the internet today, but a lack of free speech isn’t one of them
12 hours ago, Swampfox said:

Did you buy her book?

No, since it's not available for sale yet.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member




×
×
  • Create New...