Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[Spurtacular]

1026580187784404994

[Pavlov]

1026580187784404994Derp receives his talking points and springs into action.

[Spurtacular]

Derp receives his talking points and springs into action.

Sociopath chump predictably bypassing the issue at hand.

[Pavlov]

Sociopath chump predictably bypassing the issue at hand.OK, how is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

[boutons_deux]

goddamn, these rightwingnutjobs are fucking stupid.

And they love it when Trash blocks journalists and news orgs from him, his WH, his Nuremberg rallies, etc, telling his maddog cult to "rough 'em up"

[Spurtacular]

OK, how is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

They've been suppressing voices for a long while now. You want it done under the guise that you're offended.

[Pavlov]

They've been suppressing voices for a long while now. You want it done under the guise that you're offended.You didn't answer the question.

How is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question.

How is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

Are you conveniently overlooking the fact that a sitting Senator is the one who called for the fascism?

:lol Sociopath chump

[Pavlov]

Are you conveniently overlooking the fact that a sitting Senator is the one who called for the fascism?

:lol Sociopath chumpYou didn't answer the question.

How is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question.

How is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

Sociopath chump desperately wants to get off a Democratic Senator calling for fascism.

:lmao "taking care of"
:lmao hitman style

[Chris]

Coordinated deplatforming = fascism no?

[Pavlov]

Coordinated deplatforming = fascism no?Coordinated with whom?

[Reck]

Sociopath chump predictably bypassing the issue at hand.

And which issue is that?

Because based on the tweet post it has nothing to do with "ramping up fascism."

It's exactly the oposite. But no one is surprised by your lack of moral compass having already gone all in for Trump the sexual assaulter. Moore the Pedo and Hannity/Ingraham/Alex Jones etc conspiratard idiots.

Spotless track record.

[Spurtacular]

1026965318516654080

[Spurtacular]

The Jews of Nazi Germany were given terms of service, too.

[Reck]

The Jews of Nazi Germany were given terms of service, too.

:lmao that quick edit when you realized your racist self came out for a second.

Derpataculous.

[Pavlov]

And which issue is that?

Because based on the tweet post it has nothing to do with "ramping up fascism."

It's exactly the oposite.:lol right

It's fascist if the government is making the decisions to eliminate speech.

With very few and narrow exceptions, our government couldn't do that if it tried.

[TSA]

And which issue is that?

Because based on the tweet post it has nothing to do with "ramping up fascism."

It's exactly the oposite. But no one is surprised by your lack of moral compass having already gone all in for Trump the sexual assaulter. Moore the Pedo and Hannity/Ingraham/Alex Jones etc conspiratard idiots.

Spotless track record.

And you went all in on Hillary. Chris has a W in one column, you don’t.

[Pavlov]

And you went all in on Hillary. Chris has a W in one column, you don’t.You went all in on #pizzagate and Q.

lol

[Spurtacular]

:lmao that quick edit when you realized your racist self came out for a second.

Derpataculous.

That "quick edit" was to add "of Nazi Germany".

Sad attempt at defaming me, tranny.

[Chris]

1026983784758038529

:cry ban all the news I don't agree with so we can be unified :cry

[Reck]

And you went all in on Hillary. Chris has a W in one column, you don’t.

:lol TSA finally admitting is all about the Ws and not about morality, justice and law.

I respect that post. You finally admit what you're all about.

[Spurtacular]

It's fascist if the government is making the decisions to eliminate speech.

With very few and narrow exceptions, our government couldn't do that if it tried.

So, you're claiming the government lends no material support to these oppressors of free speech?

[Pavlov]

So, you're claiming the government lends no material support to these oppressors of free speech?I'm claiming you're completely full of shit calling that tweet fascism.

You are 100% wrong.

And "material support" is a stupid fallback.

Is that clear?

[Reck]

1026983784758038529

:cry ban all the news I don't agree with so we can be unified :cry

Yout have a knack for things blowing up in your face immediately.

1026921383350206466

:lmao

[Spurtacular]

I'm claiming you're completely full of shit calling that tweet fascism.

You are 100% wrong.

Is that clear?

Are you claiming that the government lends no material support to these oppressors of free speech?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Yout have a knack for things blowing up in your face immediately.

1026921383350206466

:lmaoNow that would be fascism.

[Pavlov]

Are you claiming that the government lends no material support to these oppressors of free speech?

Yes or no.I'm claiming your characterization is ridiculous and these companies are not oppressors of free speech and a tweet is not material support.

Your question is complete bullshit.

Absolutely none of your premises are true.

Is that clear?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

I'm claiming your characterization is ridiculous and these companies are not oppressors of free speech and a tweet is not material support.

Your question is complete bullshit.

Absolutely none of your premises are true.

Is that clear?

Yes or no.

Are you claiming that these big media companies in question receive no material support from the government?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Are you claiming that these big media companies in question receive no material support from the government?

Yes or no.lol what do you think "material support" means? I only know the definition used for terrorism -- and that ain't tweets -- so you're going to have to say what you mean here.

[Reck]

lol what do you think "material support" means? I only know the definition used for terrorism -- and that ain't tweets -- so you're going to have to say what you mean here.

I think he's trying to say the govermnent supplements them with some sort of monitary aid?

If that's what he's going for, he's wrong. These are privately owned companies.

[Chris]

Yout have a knack for things blowing up in your face immediately.

1026921383350206466

:lmao

lol dailybeast

[Pavlov]

lol dailybeastWell, for the record Chris -- would you want Trump to have the power to shut down media companies by decree?

[Spurtacular]

lol what do you think "material support" means? I only know the definition used for terrorism -- and that ain't tweets -- so you're going to have to say what you mean here.

A recipient directly benefiting from materials such as goods, moneys, services, infrastructure, etc provided by the referred-to party.

[Chris]

Well, for the record Chris -- would you want Trump to have the power to shut down media companies by decree?

How would he shut them down? Coordinated deplatforming, or are we wheeling out the guillotine?

[Pavlov]

A recipient directly benefiting from materials such as goods, moneys, services, infrastructure, etc provided by the referred-to party.For companies worth $24 and $540 billion, nothing significant.

But do explain your conspiracy theory.

[TSA]

I think he's trying to say the govermnent supplements them with some sort of monitary aid?

If that's what he's going for, he's wrong. These are privately owned companies.

Privately owned companies receiving billions in government tax subsidies.

[Pavlov]

How would he shut them down? Coordinated deplatforming, or are we wheeling out the guillotine?Not killing anyone. Just shutting down media outlets he didn't like.

Would you support this or oppose this?

[Pavlov]

Privately owned companies receiving billions in government tax subsidies.And?

You guys really need to flesh out your twitter conspiracy theories.

[Spurtacular]

For companies worth $24 and $540 billion, nothing significant.

But do explain your conspiracy theory.

Sociopath chump having to fall on "nothing significant" and makes it relative to the money like a plutocrat minion.
ElNono could explain the material support these companies receive from the govt. better than I can.

[TSA]

And?

You guys really need to flesh out your twitter conspiracy theories.

I don’t have a conspiracy theory I was just correcting Reck’s incorrect statement. Was I wrong?

[Pavlov]

Sociopath chump having to fall on "nothing significant" and makes it relative to the money like a plutocrat minion.
ElNono could explain the material support these companies receive from the govt. better than I can.Great. For discuission's sake let's say your contention that it's very significant is correct.

Now what?

[Pavlov]

I don’t have a conspiracy theory I was just correcting Reck’s incorrect statement. Was I wrong?Maybe not.

I don't have the figures for each company.

But now what?

[Spurtacular]

Great. For discuission's sake let's say your contention that it's very significant is correct.

Now what?

Then the government has a lawful expectation that Constitutional rights of Americans will not be violated by the services they 'significantly' help to facilitate, particularly as it relates to "public forums."

[Pavlov]

Then the government has a lawful expectation that Constitutional rights of Americans will not be violated by the services they 'significantly' help to facilitate, particularly as it relates to "public forums."lol no.

That's not how it works.

No one has a constitutional right to a twitter account.

[Spurtacular]

lol no.

That's not how it works.

No one has a constitutional right to a twitter account.

So, you believe that the government can put forth its resources for denying the Constitutional rights of the citizenry?

:lmao Today's sociopath chump
:lmao "lol no"

[Pavlov]

So, you believe that the government can put forth its resources for denying the Constitutional rights of the citizenry?lol no.

There is no constitutional right to a YouTube account.

[Spurtacular]

lol no.

There is no constitutional right to a YouTube account.

That's not what I'm arguing, sociopath chump.

[Pavlov]

That's not what I'm arguing, sociopath chump.

That's exactly what you are arguing.


Then the government has a lawful expectation that Constitutional rights of Americans will not be violated by the services they 'significantly' help to facilitate, particularly as it relates to "public forums."

It's 100% wrong.

Facebook is not violating any constitutional rights by terminating accounts that violate its TOS.

Perioid.

[SnakeBoy]

Yout have a knack for things blowing up in your face immediately.

1026921383350206466

:lmao

:lol Rick Wilson and an online poll provided exclusively to the daily beast

[Pavlov]

:lol Rick Wilson and an online poll provided exclusively to the daily beastWhat is your issue with the ipsos methodology?

[ElNono]

Meh, government will be involved in the role they need to be involved: the judicial system will look at the lawsuits and decide on it's merits.

Really, any other involvement past that is what banana republics like Venezuela do, where they go ahead and take control of the media outright, which is what fascism is really all about.

[Spurtacular]

That's exactly what you are arguing.



It's 100% wrong.

Facebook is not violating any constitutional rights by terminating accounts that violate its TOS.

Perioid.

:lmao Sociopath chump trying really hard to justify the infringement of free speech by the corporate arm of the government.

[Spurtacular]

Meh, government will be involved in the role they need to be involved: the judicial system will look at the lawsuits and decide on it's merits.

Really, any other involvement past that is what banana republics like Venezuela do, where they go ahead and take control of the media outright, which is what fascism is really all about.

:lol at the calculated indifference. The government needs to get out of the business of aiding corporations if quelling free speech in public forums is going to be allowed.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Sociopath chump trying really hard to justify the infringement of free speech by the corporate arm of the government.derp is trying to argue there is a corporate arm of the government.

Give us the case law supporting this argument:


Then the government has a lawful expectation that Constitutional rights of Americans will not be violated by the services they 'significantly' help to facilitate, particularly as it relates to "public forums."

[Spurtacular]

derp is trying to argue there is a corporate arm of the government.

Give us the case law supporting this argument:

:lmao Blue pilled sociopath chump

[ElNono]

:lol at the calculated indifference. The government needs to get out of the business of aiding corporations if quelling free speech in public forums is going to be allowed.

There's no indifference. I already mentioned they could potentially build a case, and that's the avenue people seek redress in.

This is a dispute between two private parties, government should be involved through the judiciary, per usual. I mean, there's lawsuits between private entities flying every day in this country, this one would be no different.

I actually find fascinating how the same conservatives that whine incessantly about big government, want bigger government when it suits their need or it's 'their' government (not pointing at you specifically, not sure if you're one of the small government champions)

[Reck]

What is your issue with the ipsos methodology?

That it doesn't favors them this time.

The end.

[Spurtacular]

There's no indifference. I already mentioned they could potentially build a case, and that's the avenue people seek redress in.

This is a dispute between two private parties, government should be involved through the judiciary, per usual. I mean, there's lawsuits between private entities flying every day in this country, this one would be no different.

I actually find fascinating how the same conservatives that whine incessantly about big government, want bigger government when it suits their need or it's 'their' government (not pointing at you specifically, not sure if you're one of the small government champions)

In the past you've given intricate explanations in the past on how interwoven govt. and tech are. You completely downplayed that in your analysis here.

[Spurtacular]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/free-speech-scholars-to-alex-jones-you’re-not-protected/ar-BBLCSS7?ocid=spartanntp

:lmao Government newspaper trying to say free speech is only based on so-called truthful speech.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Blue pilled sociopath chumpWhite flag accepted.

No case law.

[ElNono]

In the past you've given intricate explanations in the past on how interwoven govt. and tech are. You completely downplayed that in your analysis here.

In what sense? Spying? I don't particularly think this would really matter in that aspect, it's a two way street and government needs these guys as much these guys love the contracts. Apple is actually pretty stingy on that subject.

I mentioned last night in the other thread that I'm not a fan of the decision, because it does open a slippery slope about free speech I'm not comfortable with. That's why I opined that then, and that shows I'm no indifferent to the subject.

But I also look at the legal side of this, and the redress won't come by government telling these companies who they can or can't ban, that would actually be much worse. If a wrong was committed, then a court will agree, and re-instate.

All this while being fully aware that the odds are not in Alex Jones' favor, because he agreed to those terms, but I would love to see him challenge this. I think it would be important to test those limits.

I also suggested last night that the legal side of this is very important, and that's where largely this should play out, IMO.

[ElNono]

If you think you want to give government control into who and what can be banned, tell me how would you feel when, inevitably, that power is transferred to an eventual Democratic president.

[Spurtacular]

If you think you want to give government control into who and what can be banned, tell me how would you feel when, inevitably, that power is transferred to an eventual Democratic president.

It's not about giving govt. control. But when outlets that are getting higher ratings than mainstream outlets are censored over multiple platforms in one fell swoop, then that's not acceptable given the people's public investment in these platforms. This is absolutely what fascism looks like.

[Spurminator]

This is absolutely what fascism looks like.

No, this is.

1026981376908779520

[Chris]

lol dailybeast

[Chris]

1027012724906237953


“Mark Zuckerberg has always claimed that the Facebook was a platform for all ideas. Fine. In doing that, he says I’m not a publisher, I’m just a means of people putting out people’s messages,” Farage said.

“If you believe in free speech, if you believe in your First Amendment rights, people should be allowed to do this. I would say that by banning Jones and by shadow banning many others, Facebook and others are now effectively becoming a publisher,” he continued. “That means because they are taking editorial decisions, they should be open to being sued as other media organizations are.”

“If you are a platform for all ideas, you are not a publisher. That is the point and what Zuckerberg and what other tech giants are trying to do, is they’re now trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they claim, we are not publishers, we’re not open to libel because we let everybody give their opinion. But on the other, they now in a very sinister way, are starting to ban and shadow ban people,” Farage added.

[Pavlov]

lol Farage

[Spurtacular]

lol dailybeast

:lmao The Daily Cuck
:lmao Liberals love their made-up polls.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Liberals love their made-up polls.lol you didn't read anything

[Spurtacular]

lol you didn't read anything

Sure I did. I read the made-up poll of 43 percent....

Quite a brazen number given that it's probably more like 2 percent....

[Pavlov]

Sure I did. I read the made-up poll of 43 percent....lol nope you didn't read at all.

[Spurtacular]

lol nope you didn't read at all.

I was laughing at their made-up poll in their own tweet. So, who cares about your lame talking point, sociopath chump.

[Pavlov]

I was laughing at their made-up poll in their own tweet. So, who cares about your lame talking point, sociopath chump.Oh, the tweet was all you read.

:rollin

[Spurminator]

Sure I did. I read the made-up poll of 43 percent....

Quite a brazen number given that it's probably more like 2 percent....

https://i.imgur.com/Xu9NPXq.jpg?1
"My anecdotal estimate which I've determined based on my limited social interaction is more credible than market research."

[Spurtacular]

Oh, the tweet was all you read.

:rollin

I decided not to read a Daily Beast article on a whim warrants that reaction for you?

You really are desperate these days, sociopath chump.

[Pavlov]

I decided not to readYep. I already said that.

[Spurtacular]

Yep. I already said that.

And this is an imaginary W for you, sociopath chump. :lmao

[Winehole23]

It's not about giving govt. control. But when outlets that are getting higher ratings than mainstream outlets are censored over multiple platforms in one fell swoop, then that's not acceptable given the people's public investment in these platforms. This is absolutely what fascism looks like.what's your take on net neutrality?

there's no internet without DARPA ,i.e., without massive public (i.e., government) spending.

I'm less sure that's true for FB, Twitter and Youtube.

If it was 20 years ago we'd be talking about Yahoo, AOL and Netscape.

[Pavlov]

And this is an imaginary W for you, sociopath chump. :lmaoMan, you obsessed with keeping score.

[Spurtacular]

Man, you obsessed with keeping score.

It's your play, sociopath chump.

[Pavlov]

It's your play, sociopath chump.You're the one who brings it up without fail, derp.

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkDb3qBUUAEwy_z.jpg:large

[Pavlov]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkDb3qBUUAEwy_z.jpg:largeActually you want the NFL players to be forced to perform an act of patriotism or be punished.

I don't.

[Spurtacular]

You're the one who brings it up without fail, derp.

:lmao Being vague.
:lmao Ignoring that it's his play.
:lmao Derpin' like his tranny man
:lmao Today's sociopath chump

[Spurtacular]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkDb3qBUUAEwy_z.jpg:large

:lmao Libtards.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Being vague.You are the one who incessantly brings up scores and Ls and Ws.

Do you understand now?

[Winehole23]

at least they're coming out and saying they want the government to prevent the free market from treating conservatives unfairly.

[Winehole23]

affirmative action for persecuted Republicans,edgy social media trolls and oppressed alt-right LARPers, tbh

[Spurtacular]

at least they're coming out and saying they want the government to prevent the free market from treating conservatives unfairly.

:lmao That you think the media industry is "the free market"

[Chris]

Ban all the things.

1027069578667380736

[Winehole23]

fine, private business concerns.

I'll readily concede no free market exists, now or ever. There's always a legal, cultural and military context that enforces agreements/adjustments.

"Free market" is sort of a euphemism unless you need the phrase to gag an annoying ideologue.

[Winehole23]

1026903291714654208

[Winehole23]

like hate speech

[Chris]

1026903291714654208

"an intention to police harmful speech under a definition that is nebulous and likely to be applied selectively."

Exactly.

[Spurtacular]

Very easy for liberals to hide behind TOS, which can broadly define figurative language as bad or even state that certain terms are offensive, even though they're only going to selectively enforce the use of such terms.

https://www.bustle.com/p/twitter-locked-david-clarke-out-of-his-account-after-he-seriously-violated-these-rules-7770089

Meanwhile, actual racism and "bullying" by liberal factions goes unchecked:

https://nextshark-vxdsockgvw3ki.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jeong-768x406.jpg

[Winehole23]

"an intention to police harmful speech under a definition that is nebulous and likely to be applied selectively."

Exactly.yeah, I think we both basically agree with the never-Trumper who posted this Reason article

[Winehole23]

Very easy for liberals to hide behind TOS, which can broadly define figurative language as bad or even state that certain terms are offensive, even though they're only going to selectively enforce the use of such terms.

https://www.bustle.com/p/twitter-locked-david-clarke-out-of-his-account-after-he-seriously-violated-these-rules-7770089

Meanwhile, actual racism and "bullying" by liberal factions goes unchecked:

https://nextshark-vxdsockgvw3ki.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jeong-768x406.jpglol conservatives badmouthing freedom of contract

[Chris]

yeah, I think we both basically agree with the never-Trumper who posted this Reason article

The wheels were set in motion a week ago.

https://graphics.axios.com/pdf/PlatformPolicyPaper.pdf

[Winehole23]

well, if the companies don't do it maybe Congress will.

which would you rather?

recall that political majorities are evanescent...

[Pavlov]

Very easy for liberals to hide behind TOS, which can broadly define figurative language as bad or even state that certain terms are offensive, even though they're only going to selectively enforce the use of such terms.

https://www.bustle.com/p/twitter-locked-david-clarke-out-of-his-account-after-he-seriously-violated-these-rules-7770089

Meanwhile, actual racism and "bullying" by liberal factions goes unchecked:

https://nextshark-vxdsockgvw3ki.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jeong-768x406.jpgIs she bullying you?

Feeling like a victim there?

[Winehole23]

1026903781655674880

[Reck]

Chris is sprung. :lol

[ElNono]

It's not about giving govt. control. But when outlets that are getting higher ratings than mainstream outlets are censored over multiple platforms in one fell swoop, then that's not acceptable given the people's public investment in these platforms. This is absolutely what fascism looks like.

I'm sorry, you keep talking about the "people's public investment"... I have no idea what are you talking about. What investment?

People can vote with their wallets, send stocks tumbling, stop posting, boycotting, protesting, write blogs, publish youtube videos... all the usual tools are on the table for 'the people' that dislike this situation.

What would your solution look like?

[ElNono]

Very easy for liberals to hide behind TOS, which can broadly define figurative language as bad or even state that certain terms are offensive, even though they're only going to selectively enforce the use of such terms.

https://www.infowars.com/terms-of-service/

[ElNono]

Not even Spurstalk is a democracy, tbh

[AaronY]

Poor conservatives another thing they have to be the victim of

[Spurtacular]

Is she bullying you?

Feeling like a victim there?

You're making my argument, yutz.

As are all the chumpettes chirping :lmao

[KenMcCoy]

You didn't answer the question.

How is the companies' taking care of their own content fascism?

Companies responding to government pressure (see OP, De Blasio, Ted Deutch, Jerrod Nadler, Jim Hines, Ted Lieu, comments etc.) is a form of Corporatism, better known as Mussolini Fascism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism

[Spurminator]

Very easy for liberals to hide behind TOS, which can broadly define figurative language as bad or even state that certain terms are offensive, even though they're only going to selectively enforce the use of such terms.

https://www.bustle.com/p/twitter-locked-david-clarke-out-of-his-account-after-he-seriously-violated-these-rules-7770089

Meanwhile, actual racism and "bullying" by liberal factions goes unchecked:

https://nextshark-vxdsockgvw3ki.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jeong-768x406.jpg


Even if you are dumb enough to take these quotes literally, they were posted to Twitter. Twitter hasn't banned Alex Jones.

You just can't stop owning yourself, can you? It's like a masochistic addiction. Get help.

[Pavlov]

Companies responding to government pressure (see OP, De Blasio, Ted Deutch, Jerrod Nadler, Jim Hines, Ted Lieu, comments etc.) is a form of Corporatism, better known as Mussolini Fascism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatismWhat pressure, Ken?

Tweets?

The thing Trump does every day? :lol

[Winehole23]

Companies responding to government pressure (see OP, De Blasio, Ted Deutch, Jerrod Nadler, Jim Hines, Ted Lieu, comments etc.) is a form of Corporatism, better known as Mussolini Fascism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatismso what's your solution, Ken McCoy, to "Mussolini Fascism" as currently practiced by the majority GOP US Senate?

[KenMcCoy]

so what's your solution, Ken McCoy, to "Mussolini Fascism" as currently practiced by the majority GOP US Senate?

Term limits for congress and supreme court justices.

[clambake]

Term limits for congress and supreme court justices.

I'm good with that

[Winehole23]

Term limits for congress and supreme court justices.how would that prevent Congress from pressuring companies by threatening to pass legislation?

[Winehole23]

and just how is Congress threatening to legislate fascism again? you didn't fill in the blanks there.

[Blake]

Not even Spurstalk is a democracy, tbh

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201736

[clambake]

how would that prevent Congress from pressuring companies by threatening to pass legislation?

it doesn't. term limits is a safe statement to some.

[KenMcCoy]

It would relieve us from some of the personal fiefdoms that the lifelong members of congress have created. Individual members of congress would have less power and would have to work together more often. As long as there are strong left/right parties, the result would be a compromise somewhere in the middle that keeps gov't out of business and peoples lives but provides the necessary functions to help the people live their lives.

On the Supreme Court side, it would allow for more timely review of issues of law (where a ruling made under the current system might not be revisited for 25-30 years when the make up of the court changes).

[Winehole23]

I'm sorry, you keep talking about the "people's public investment"... I have no idea what are you talking about. What investment?more than a few dumdums have been taken in by the argument that because FB, Twitter and Google are "publicly traded companies" they are public accommodations, or something like that.

[KenMcCoy]

and just how is Congress threatening to legislate fascism again? you didn't fill in the blanks there.

You're the one that said it was currently happening. Answer your own question...


so what's your solution, Ken McCoy, to "Mussolini Fascism" as currently practiced by the majority GOP US Senate?

[Winehole23]

It would relieve us from some of the personal fiefdoms that the lifelong members of congress have created. Individual members of congress would have less power and would have to work together more often. As long as there are strong left/right parties, the result would be a compromise somewhere in the middle that keeps gov't out of business and peoples lives but provides the necessary functions to help the people live their lives.

On the Supreme Court side, it would allow for more timely review of issues of law (where a ruling made under the current system might not be revisited for 25-30 years when the make up of the court changes).so how is Congress threatening to legislate fascism again?

[clambake]

fiefdoms replaced with fiefdoms

[KenMcCoy]

At least the new fiefdoms would have a shelf life.

[Winehole23]

You're the one that said it was currently happening. Answer your own question...I was restating what you said in post #109.

do you care to support your claim that internet platforms responding to Congressional pressure is "Mussolini fascism"?

[clambake]

At least the new fiefdoms would have a shelf life.

that has nothing to do with this discussion. you get that, right?

[Winehole23]

in your own words if you can.

the Britannica definition doesn't get you to the finish line -- not even halfway, to be honest.

[KenMcCoy]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/congressional-democrats-m_b_5173493.html

With bills in the House and Senate, the lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to “analyze” media outlets — including radio — to determine if they’re working to “advocate and encourage” hate crimes.

[Pavlov]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-colmes/congressional-democrats-m_b_5173493.html

With bills in the House and Senate, the lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to “analyze” media outlets — including radio — to determine if they’re working to “advocate and encourage” hate crimes.Yeah, they really whipped Rush Limbaugh into shape.

He's terrified. You can hear it in his voice every day.

[Winehole23]

lordy, I hope the Republicans have enough votes to defeat fascism in our time.

do you think they do, Ken?

[KenMcCoy]

Probably not...unfortunately the majority of people vote for progressive policies.

[Winehole23]

can you explain the fascism in your own words, Ken? we still lack a clear picture of what you're attempting to discuss.

[Pavlov]

Companies responding to government pressure (see OP, De Blasio, Ted Deutch, Jerrod Nadler, Jim Hines, Ted Lieu, comments etc.) is a form of Corporatism, better known as Mussolini Fascism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatismAnd what about Trumps direct threats to companies like Harley-Davidson, Ken?

Is that fascism?

[KenMcCoy]

"We" or you? It's an easy concept to follow.

1) Mussolini (fascist) created national boards/committees to regulate the people/corporations.
2) US congress members (on both sides) have called for the creation of national agencies (government agencies) to analyze private media companies and influence what is "hate" speech/fake news or not.

[clambake]

And what about Trumps direct threats to companies like Harley-Davidson, Ken?

Is that fascism?

"we don't have a problem with that"

[KenMcCoy]

And what about Trumps direct threats to companies like Harley-Davidson, Ken?

Is that fascism?

I don't agree with that, and a lot of other stuff he does. If the tariffs are creating opportunities for HD to save money by moving operations overseas, I expect them to do that for their shareholders.

Full disclosure: I own HD motorcycles and HD stock.

[clambake]

"We" or you? It's an easy concept to follow.

1) Mussolini (fascist) created national boards/committees to regulate the people/corporations.
2) US congress members (on both sides) have called for the creation of national agencies (government agencies) to analyze private media companies and influence what is "hate" speech/fake news or not.
so, you're worried about the influence based on the actors?

[Pavlov]

I don't agree with that, and a lot of other stuff he does. If the tariffs are creating opportunities for HD to save money by moving operations overseas, I expect them to do that for their shareholders.

Full disclosure: I own HD motorcycles and HD stock.
You didn't answer the question.


Are Trump's threats fascism?

[vy65]

Like consumers fidgeting with most emerging technologies, the law often seems confused with how to handle new and even old tech. Recently, questions abound whether a government official can block a citizen from an official communication channel, especially when an official's personal account is used as the official communication channel. The president, and other members of government, are currently finding themselves defending lawsuits over this very issue, likely due to President Trump's extensive use of Twitter.

The Social Media Contract

The internet platforms are by no means traditional public forums. The companies that run social media websites are private and can legally censor and remove publicly, and privately, posted content. They can also ban, suspend, or limit users, for pretty much any reason. Additionally, social media users can narrow their privacy settings to block individuals, and even specific words, from showing up in their media feeds.

But, nevertheless, the very nature of governmental use of social media lends itself to being the most public of public forums. When government officials use social media channels to make official communications, there is a developing line of cases that establish these channels as limited public forums. Essentially when a government entity or official creates a social media channel for official communications, it converts the channel from a private forum, to a limited public forum, which entails not-so-limited First Amendment protections for those who participate in the forum.

Restricting Social Media Speech and Access

A primary cause for concern is that social media can often elicit controversial and emotional discourse, which can quickly devolve into name calling, shaming, meme-ing, and much worse. As such, it makes sense that a government official or department would be able to restrict speech, or even access, to some individuals in the public forum. However, doing so requires careful thought and application of content neutral restrictions in order to not violate the First Amendment.

For example, a constituent yelling obscenities into the microphone at a public town hall meeting, or on social media, is likely to be removed. However, an unpopular opinion posted on a city government's social media page in response to a new city project cannot be deleted or censored without violating the First Amendment, unless it violates content neutral restrictions. In most cases, of course, this is pretty obvious stuff.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2017/08/is-twitter-a-public-forum.html

[KenMcCoy]

But...it's not fascism until they try to create a federal board to review corporate supply chain structures.

[Pavlov]

But...it's not fascism until they try to create a federal board to review corporate structures.https://media1.tenor.com/images/c924b622b71a51d0c4aa21760c69b9f3/tenor.gif

:rollin

[clambake]

But...it's not fascism until they try to create a federal board to review corporate supply chain structures.

damn

[KenMcCoy]

Meh...call it what you will. I defined it in post #134 above.

[vy65]

Not surprising that the village idiots would cry foul about censorship without understanding how the First Amendment applies to social media platforms. Because the amendment only applies to congress, the only way to object to what Facebook, twitter, etc. do is through the public forum doctrine. There's really not a colorable argument that private companies are public or limited public forums as to private individuals (as noted above, it gets a little more complicated when governmental actors are involved).

I wonder if the resident retards would agree with forcing Breitbart to host an op-ed blog by Rachel Maddow on their website?

[Winehole23]

"We" or you? It's an easy concept to follow.

1) Mussolini (fascist) created national boards/committees to regulate the people/corporations.
2) US congress members (on both sides) have called for the creation of national agencies (government agencies) to analyze private media companies and influence what is "hate" speech/fake news or not.proposed legislation that died four years ago is equivalent to de facto fascist regulatory agencies?

that's a bit of a stretch.


Length: 3 pages

Introduced:Apr 8, 2014
113th Congress, 2013–2015
Status: Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on April 8, 2014, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2219

[Blake]

"We" or you? It's an easy concept to follow.

1) Mussolini (fascist) created national boards/committees to regulate the people/corporations.
2) US congress members (on both sides) have called for the creation of national agencies (government agencies) to analyze private media companies and influence what is "hate" speech/fake news or not.

Where are you getting your definition of "fascism"?

[KenMcCoy]

proposed legislation that died four years ago is equivalent to de facto fascist regulatory agencies?

that's a bit of a stretch.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2219

Fascism doesn't happen overnight. Mussolini/Hitler took 20+ years to get their ducks in a row.

[Blake]

Fascism doesn't happen overnight. Mussolini/Hitler took 20+ years to get their ducks in a row.

Where did you get your definition of "fascism"?

[KenMcCoy]

Where are you getting your definition of "fascism"?

I was asked how banning of speech on social media was considered fascism. The definition is direct response to that and not the definition of fascism in general.

[Pavlov]

I was asked how banning of speech on social media was considered fascism. The definition is direct response to that and not the definition of fascism in general.What is your general definition of fascism?

[vy65]

Fascism doesn't happen overnight. Mussolini/Hitler took 20+ years to get their ducks in a row.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell was decided over 25 years ago. How much longer do we need to wait before the US becomes a fascist state?

[KenMcCoy]

What is your general definition of fascism?

Centralized autocratic government that puts the benefit of many over the rights of the individual.

[KenMcCoy]

Wisconsin v. Mitchell was decided over 25 years ago. How much longer do we need to wait before the US becomes a fascist state?

Ask ANTIFA...apparently it's already here.

[Winehole23]

Fascism doesn't happen overnight. Mussolini/Hitler took 20+ years to get their ducks in a row.uh huh.

I think hate speech regulations are bs, but what about the speech and association rights of business?

Do you think the government should force companies to host speakers and views they find abhorrent?

[clambake]

antifa is a bunch of clowns. try to be less transparent.

[Blake]

Centralized autocratic government that puts the benefit of many over the rights of the individual.

Why were you including that bit about national boards/committees?

[vy65]

Ask ANTIFA...apparently it's already here.

Do you think that was an answer to my question?

[Winehole23]

which is more like fascism: the government telling businesses whose viewpoints they must accommodate, or businesses determining that for themselves?

[vy65]

which is more like fascism: the government telling businesses whose viewpoints they must accommodate, or businesses determining that for themselves?

It's only fascism when my viewpoint is excluded.

[KenMcCoy]

Fascism? Yes or no?

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/19/facebook-twitter-youtube-praised-for-steady-progress-quashing-illegal-hate-speech-in-europe/

Last week the European Commission warned (https://beta.techcrunch.com/2018/01/09/europe-keeps-up-the-pressure-on-social-media-over-illegal-content-takedowns/) it could still draw up legislation to try to ensure illegal content is removed from online platforms if tech firms do not step up their efforts.


Germany has already done (https://beta.techcrunch.com/2017/10/02/germanys-social-media-hate-speech-law-is-now-in-effect/) so for, implementing a regime of fines of up to €50M for social media firms that fail to promptly remove illegal hate speech, though the EC is generally eyeing a wider mix of illegal content when it talks tough on this topic — including terrorist propaganda and even copyrighted material.

[Winehole23]

yep

[clambake]

which is more like fascism: the government telling businesses whose viewpoints they must accommodate, or businesses determining that for themselves?

his problem is with the companies. specific companies that reside in his head.

[Winehole23]

https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/19/facebook-twitter-youtube-praised-for-steady-progress-quashing-illegal-hate-speech-in-europe/

Last week the European Commission warned (https://beta.techcrunch.com/2018/01/09/europe-keeps-up-the-pressure-on-social-media-over-illegal-content-takedowns/) it could still draw up legislation to try to ensure illegal content is removed from online platforms if tech firms do not step up their efforts.


Germany has already done (https://beta.techcrunch.com/2017/10/02/germanys-social-media-hate-speech-law-is-now-in-effect/) so for, implementing a regime of fines of up to €50M for social media firms that fail to promptly remove illegal hate speech, though the EC is generally eyeing a wider mix of illegal content when it talks tough on this topic — including terrorist propaganda and even copyrighted material.I'm against EU style restrictions on speech.

We've got it pretty good here

[vy65]

Europe isn't America. Free speech laws are radically different, i.e., laws against holocaust denial.

[Pavlov]

Ask ANTIFA...apparently it's already here.You believe ANTIFA?

[KenMcCoy]

Europe isn't America. Free speech laws are radically different, i.e., laws against holocaust denial.

Yet four years ago Democratic congressmen introduced a law that was very similar? You think another version of that law doesn't come around in the next 20 years?

[vy65]

Yet four years ago Democratic congressmen introduced a law that was exactly the same? You think another version of that law doesn't come around in the next 20 years?

Please direct me to the bill introduced by Democratic Congressmen that outlawed holocaust denial.

[Pavlov]

Centralized autocratic government that puts the benefit of many over the rights of the individual.A democratic republic by definition isn't autocratic.

Trump's threats are more autocratic than muh boards.

[KenMcCoy]

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/30/congress-just-legalized-sex-censorship-what-to-know/

[Pavlov]

https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/30/congress-just-legalized-sex-censorship-what-to-know/Is this bill Trump signed into law fascist?

[KenMcCoy]

By my definition, yes.

[Pavlov]

By my definition, yes.Trump is a fascist by your definition.

[boutons_deux]

Europe isn't America. Free speech laws are radically different, i.e., laws against holocaust denial.

EU is way ahead of USA in many areas

[KenMcCoy]

Trump is a fascist by your definition.

On that particular legislation, yes. Along with 97 senators that voted yes.

[vy65]

EU is way ahead of USA in many areas

Not in this respect

[KenMcCoy]

EU is way ahead of USA in many areas

Do you all not see the slippery slope that we're heading down? We are following Europe's lead on this, tech companies banning information based on the same laws put in place by Germany and the EC. We have already enacted some forms of internet censorship into law as well.

[vy65]

Relax, no one is coming for the genocide deniers.

[vy65]

Tech companies are not the government. You'd think most would be able to grasp even this simple point.

[vy65]

We have already enacted some forms of internet censorship into law as well.

On what? Child pornography?

[KenMcCoy]

On what? Child pornography?

What types of communication censorship are you ok with?

[vy65]

What types of communication censorship are you ok with?

Was this an answer to my question?

[KenMcCoy]

Was this an answer to my question?

Read the article, it affects more than child porn. What types of communication censorship are you ok with?

[vy65]

Read the article, it affects more than child porn. What types of communication censorship are you ok with?

Pointing to an article isn't an answer. What speech is being "censored?"

[vy65]

But the bills also poke a huge hole in a famous and longstanding “safe harbor” rule of the internet: Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Usually shorthanded as “Section 230” and generally seen as one of the most important pieces of internet legislation ever created, it holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words, Section 230 has allowed the internet to thrive on user-generated content without holding platforms and ISPs responsible for whatever those users might create.

But FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online prostitution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.

[vy65]

What types of communication censorship are you ok with?

Where did I say I was ok with any censorship?

[KenMcCoy]

But the bills also poke a huge hole in a famous and longstanding “safe harbor” rule of the internet: Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Usually shorthanded as “Section 230” and generally seen as one of the most important pieces of internet legislation ever created, it holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words, Section 230 has allowed the internet to thrive on user-generated content without holding platforms and ISPs responsible for whatever those users might create.

But FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online prostitution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.

Thanks for making my argument for me. This is the first step at additional censorship for website (social media) publishers. Now, they can be held responsible for prostitution on their platforms...how far away is "hate speech" and who defines what is and what is not "hate speech?"


Where did I say I was ok with any censorship?

You didn't. I asked what type of censorship are you ok with?

[vy65]

Thanks for making my argument for me. This is the first step at additional censorship for website (social media) publishers. Now, they can be held responsible for prostitution on their platforms...how far away is "hate speech" and who defines what is and what is not "hate speech?"

Removing the safe harbor and making ad sites responsible as publishers for sex trafficking ads is not the same as censorship. The result might be the same, but the mechanism is different and noteworthy.


I didn't. I asked what type of censorship are you ok with?

Have you always beat your wife?

[vy65]

Holding Reddit or backpage responsible for underage/sex-trafficking advertisements doesn't strike me one way or another. The main objection against FOSTA/SESTA is that it harms consensual sex - which is a far cry from the law being a harbinger of doom for the first amendment. Claims that the bill harms free speech is like saying that there should be no laws against advertising murder for hire or a child sex ring. Policing and restricting commercial speech associated with illegal activities doesn't strike me as putting us on any kind of slippery slope towards a 1984-type future.

Maybe you can elaborate, because your claim right now -- that any speech restriction means doom -- doesn't pass the straight face test.

[Spurminator]

If only we still guaranteed that ISPs were obligated to treat the dissemination of online content equally, people who were banned from popular social and video networks could always be confident that their audience would be able to find them on other channels without obstacle. The real problem starts when government pressures ISPs to block InfoWars.com or any other sites that host their content.

That's the real slippery slope here. Interestingly, Jones' followers seem to be okay with the loss of net neutrality and are determined to focus on the platforms.

[Spurtacular]

What is your general definition of fascism?

You seriously cannot help yourself, sociopath chump. If there is a lame question dangling, you'll ask it. :lmao

[Pavlov]

You seriously cannot help yourself, sociopath chump. If there is a lame question dangling, you'll ask it. :lmaolol you can't define it.

[Spurtacular]

lol you can't define it.

I just got done mocking you for wanting dictionary terms defined for you, and this is your comeback.

SMH Today's sociopath chump.

:lmao Not very smart.

[Blake]

I just got done mocking you for wanting dictionary terms defined for you, and this is your comeback.

SMH Today's sociopath chump.

:lmao Not very smart.

The entire forum waterboarded you today. At this point you're a rambling loon.

[Spurtacular]

The entire forum waterboarded you today. At this point you're a rambling loon.

:lmao cuck thinks group humping my leg is a W.

[Blake]

:lmao cuck thinks group humping my leg is a W.

Poor derp

[Spurtacular]

Poor derp

Cucks don't have pity to give.

[Blake]

Lame.

You're a pitiful retard.

[Spurtacular]

Lame.

You're a pitiful retard.

How does it get lamer than being a cuck and a deadbeat dad?

[boutons_deux]

rightwingnutjobs are ecstatic when Trash excludes/censors a) woman b) who asks tough questions.

[Blake]

How does it get lamer than being a cuck and a deadbeat dad?

I'm neither of those. Your fantasy obsession with people on a message board is pitiful.

Your inability to keep up with discussions here and then falling back on your obsessive shtick is also pitiful.

You're just a sad and pitiful dude.

[Spurtacular]

I'm neither of those. Your fantasy obsession with people on a message board is sad and pitiful.

Stuck watching your wife fuck another dude and walking out on your kids afterward. You're both. And cos you're a dumb fucking cuck that doesn't have a clue was pride in oneself looks like, you're still here to be a laughing stock. :lmao

[Blake]

Stuck watching your wife fuck another dude and walking out on your kids afterward.


I'm neither of those. Your fantasy obsession with people on a message board is pitiful.

[Spurtacular]

Cuck Blake relying on inept template defenses. Par. Don't worry; you're kid is better off for you walking away. She doesn't need to learn from a beta male, anyhow.

[RandomGuy]

The entire forum waterboarded you today. At this point you're a rambling loon.

dude has been setting up shop on Mount Stupid for a loooong time.

[Winehole23]

Peter Van Buren got permabanned from Twitter for being mean to some blue-check journalists. He touches on a number of themes Chris and Spurtacular merely waved their hands at:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/i-was-banned-for-life-from-twitter/

[Spurtacular]

Peter Van Buren got permabanned from Twitter for being mean to some blue-check journalists. He touches on a number of themes Chris and Spurtacular merely waved their hands at:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/i-was-banned-for-life-from-twitter/

I don't know what accusation you're making exactly; but I'm not a fan of censorship of either side as it pertains to audiences who don't want the censorship. If you like the fascism, then okay.

[Pavlov]

:lmao cuck thinks group humping my leg is a W.So what's the score now according to you?

You brought it up.

[Spurtacular]

So what's the score now according to you?

You brought it up.

Tracking all your L's would be more trite than a conversation with you.

[Pavlov]

Tracking all your L's would be more trite than a conversation with you.
OK, how many Ws are you claiming?

[Spurtacular]

OK, how many Ws are you claiming?

Sociopath chump can't accept the answer. Par.

[Pavlov]

Sociopath chump can't accept the answer. Par.
lol derp sorry he brought it up again

[Chris]

1028083152160522246

[Spurtacular]

1028083152160522246

Ultimately, they are just going to force conservatives to create new mediums that draw away business.

[Chris]

Ban all the things.


1028698630897721344

[Reck]

Ban all the things.


1028698630897721344

Katrina Peirson next.

[Blake]

Ban all the things.


1028698630897721344

:lmao "conservative journalist"

[ElNono]

Ultimately, they are just going to force conservatives to create new mediums that draw away business.

farmersonly.com already exists, tbh, IMO...

[Pavlov]

Jesus, you got a problem if you have to use the Joan Collins filter at that age.

[Spurtacular]

farmersonly.com already exists, tbh, IMO...

I know you're just making a joke; but to expound all the same, conservatives don't seem to have the belief in themselves when it comes to these communications markets that liberals have developed over decades; but ultimately, they will develop their tools in time.

[Blake]

I know you're just making a joke; but to expound all the same, conservatives don't seem to have the belief in themselves when it comes to these communications markets that liberals have developed over decades; but ultimately, they will develop their tools in time.

Which they'll be able to crush the free speech of the left!

[Chris]

Jesus, you got a problem if you have to use the Joan Collins filter at that age.

Pavlov making it personal.

[Spurtacular]

Which they'll be able to crush the free speech of the left!

Are you admitting the left is crushing free speech in the interim? Or are you just lashing out, cuck style?

[Pavlov]

Pavlov making it personal.Are you using photo filters, Chris?

Sorry I hurt you.

[Chris]

Are you using photo filters, Chris?

Sorry I hurt you.

I don't judge people based on their looks.

[Pavlov]

I don't judge people based on their looks.Sure you don't.

[ElNono]

I know you're just making a joke; but to expound all the same, conservatives don't seem to have the belief in themselves when it comes to these communications markets that liberals have developed over decades; but ultimately, they will develop their tools in time.

It's not a matter of belief, IMO, it's implicit in 'conservatism' (allow me to generalize a bit here). The average conservative person is relatively averse to taking big risks. A lot of these 'new media'/'new tech' companies are intrinsically huge gambles. Twitter, Facebook, even Amazon, didn't make money (and actually bled money) for a long ass time until they eventually found the model to make money (and in turn, somewhat diminish their initial appeal).

Conservatives are much more likely to wait it out and buy/join an already profitable enterprise, IMO. That doesn't mean there's no conservative innovators, etc, but the mentality is certainly different.

Like I said, just my opinion, there's no scientific basis for this.

[Spurtacular]

It's not a matter of belief, IMO, it's implicit in 'conservatism' (allow me to generalize a bit here). The average conservative person is relatively averse to taking big risks. A lot of these 'new media'/'new tech' companies are intrinsically huge gambles. Twitter, Facebook, even Amazon, didn't make money (and actually bled money) for a long ass time until they eventually found the model to make money (and in turn, somewhat diminish their initial appeal).

Conservatives are much more likely to wait it out and buy/join an already profitable enterprise, IMO. That doesn't mean there's no conservative innovators, etc, but the mentality is certainly different.

Like I said, just my opinion, there's no scientific basis for this.

I see your point to some extent; but there are plenty of conservatives who take risks. I think it's more experience or lack of vision at this point than it is being risk averse. Frankly, there's a lot of conservative money out there for the taking.

Also, I think you're totally overlooking the built-in economies of scale that liberals have given the media market has always been a largely public or semi-public enterprise. CNN can run their business like sh** and still make a lot of money b/c of baked-in advantages.

[spurraider21]

I don't judge people based on their looks.
except idris elba

[ElNono]

I see your point to some extent; but there are plenty of conservatives who take risks. I think it's more experience or lack of vision at this point than it is being risk averse. Frankly, there's a lot of conservative money out there for the taking.

I think, generally speaking, conservatives are more money-driven, whereas liberals angle for other, more esoteric things (can it change the world?, that kind of stuff)... different mentalities.


Also, I think you're totally overlooking the built-in economies of scale that liberals have given the media market has always been a largely public or semi-public enterprise. CNN can run their business like sh** and still make a lot of money b/c of baked-in advantages.

People like to hate CNN and Fox News, but they're simply popular. That's what has kept them relevant. The companies themselves have shifted the way the cover news many times, have changed formats, expanded to the digital world, catered towards the more polarized crowd.

Honestly, I don't know what you mean by baked-in advantages, can you elaborate?

[Spurtacular]

Honestly, I don't know what you mean by baked-in advantages, can you elaborate?

They receive monies from the media companies to be on their formats. They have a baseline of advertising dollars. They have parent companies that can absorb bad quarters, etc.

[ElNono]

They receive monies from the media companies to be on their formats. They have a baseline of advertising dollars. They have parent companies that can absorb bad quarters, etc.

That's pretty much every big business conglomerate these days, tbh... Newscorp, Turner, Sony, Pfizer, Bayer, etc etc etc... but, they mostly made their money off their product's popularity and in the private sector.

If you wanna talk about baked-in advantages, there's a long list of government/military subsidized conglomerates that live off the government teat (Halliburton, Boeing, etc).

[Spurtacular]

That's pretty much every big business conglomerate these days, tbh... Newscorp, Turner, Sony, Pfizer, Bayer, etc etc etc... but, they mostly made their money off their product's popularity and in the private sector.

If you wanna talk about baked-in advantages, there's a long list of government/military subsidized conglomerates that live off the government teat (Halliburton, Boeing, etc).

You're missing the point. There's an inherent advantage to their platforms. The quality of content is frankly secondary in a manner of speaking.

[Winehole23]

Forum conservatives now pining for antitrust enforcement because free market outcomes are so unfair...

[Spurtacular]

Forum conservatives now pining for antitrust enforcement because free market outcomes are so unfair...

I don't see anyone pining; but I said all along that the loosening of restrictions on media ownership (and bank ownership) was bad for the country. Centralized power always fucks people over, bruh.

[Winehole23]

so, what is to be done?

[DarrinS]

YouTube shut down H3 podcast for merely talking about Alex Jones

[Winehole23]

what do you think should be done, Darrin? does the government need to take control of this?

[Blake]

I don't judge people based on their looks.

Unless they're wearing a burqa

[Incel]

YouTube shut down H3 podcast for merely talking about Alex Jones
Youtube is secretly run by Soros and he uses it to provide new child sacrifices to the Clintons.

[AaronY]

Pavlov making it personal.
Dont judge the Big Tits and an ashkenazi IQ girl on her looks guys!!

zqO8Yh5Ngqg

[Trey Gowdy]

I don't judge people based on their looks.


except idris elba

https://78.media.tumblr.com/c99ea4272f5a0af267bfabf9d0c53761/tumblr_n5ww20Tv9Q1sgrc34o1_400.gif

[koriwhat]

Dont judge the Big Tits and an ashkenazi IQ girl on her looks guys!!

zqO8Yh5Ngqg

lmao wtf

[kw's crack dealer]

lmao wtf
Nigga if you don’t pay me my muhfuckin money, I’ma make you suck this gun like a dick. And when it cums, it’s gon blow yo brains all over the street!

[vy65]

Jesus, you got a problem if you have to use the Joan Collins filter at that age.

Holy fuck, I thought catfishing was only a thing on dating apps ...

[ElNono]

You're missing the point. There's an inherent advantage to their platforms. The quality of content is frankly secondary in a manner of speaking.

I certainly am missing the point. Can you be more clear in what you mean?

It is in the sense that they can use their time for self-publicity as they please? I mean, that's available to all sides of the equation. I don't see how that is inherently a liberal-only advantage, if that's what you mean.

[Pavlov]

lol derp tossing that word salad hoping someone will make sense of it for him.

[ElNono]

I don't see anyone pining; but I said all along that the loosening of restrictions on media ownership (and bank ownership) was bad for the country. Centralized power always fucks people over, bruh.

Actually, those were loosened by the current FCC chairman, a Republican. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.

[AaronY]

lmao wtf
What part didnt you understand the big tits? or the ashkenazi IQ?

[Incel]

Actually, those were loosened by the current FCC chairman, a Republican. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.
Fake News

[koriwhat]

What part didnt you understand the big tits? or the ashkenazi IQ?

i want to see both to judge for myself.