*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[Benny003]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

We giving accused domestic abuser Keith Ellison a pass for winning his primary? Seems if he were a Republican it’d be mentioned a few times in here

I'm waiting for the evidence to come out. The accuser says there are texts and video, but nothing has come out yet. Ellison's ex-wife immediately defended him saying she never saw Ellison behave in any of the ways that the accuser describes. It's certainly something to keep an eye on and was the reason I didn't vote for him yesterday. If more credible information comes out, then it will certainly be a problem. If nothing more comes out, then I'll support him in the general election in November.

[jmc419]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/14/med...nes/index.html

I do not like Alex Jones, but why do social media companies like Youtube and Facebook have to censor his material?

Why can't citizens have their own thoughts on what he posts?

I just think it's a slippery slope to go down.

He's doing fine. He is more popular now more than ever and damn near set a personal record for app. and podcasts downloads after the news. YT and FB did him a favor, one that I hope is short term.

[Benny003]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/14/med...nes/index.html

I do not like Alex Jones, but why do social media companies like Youtube and Facebook have to censor his material?

Why can't citizens have their own thoughts on what he posts?

I just think it's a slippery slope to go down.

Why should private businesses be required to provide a platform for hate/violent speech?

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

He violated their terms of service,

Citizens can visit his site freely and form their own thoughts. YT & facebook have every right to remove him if they want.

There is no slippery slope.

I'm not saying they cant, but these are dangerous times, when the frothing masses would gladly forego their rights of expression for the immeasurable comforts of not being offended or ever disagreed with.

Why shouldn't people think for themselves? Why does these companies need to play thought police?

[BTBaboon]

That....isn't at all what is happening. Dear lord

[currupt3d**]

Originally Posted by Benny003

Why should private businesses be required to provide a platform for hate/violent speech?

Not saying that he hasn't but of all the times I've listened to his show I've never heard him say anything supporting violence against others. Maybe somethings they've said you could consider "hateful", depending on how sensitive you are.

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

I'm not saying they cant, but these are dangerous times, when the frothing masses would gladly forego their rights of expression for the immeasurable comforts of not being offended or ever disagreed with.

Why shouldn't people think for themselves? Why does these companies need to play thought police?

did you miss the first part of my post?

he violated their terms of service. its fully within their right to remove him.

This isnt a thought police or free speech thing in any manner. He has every right to exist on his own site, YT and FB are not required to allow him there.

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by currupt3d**

Not saying that he hasn't but of all the times I've listened to his show I've never heard him say anything supporting violence against others. Maybe somethings they've said you could consider "hateful", depending on how sensitive you are.

he talks about physically assaulting people all the time in his videos

[Route_2]

The frothing masses

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

That....isn't at all what is happening. Dear lord

I posted this because I see it being talked about by a few friends on Facebook. Again, Alex Jones is a terrible person, but do we need these companies to censor him to get that message across?

I'm not challenging their right to ban him, as many are probably assuming that is what I am suggesting.

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

did you miss the first part of my post?

he violated their terms of service. its fully within their right to remove him.

This isnt a thought police or free speech thing in any manner. He has every right to exist on his own site, YT and FB are not required to allow him there.

I never said it was. My concern is that people should be able to make these determinations for themselves. Facebook and Youtube have caved to pressures that have caused them to place a permanent ban, but I have admired Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's stance on free speech, and his "not reacting to outside pressure," as far as being an open platform goes.

[Route_2]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

I never said it was. My concern is that people should be able to make these determinations for themselves. Facebook and Youtube have caved to pressures that have caused them to place a permanent ban, but I have admired Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's stance on free speech, and his "not reacting to outside pressure," as far as being an open platform goes.

Trying to understand your position as it's so far not very clear. So, you're just anti-TOS in general? Just a free for all on those platforms with no rules?

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

I don't think the economy is as relevant anymore. In the polarized era we're in, filled with identity politics, all that matters is if the base is energized. Not to say it shouldnt be, but I think people are voting less on actual issues and more on tribalism.

I think it’s always the economy. If he can make the case that GDP, stock market, employment are all good under him then people will vote to continue with him running things.

If things go to shit the case would be made he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I think it’s always the economy. If he can make the case that GDP, stock market, employment are all good under him then people will vote to continue with him running things.



If things go to shit the case would be made he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

He convinced enough dopes that all the numbers he brags about were fake under Obama so I’m sure it’s possible

[monkeyman420]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

I never said it was. My concern is that people should be able to make these determinations for themselves. Facebook and Youtube have caved to pressures that have caused them to place a permanent ban, but I have admired Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's stance on free speech, and his "not reacting to outside pressure," as far as being an open platform goes.

I am so tired of the free speech argument. Everyone has a right to say what they want when they want to whom they want and not fear the government coming after them for saying those things. That does not mean a company, for example Facebook, has to give the same leeway. Facebook has their own terms of service. If they feel someone has violated those terms they can do as they please. It's that simple, but is apparently too complicated for people to understand.

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by Route_2

Trying to understand your position as it's so far not very clear. So, you're just anti-TOS in general? Just a free for all on those platforms with no rules?

The only position I'm taking is that I would encourage tech companies to be more like twitter and not succumb to outside pressure.

[Route_2]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

The only position I'm taking is that I would encourage tech companies to be more like twitter and not succumb to outside pressure.

So how do you feel about Twitter temporarily suspending Alex Jones yesterday? Succumbing to outside pressure or no?

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by Route_2

Trying to understand your position as it's so far not very clear. So, you're just anti-TOS in general? Just a free for all on those platforms with no rules?

Agreed. Ideas of "thought police" and "censoring" are silly when we are talking about TOS violations. Every user agrees to them when they sign up for a social media account. Why shouldn't they be enforced?

I guess if Alex Jones was posting dick pics on Twitter/IG/FB and got banned that BostonSux would consider this thought policing too? I'm just confused about why there's a need to allow content that is in violation of terms of service fly?

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by monkeyman420

I am so tired of the free speech argument. Everyone has a right to say what they want when they want to whom they want and not fear the government coming after them for saying those things. That does not mean a company, for example Facebook, has to give the same leeway. Facebook has their own terms of service. If they feel someone has violated those terms they can do as they please. It's that simple, but is apparently too complicated for people to understand.

So what are your thoughts to this quote by a Twitter Engineer who is speaking out against the CEO for taking a neutral stance while other tech companies were banning Alex Jones:

"We are not a government. We do not need to be neutral. The feeling that we are making the tough, right call by remaining neutral is wrong. Our inaction is suppressing voices — disabling conversation."

Essentially, the only way to allow for free speech is to take it away from certain people.

Don't see the irony?

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

The only position I'm taking is that I would encourage tech companies to be more like twitter and not succumb to outside pressure.

Originally Posted by Route_2

So how do you feel about Twitter temporarily suspending Alex Jones yesterday? Succumbing to outside pressure or no?

[jmc419]

FB, YT and Twitter could site several examples of the specific violation. I don't believe that has happened yet.

[ShotgunDMB]

Met my most interesting Trump supporter the other day. Chick from San Diego, smokes pot, pro choice, pro national insurance, voted for Obama. Voted for Trump bc hes “a good businessman”. I’m amazed at folks sometimes

[Bostonsux013]

Originally Posted by Route_2

So how do you feel about Twitter temporarily suspending Alex Jones yesterday? Succumbing to outside pressure or no?

I do believe it is succumbing to outside pressure. I have long admired the CEO's stance until yesterday. That is the purpose for this conversation.

I'm also trying to hear consenting viewpoints because that is how you have a healthy discussion.

[ShotgunDMB]

Originally Posted by Benny003

I'm waiting for the evidence to come out. The accuser says there are texts and video, but nothing has come out yet. Ellison's ex-wife immediately defended him saying she never saw Ellison behave in any of the ways that the accuser describes. It's certainly something to keep an eye on and was the reason I didn't vote for him yesterday. If more credible information comes out, then it will certainly be a problem. If nothing more comes out, then I'll support him in the general election in November.

Fair enough reasons. Pretty sure Republicans were blasted for supporting Roy Moore w similar excuses.

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I think it’s always the economy. If he can make the case that GDP, stock market, employment are all good under him then people will vote to continue with him running things.

If things go to shit the case would be made he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

But what I'm saying is that the bold is actually what matters, not the metrics themselves. Feels > reals, and all that.

His base can buy into the narrative that the economy has never been better, despite actual facts that it has, or that black jobs are higher under Trump than Obama even though they aren't, etc. That blind belief, to me, is the tribalism that I was talking about, and is what really matters far more than actual results.

[jmc419]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

Met my most interesting Trump supporter the other day. Chick from San Diego, smokes pot, pro choice, pro national insurance, voted for Obama. Voted for Trump bc hes “a good businessman”. I’m amazed at folks sometimes

I spent a week in San Diego in March and everyone I spoke to was a Trump supporter. Blew my mind.

So many bums in that city. I can still smell the piss in the streets just thinking about it.

[Lee3691]

I'm not sure if Trump gets reelected, but he will loose the popular vote by 5 million+ in 2020 should he run again.

[TheLastPig]

Its almost like CA isnt the uber liberal hippie paradise bubble the right paints it as.

[ShotgunDMB]

Need to split it up so theres at least 1 conservative leaning Cali

[monkeyman420]

Originally Posted by Bostonsux013

So what are your thoughts to this quote by a Twitter Engineer who is speaking out against the CEO for taking a neutral stance while other tech companies were banning Alex Jones:

"We are not a government. We do not need to be neutral. The feeling that we are making the tough, right call by remaining neutral is wrong. Our inaction is suppressing voices — disabling conversation."

Essentially, the only way to allow for free speech is to take it away from certain people.

Don't see the irony?

I see nothing wrong in the quote because it is factually correct. Companies are not the government and therefore do not need to just let anyone do whatever the fuck they want and let people decide what to read/click/comment on. There is no irony here.