- Thread Author
- #421
Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
-
If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.
Internet Censorship.
- Thread starter tigermud
- Start date
- Thread Author
- #422
- Thread Author
- #423
- Thread Author
- #424
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/12/03/usmca-entrenches-tech-companies-right-censor/
No not happy about this, bagtiges slipping this crap into the bill. Sigh
Trump got duped again
No not happy about this, bagtiges slipping this crap into the bill. Sigh
Trump got duped again
- Thread Author
- #425
- Thread Author
- #426
https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0
The State Is Influencing Big Tech?s "Unpersoning" ? Now Imagine If It Takes Over Healthcare
12/11/2018Tho Bishop
As tech executives continue to be grilled in front of Congress, the growing Bernie Sanders-wing of the Democratic Party is preparing to push its misnamed ?Medicare for All? into the political mainstream after its political gains in the midterms. While these two stories seem to have very little in common, it?s not difficult to imagine a not-so-distant future where the two are dangerously connected. After all, so long as the scope of government grows, the continued politicization of all aspect of life will follow ? the inevitable consequences of which could be quite horrific.
The State?s Shadow over Silicon Valley
First let?s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.
While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech?s growing hostility to free speech.
For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on ?sexualized content? on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, ?anti-hate speech? laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.
While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what?s been likened to a modern version of Orwell?s ?unpersoning.? Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.
The traditional libertarian response to these issues is to simply build another platform, but that seems increasingly impotent in the face of the union between Big Tech and state.
Gab, for example, is a product that arose in direct response to increased censorship on Twitter. The app has found itself deplatformed from both major phone app stores, even before user Robert Barnes killed 11 people at a Pennsylvania synagogue earlier this year and heightened law enforcement?s attention to the site. It?s worth noting that Facebook, a prolific donor to America?s political class, did not receive similar treatment when it was used to broadcast torture and murder.
Similarly, cryptocurrency exchanges have faced backlash from government officials, traditional financial services companies, and tech companies in their effort to build alternatives to state-controlled financial networks.
Of course the answer to this new era of Big Brother (Sister?) isn?t government regulation, as many on the populist right advocate. The history of government involvement in communication platforms has been one of increased censorship. Instead, the best way to confront the Silicon Valley?s censorship is to recognize the inherently perverse influence of government and pursue a separation of tech and state. For example, attack all forms of state privileges enjoyed by companies that don?t recognize freedom of speech: such as government contracts, and liability waivers. Additionally, allow private citizens to sue when companies violate their terms of service or mislabel themselves as ?open platforms.?
Socialism and Political Correctness are a Dangerous Mix
Unfortunately instead of working to depoliticize tech, it?s far more likely that we will see increased politicization of other vital parts of American life ? and perhaps none is more dangerous than that applied to healthcare.
While it is easy to mock the economic illiteracy of politicians like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, there is no question that her brand of democratic socialism is growing in popularity ? and not just on the left. It?s worth remembering that only a few years ago candidate Donald Trump gave his own endorsement to a healthcare vision similar to that held by AOC and Bernie Sanders.
Consider the troubling potential of a progressive government that drops all pretense of valuing free speech, and then giving that government complete control of the healthcare system.
While this perhaps sounds like the makings of an outlandish dystopian novel, imagine the sort of policies we?ve already seen come from the executive branch. Under the Obama Administration, we saw the use of the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, and even intelligence agencies to target and punish political opponents. Meanwhile, the progressive left has increasingly identified those who believe the ?wrong ideas? ? such as skeptics of anthropogenic climate change ? as dangerous threats guilty of the crimes equivalent to murder.
In an age where a new generation of doctors increasingly rejects the Hippocratic oath, a government take over of medical care ? as the honest advocates of ?Medicare for All? propose ? could inevitably lead to politicized regulators making life and death decisions for Americans.
Now does this mean I think it's likely that a President Ocasio-Cortez would instruct a "political death panel" to not provide Alex Jones with life saving treatment? Not necessarily. The issue, however, is that the greater control the state has on medicine, the more decisions are influenced by the concerns of government, rather than the needs of patients. In such a dark timeline, if socialized healthcare forced America to face the sort of medical rationing that Britain?s prized National Health Service has been reduced to, it would be fair to wonder if Gavin McInnes would receive the same sort of treatment as an Ezra Klein.
At the end of the day the more socialist a country is, the greater the danger in opposing the narrative of the state.
As Mises warned in Omnipotent Government:
No matter where you are in the world, the danger is the same. Grow the scope of government and expand the weapons of the state that can be deployed against its political enemies.
It?s Big Tech today. Let?s not allow it be healthcare in the future.
The State Is Influencing Big Tech?s "Unpersoning" ? Now Imagine If It Takes Over Healthcare
12/11/2018Tho Bishop
As tech executives continue to be grilled in front of Congress, the growing Bernie Sanders-wing of the Democratic Party is preparing to push its misnamed ?Medicare for All? into the political mainstream after its political gains in the midterms. While these two stories seem to have very little in common, it?s not difficult to imagine a not-so-distant future where the two are dangerously connected. After all, so long as the scope of government grows, the continued politicization of all aspect of life will follow ? the inevitable consequences of which could be quite horrific.
The State?s Shadow over Silicon Valley
First let?s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.
While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech?s growing hostility to free speech.
For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on ?sexualized content? on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, ?anti-hate speech? laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.
While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what?s been likened to a modern version of Orwell?s ?unpersoning.? Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.
The traditional libertarian response to these issues is to simply build another platform, but that seems increasingly impotent in the face of the union between Big Tech and state.
Gab, for example, is a product that arose in direct response to increased censorship on Twitter. The app has found itself deplatformed from both major phone app stores, even before user Robert Barnes killed 11 people at a Pennsylvania synagogue earlier this year and heightened law enforcement?s attention to the site. It?s worth noting that Facebook, a prolific donor to America?s political class, did not receive similar treatment when it was used to broadcast torture and murder.
Similarly, cryptocurrency exchanges have faced backlash from government officials, traditional financial services companies, and tech companies in their effort to build alternatives to state-controlled financial networks.
Of course the answer to this new era of Big Brother (Sister?) isn?t government regulation, as many on the populist right advocate. The history of government involvement in communication platforms has been one of increased censorship. Instead, the best way to confront the Silicon Valley?s censorship is to recognize the inherently perverse influence of government and pursue a separation of tech and state. For example, attack all forms of state privileges enjoyed by companies that don?t recognize freedom of speech: such as government contracts, and liability waivers. Additionally, allow private citizens to sue when companies violate their terms of service or mislabel themselves as ?open platforms.?
Socialism and Political Correctness are a Dangerous Mix
Unfortunately instead of working to depoliticize tech, it?s far more likely that we will see increased politicization of other vital parts of American life ? and perhaps none is more dangerous than that applied to healthcare.
While it is easy to mock the economic illiteracy of politicians like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, there is no question that her brand of democratic socialism is growing in popularity ? and not just on the left. It?s worth remembering that only a few years ago candidate Donald Trump gave his own endorsement to a healthcare vision similar to that held by AOC and Bernie Sanders.
Consider the troubling potential of a progressive government that drops all pretense of valuing free speech, and then giving that government complete control of the healthcare system.
While this perhaps sounds like the makings of an outlandish dystopian novel, imagine the sort of policies we?ve already seen come from the executive branch. Under the Obama Administration, we saw the use of the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, and even intelligence agencies to target and punish political opponents. Meanwhile, the progressive left has increasingly identified those who believe the ?wrong ideas? ? such as skeptics of anthropogenic climate change ? as dangerous threats guilty of the crimes equivalent to murder.
In an age where a new generation of doctors increasingly rejects the Hippocratic oath, a government take over of medical care ? as the honest advocates of ?Medicare for All? propose ? could inevitably lead to politicized regulators making life and death decisions for Americans.
Now does this mean I think it's likely that a President Ocasio-Cortez would instruct a "political death panel" to not provide Alex Jones with life saving treatment? Not necessarily. The issue, however, is that the greater control the state has on medicine, the more decisions are influenced by the concerns of government, rather than the needs of patients. In such a dark timeline, if socialized healthcare forced America to face the sort of medical rationing that Britain?s prized National Health Service has been reduced to, it would be fair to wonder if Gavin McInnes would receive the same sort of treatment as an Ezra Klein.
At the end of the day the more socialist a country is, the greater the danger in opposing the narrative of the state.
As Mises warned in Omnipotent Government:
Within a socialist community there is no room left for freedom...There can be neither freedom of conscience nor of speech where the government has the power to remove any opponent to a climate which is detrimental to his health.
Now obviously the US is far away from such a terrorizing future, and there are far more immediate threats than the specter of political death panels. Can we be so confident about China, with its new social credit system? Or even the UK with the previously mentioned stress placed on its health system, and its own growing political polarization? It's fair to wonder.
No matter where you are in the world, the danger is the same. Grow the scope of government and expand the weapons of the state that can be deployed against its political enemies.
It?s Big Tech today. Let?s not allow it be healthcare in the future.
- Thread Author
- #427
https://freebeacon.com/politics/lie...t-of-speech-but-the-first-amendment-stops-me/
such authoritarians. yikes
such authoritarians. yikes
sggatecl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,918
In the same breath he says that it's better that the government does not regulate the content of speech. Dingus is all over the map here.
sggatecl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,918
@tigermud - Google exec made a panel of aging old men look like idiots on capital hill today. That couldn't have sat well with you.
- Thread Author
- #430
I didn't see any of today's testimony I'll catch the recaps later. Wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of those old men looked like fools a lot of them don't know how any of this even works. They think some guy is manually filtering search results for people or something. They should let Alex Jones ask the questions..
sggatecl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,918
I want to punch myself for saying this but he would've done a better job 10x over.
- Thread Author
- #432
- Thread Author
- #433
Alex Jones meets Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and asks him about why he thinks the island of Guam could capsize into the ocean as well as his thoughts on Google censorship:
https://www.brighteon.com/5978881606001
https://www.brighteon.com/5978881606001
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #434
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #435
While explaining Google censorship and fraud to reporters outside the Sundar Pichai hearings, Alex Jones confronted Ted Deutch who lobbied Facebook and Google execs to kick him off social media platforms with made up accusations.
https://www.brighteon.com/5978881013001
https://www.brighteon.com/5978881013001
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #436
Gohmert Introduces Bill to Remove Liability Protections For Biased Social Media Companies
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59592
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59592
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,111
These platforms are private companies, and can censor whoever they want. this is not a First Amendment issue.
and they've been censoring voices on the left as well, simply because of their message. has "gay frog" expressed any concerns about that? and unlike him, the voices on the left they censor aren't spreading messages of hate and intolerance. links: here, here, and here.
The alternative is nationalising them... but no one on the Right supports that, because billionaires getting to squeeze every dime out of consumers, while remaining above the law IS "democracy" to the Right.
and they've been censoring voices on the left as well, simply because of their message. has "gay frog" expressed any concerns about that? and unlike him, the voices on the left they censor aren't spreading messages of hate and intolerance. links: here, here, and here.
The alternative is nationalising them... but no one on the Right supports that, because billionaires getting to squeeze every dime out of consumers, while remaining above the law IS "democracy" to the Right.
Spartanmack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 17,453
No one on the right supports that because we're not dumb enough to think socialism or communism works. And it's not democracy, it's property rights - did they teach you about property rights in law school? It's a basic founding principle of this great nation. They took the risks, they buit it, they own it - it's not yours to take because you think the government should run everything and there's some greater public interest in the government confiscating something because you think someone makes too much money.
Last edited:
- Thread Author
- #439
Removing thier protections and treating the same as a media outlet would benefit both the left and the right from being discriminated againts simply for thier political views the article also goes in to talk about how these companies are planning to let A.I. Decide what is and isn’t hate speech
That’s pretty GD scary
That’s pretty GD scary
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,111
Gohmert's bill is stupid and would basically gut all public commentary on the internet.
Section 230 provides immunity for ISP's and website publishers from lawsuits arising over content third parties post on their sites. E.g. Strawmanhack couldn't sue DSF for comments posted here by Bob, Turok, or Thumb that hurt his little feelings. Without Section 230, a lot of sites would ban public
commenting and user-generated content.
without section 230 protection, websites could be sued into oblivion for comments posted on them. I don't know how you repeal 230 and limit that only to social media companies.
Gohmert is either dumb, or this is power grab by government censors.
Affiliates
