The Donald vs Big Tech

[Caomhaoin]

Ducky, are you serious? None of the things you accuse him of are accurate. Not a single one, bar chauvinism, depending on how you define it.

Black unemployment is at a record low. If he were a racist, truly, he'd hardly be bothered about that. Ultranationalist? I think you misunderstand the term entirely. Nationalist, yes, but he's hardly Vojislav Seselj, seeking to expand borders and maintaining ethnic grudges.

Sexist? He has more women in his cabinet than any other US president in history. He made some lewd remark about women 12 years ago. So what? I've probably said worse, most of us here probably have , and I'm certainly no sexist and I doubt you are either.

Neo-Fascist? Lad, fascism is a term not to be used lightly, but just like racism it has been diluted to nothing over the last ten years. It does not apply to him or his administration, even if you believe elements of it do.

You obviously don't like the man. He's a BS merchant, a chancer as the boy Chris says, a door to door salesman. Could you compare him to a true fascist like Mussolini? Militarisation, territorially aggrandising? Come on lad.

And if you think there is no hysteria surrounding him, you mustn't be paying much attention to the endless protests and screeching going on over there.

[Pedrito]

Chris calm the bean

Nah, I'm just saying that what Donald is accused of are things that he has said, things that are hard-copy documented in the public sphere. What Obama and Leo and Blair, in his day, are accused of are things done behind the scenes. Anyone with any sense expects that politicians, especially national leaders, are smooth talking to hide shit they're doing in the background. What's incredible with Trump and Boris and their ilk, is that they just come out with everything, blatantly contradicting themselves in full view of all. It's staggering, and it's pushing public discourse to a really weird place.

Yeah man I agree completely. The fact is that now nobody can get away with anything. They're actually way more filmed and recorded..it's all out there for everyone to see. Can you imagine if the conversations around Weapons of Mass Destruction had been leaked? We are now in a post WMD world..these guys can't shit and somebody knows about it. So, the conspiracy stuff is exactly that.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

They're not leaks though, that's what's staggering! It's stuff said at rallies, in interviews, on Twitter of course; public sphere stuff.

[Caomhaoin]

Yes, because he's the first non-politician since Eisenhower to be elected to office. He was never groomed like that greasy fucker Obama, or worse, Bill.

[Pedrito]

Yep it's all out in the open. It is weird, but it's not new. Mary Lou does it all the time, Gerry and Martin, Paisley was a master at it. Big rousing speeches in front of his flock and then a far softer figure when it came to actually dealing with the other side. There's a lot of rousing the troops stuff in politics with the acceptance that most of the stuff you're roaring about won't actually get done, and as long as you get the main stuff done the supporter base is happy.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Yep it's all out in the open. It is weird, but it's not new. Mary Lou does it all the time, Gerry and Martin, Paisley was a master at it. Big rousing speeches in front of his flock and then a far softer figure when it came to actually dealing with the other side. There's a lot of rousing the troops stuff in politics with the acceptance that most of the stuff you're roaring about won't actually get done, and as long as you get the main stuff done the supporter base is happy.

I'm talking about inconsistency from one rally or press conference to the next, from one day to the next, not the typical difference between the rally and the negotiating table. His coronavirus speeches are just one example which has been perfectly documented, from him publicly stating that there was no problem, to later stating he was the first to declare it a pandemic. It's nuts.

Edit: I mean, it's nuts that he still has followers, despite his couldn't give a fuck attitude to lying. Absolutely agree that he's not more dishonest than Obama or Bill, etc., when it comes to speech versus acts, but that his followers don't seem to care at all that his speech is constantly self-contradicting, that's nuts.

[boozegeune]

I dont think anybody was engaging in screeching hysteria on this thread tbf. But in general I get what you mean. Its baffling to me to see people hand wringing and crying for the return of Obama. I mean, yeah, the guy seemed smart but oversaw plenty of terrible shit in his time too.

As for the looting and burning, I dont know how many peaceful protests where people just end up getting maced as they sit on the ground you'd have to go through before you get frustrated enough to, god forbid, hurt a target store.

[hellfire]

Just going back to the original post for a second. We're all OK with three companies having control of what we say, watch and hear? This is perfectly alright and there is no bias in their censorship policies.

[Pedrito]

He's not the first to self contradict, I'm not saying he's not a repeat offender, we just never had so much minute coverage of ANY president and all the stuff they invented or didn't. We're in new territory here. Obama was given a free pass and things were far less exposed before that. No president has ever been so scrutinised as this one.

As for the followers, well the alternatives are hardly jumping out at us. I think a certain type of people are sick to their eyeballs of smarmy, greasy soft cock politicians who have a whole marketing machine behind them making sure they say the right thing, such as your Leo's, Trudeau's or Macron's...greasballs in a fine suit. Trump is a blurter, and people tend to forgive a blurter because at least they're being 'real'.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Just going back to the original post for a second. We're all OK with three companies having control of what we say, watch and hear? This is perfectly alright and there is no bias in their censorship policies.

If Facebook, Twitter and (is YouTube the third??) start blocking too much on their platforms, then those who are blocked/have posts deleted will move to other platforms. These companies have no control over what happens on other platforms; their control is strictly limited to what happens under their own roofs, so to speak. This is one of the reasons folk are saying Rogan is moving to Spotify, because they won't censor him. And this is why, notably, Zuckerberg is extremely resistant to the idea of turning up the deleting too much, more resistant to it than Twitter, for example, as evidenced by the respective reactions and explanations thereof to Trump's "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" post. Zuckerberg doesn't want to lose customers: that's where his allegiance lies.

As for the immigration stuff, I have extended family members who are totally swept up in the immigration scare stuff, but I eventually had to block them because at least half of what they shared, when checked, was literally "fake news", as in photos from one context being reused in a new context, etc., etc. Pressure was put on Facebook to reduce this type of BS, and in a limited capacity they tried to comply. But you're still more likely to see total fabrications about political issues than a nipple on FB, so they're absolutely not themselves the motor of some kind of "Stalinist" shut down of anti-immigrant ideology, because FB is still awash with it. If I visit the pages of people I've blocked, I'll find loads of it within seconds.

[Pedrito]

Just going back to the original post for a second. We're all OK with three companies having control of what we say, watch and hear? This is perfectly alright and there is no bias in their censorship policies.

All companies, especially those silicon valley ones have 'core values'. I know because I worked for one. It's a nice way for them to weed out non compliance and appear hip and groovy. The big rage is LGBT now, they have no problem pasting the office with rainbows, but you can be sure if shitting in the street was the new fad, they'd be all over that too.

It was talked about in the Michael Moore documentary on green energy, the facade, the signalling is all just a front for something far more important at the end of the day..the shareholder's wallet. These big multinationals have found the perfect way to deflect attention away from all the sneaky shit they get up to. Google signals every virtue out there, has this amazing, progressive veneer, and yet the sneaky cunts pay hardly any tax in any country. I would love to see them reined in if only for that alone. I'm not anti these companies, but having worked for nearly a decade in one, I've seen all the dark art image control that they are masters of. It's all about image.

[boozegeune]

OP, no of course not. I dont think I would trust any company with about anything other than serving their own financial interests. But I also think that some people scream 'free speech!' when what they mean is 'let me do hate speech!'. Yesterday after the looting comment was the first time I ever saw a Trump tweet 'censored', and that amounted to twitter saying 'this violates our policy, but it's still here for all to see because its in the public interest'. They are a private company and like it or not, they are entitled to have rules for consumers using their platform. Maybe that's something that fundamentally needs to change as the role of social media transcends private interests, but that's an argument against capitalism or the free market or something I guess.

[Pedrito]

What to take away from the 'looting' commemt is that it's still there. They're signalling out to the young and hip, their main base, while still allowing it to exist. What everyone has to remember about these companies also is that they're absolutely making shit up on the fly. They have small teams of peope working to control stuff that is being posted and if they really gave a fuck those teams would be 10 or 20 times bigger. Thing is, it's not the commenting that makes any money for them companies, it's just a means by which they sell the advertising etc.

Facebook makes no money from commemts, if they could get rid if it entirely they would. Twitter the same. They have gobshites like you and me making up rules because no rules ever existed before, because the industry never existed before. Some lad with a degree in sociology, who decided he needed a job, went working for fb, now he's the head of compliance, and he's making shit up as he goes along. I kid you not, that's how these companies work. The Joe Rogan podcast where the woman who was head of compliance is a perfect example. I worked with plenty like her in the past, no way in hell did she ever think she'd have to be broadcasting to millions to explain what her little team get up to inbetween cup cake breaks and long shits in the company jacks.

[Pedrito]

I dont think anybody was engaging in screeching hysteria on this thread tbf. But in general I get what you mean. Its baffling to me to see people hand wringing and crying for the return of Obama. I mean, yeah, the guy seemed smart but oversaw plenty of terrible shit in his time too.

As for the looting and burning, I dont know how many peaceful protests where people just end up getting maced as they sit on the ground you'd have to go through before you get frustrated enough to, god forbid, hurt a target store.

So they get maced and then rob a big flat screen for the gaff? Don't buy it, sorry.

[boozegeune]

I dont think anybody was engaging in screeching hysteria on this thread tbf. But in general I get what you mean. Its baffling to me to see people hand wringing and crying for the return of Obama. I mean, yeah, the guy seemed smart but oversaw plenty of terrible shit in his time too.

As for the looting and burning, I dont know how many peaceful protests where people just end up getting maced as they sit on the ground you'd have to go through before you get frustrated enough to, god forbid, hurt a target store.

So they get maced and then rob a big flat screen for the gaff? Don't buy it, sorry.

What would be the correct form of protest? Taking a knee? Holding up a sign that says black lives matter?

Edit: and I agree about the tech companies. Deeply cynical lot.