The Donald vs Big Tech

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I believe "cultural marxism" is about as much of a thing as Trump's "neo-fascism"; the result of certain paranoid ways of simplifying the world into over-arching entities, when really it's all a big clusterfuck of contradictions and impasses. So, there's no way I'm going to entertain getting into a discussion about the rapport between western feminism and the role of the woman in the muslim world with you or anyone else.

Dawn Patrol > every Skyforger song :p

[Caomhaoin]

I'm tempted to get into that last one, but I'm afraid somebody might post that photo.

[Ducky]

I assume "black people disproportionately hit by corona" means that the black population has less protection from it in terms of being able to duck out of their low paying jobs, the quality of their housing, the cost and quality of healthcare available to them, etc.

I'm not one bit surprised at what's happening in the US. It's a completely broken country. Modern day wage slavery is alive and well there. Can't go to work? No healthcare for you... not that if really matters because you'll never pay off that lifetime of medical debt even if you're struggling through your three minimum wage jobs. I was reading a thing about living in San Fran... If you're eating less than $80k a year you're a peasant.

Don't forget how the place doesn't have protection for workers, paid maternity leave. Typical work holidays in the US is 10 days per year.

Affordable education? That's a good joke too.

Their mental health system is broken but there's also more guns in circulation than actual people. I mean, what could go wrong there? Just gonna pop out to the shop, better not forget mg Glock incase some dude tries to rob some bread for the family and it all kicks off.

It's like the place is rigged to implode on itself, which is what is happening.

A lot of that is absolutely true. I thought myself an unshakeable righty for most of my life, but Howard Zinn has been giving me food for thought lately.

But this bullshit? Nah. There is no conceivable argument in its favour that I'd give the time of day to.

I think they should protest the outrageous killing of Floyd. The whole world saw it.

But, where are the protests for the 3,000(almost exclusively black on black) shootings in Chicago? Boycott Saudi Arabia, protest the cunts over their treatment of women instead of wearing pussy hats and screeching over a dumb comment Don made 12 years ago. Never going to happen, because it's cultural Marxism that's the goal, not addressing injustice.

How is there no argument for it? The US is imploding on itself. It's the worst case scenario for a western country. It's a literal hell for a lot of the population. What's happening right now for some people is their own tipping point and just because you aren't out protesting over stuff doesn't mean you're okay with it.

As for this narrative of Trump "saying something stupid 12 years ago"... what? He says dumb shit every 12 hours. Google "Donald Trump examples of sexism" and you'll have hours of reading from credible sources, which is a bit more than him saying something stupid 12 years ago.

[Caomhaoin]

Yeah but being sexist, I mean believing women are inferior. I'm not suggesting he's respectful towards them all the time. But if he thought women suck (as in, are inferior), why have so many in his cabinet.

I still haven't heard any valid excuse for looting shops and driving around shouting kill the white folk. A peaceful protest about Floyd? Absolutely. Not razing the gaff to the ground.

[Pedrito]

I believe "cultural marxism" is about as much of a thing as Trump's "neo-fascism"; the result of certain paranoid ways of simplifying the world into over-arching entities, when really it's all a big clusterfuck of contradictions and impasses. So, there's no way I'm going to entertain getting into a discussion about the rapport between western feminism and the role of the woman in the muslim world with you or anyone else.

Dawn Patrol > every Skyforger song :p

Overarching entities such as racist US (edit) police departments?

Rust in Peace= greatest metal album full stop

[astfgyl]

So, do any of ye think Trump was right to call these companies out, regardless of his motivation? Is the scale of their influence dangerous when they are allowed curate the user generated content to push their own agenda without having to answer for that as any other news source does?

As interesting as pages and pages of the two lads calling each other out is, the original idea behind the thread was also fairly interesting. This thread could also be seen as a microcosm of the horrors of social media, where almost everything descends into a haze of political and idealogical argument within 5 posts and neatly sidesteps the actual point of the discussion whether intentional or not.

Maybe a discussion like this is impossible to have without it becoming political?

[Eoin McLove]

That's the single most Nazi post this site has ever seen!

[astfgyl]

lol I know. I'm gone so far right I've ended up on the alt-left-centre-right-neo-fascist-socialism train

[pete]

So, do any of ye think Trump was right to call these companies out, regardless of his motivation? Is the scale of their influence dangerous when they are allowed curate the user generated content to push their own agenda without having to answer for that as any other news source does?

News sources don't have to answer for pushing an agenda though. They all have an agenda. As far as I am aware?

My understanding is that this is about if a news source posts something libel then they have to answer for it. Twitter don't as its someone else's content. You'd be mad to start a website that you would be libel for other people's content IMO.

The two come together on some news sites. The news site being responsible for the article. And then not being libel for the comments under it, but they can delete comments if they wish.

I think we need the mix of both so think he is wrong about the section 230 discussion. It would effect websites I like too much ha. But would be interested in the thoughts of people who think he is right and how the internet would look without it and say how something like twitter would look and function without it.

It all goes back to cases in the 90s against compuserve and prodigy. It's interesting reading.

[astfgyl]

So, do any of ye think Trump was right to call these companies out, regardless of his motivation? Is the scale of their influence dangerous when they are allowed curate the user generated content to push their own agenda without having to answer for that as any other news source does?

News sources don't have to answer for pushing an agenda though. They all have an agenda. As far as I am aware?

My understanding is that this is about if a news source posts something libel then they have to answer for it.

Yeah, my mistake there in the wording. I meant what you are saying.

Currently educating myself here about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as it isn't something I have actually thought too hard about before now and my initial impression is that it needs some tweaking for definite but it seems well intentioned in a lot of ways as well.

I wonder if those same companies could skirt around a potential change is U.S. regulatory laws by moving to another continent? Does this then beget the idea that what is needed in terms of dealing with these tech companies is a worldwide standard set of laws to govern them? Does that then become censorship and bring on a whole new set of problems regarding the freedom of speech? It's certainly a tightrope any way I look at it

[pete]

So, do any of ye think Trump was right to call these companies out, regardless of his motivation? Is the scale of their influence dangerous when they are allowed curate the user generated content to push their own agenda without having to answer for that as any other news source does?

News sources don't have to answer for pushing an agenda though. They all have an agenda. As far as I am aware?

My understanding is that this is about if a news source posts something libel then they have to answer for it.

Yeah, my mistake there in the wording. I meant what you are saying.

Currently educating myself here about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as it isn't something I have actually thought too hard about before now and my initial impression is that it needs some tweaking for definite but it seems well intentioned in a lot of ways as well.

I wonder if those same companies could skirt around a potential change is U.S. regulatory laws by moving to another continent? Does this then beget the idea that what is needed in terms of dealing with these tech companies is a worldwide standard set of laws to govern them? Does that then become censorship and bring on a whole new set of problems regarding the freedom of speech? It's certainly a tightrope any way I look at it

Yeah no expert on it myself was just reading about it as was in the news and that.

Yes it's definitely tricky. 

Like if we were in the US and Trump trump revokes 230, and we had our metal discussion platform, who would want to put there name to running the site Would not be worth the hassle! I'm up in court again because astfgyl on the forum I run said something libellous

The general thought is he will get know where with it and it's just a rant anyway. I think he's already moved on to what great weapons he has to protect himself in the White House, looking at his Twitter today.

[astfgyl]

Great point about the discussion platform. I'm sure Hambeast wouldn't want to be liable for the shit I say

The odd thing for me in all of this is that I use FB, Twitter, Youtube and Reddit all the time and I guess it should be down to me to self regulate as far as how much of it I choose to believe goes. I can see though that they are dangerous, dangerous weapons in the wrong hands now that they have become ubiquitous and I feel something has to give somewhere along the line. I'm also sure that somebody much more educated than me is trying to work out the solution somewhere.

[pete]

Great point about the discussion platform. I'm sure Hambeast wouldn't want to be liable for the shit I say

The odd thing for me in all of this is that I use FB, Twitter, Youtube and Reddit all the time and I guess it should be down to me to self regulate as far as how much of it I choose to believe goes. I can see though that they are dangerous, dangerous weapons in the wrong hands now that they have become ubiquitous and I feel something has to give somewhere along the line. I'm also sure that somebody much more educated than me is trying to work out the solution somewhere.

Of course like lots of things can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. But can be great too, thanks to Twitter I now know what time the bands are going onstage while sitting in the pub and can grab an extra pint, so I'm going to fight Trump on this one!!!

[astfgyl]

I'm going to quote a bit of Sepultura here:

"(Bio-)technology
Ain't what's so bad
Like all technology
It's in the wrong hands

Cut-throat corporations
Don't give a damn
When lots of people die
From what they've made"

Seeing as it's a Metal forum.

I do agree with you though Pete and I'm honestly torn about how I feel about it all. I'm leaning towards the idea that the responsibility is on the end user and why should the tech giants we are speaking of bear the responsibility for how they are utilised? But then I wonder if they were taken down would we not still be able to find out what time the headline act takes the stage by means of a myriad of smaller platforms who have the ability to tell us what we want to know without the far reaching influence of the ones we mention here? It might discourage the laziness associated with using these as our general source of information, generally speaking.

We are here discussing it for example.

[pete]

I'm going to quote a bit of Sepultura here:

"(Bio-)technology
Ain't what's so bad
Like all technology
It's in the wrong hands

Cut-throat corporations
Don't give a damn
When lots of people die
From what they've made"

Seeing as it's a Metal forum.

I do agree with you though Pete and I'm honestly torn about how I feel about it all. I'm leaning towards the idea that the responsibility is on the end user and why should the tech giants we are speaking of bear the responsibility for how they are utilised? But then I wonder if they were taken down would we not still be able to find out what time the headline act takes the stage by means of a myriad of smaller platforms who have the ability to tell us what we want to know without the far reaching influence of the ones we mention here? It might discourage the laziness associated with using these as our general source of information, generally speaking.

We are here discussing it for example.

Oh 100% we could, but I would guarantee that one of those platforms would do it really well and everyone would use that. Having a platform with everyone on it is beneficial to everyone on it and hence why everyone gets on it. IMO. Take it down and in a few months another will stand in its place. I think these things grow because people want them.

How would you even work stopping something grow, not let everyone join? why am i not allowed join?

It's strange that conservatives kind of want to "stop" Twitter, and to get the government involved which would seem at odds with their ideas on things like the free market. I find it really interesting. And with Trump especially, complaining about Twitter on Twitter. The reason it's so successful is those people at Twitter made decisions to shape it like it is. He agreed, joined, loves that he has millions of followers, it's never down, no bugs, great platform and now wants to change it as it's not how he wants it to be at the moment i.e. he wants to get reelected in November.