All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JackDaw]

To start with, I'm probably not really whatever the mainstream "US..." view on the whole thing is. Since the first thing I would do would be to essentially start completely rethinking US drug policy? I'd guess that I pretty squarely "Left.." on the whole thing.

(Obviously, there is the fact that Libertarians would likely do something similar, but I'm not sure it would be about the damage that America just being America does...)

As for "Many..."

https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/pre...l-america.html





If you have between one out of five and one out of three people saying it is the reason?

Yeah, I tend to believe it.

Another piece on the topic...

(Even points pretty clearly to who most likely is to blame for the current catastrophe...)

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ration/563744/

Thanks. Really interesting articles.

I’ll re-read and give issue more thought over next few days. But my immediate impression is that there are more differences between “immigration issues” facing USA and Europe (especially UK) than I realised…that shouldn’t really surprise me, because I know little about US politics. (In Europe large majority of migrants seeking entry outside authorised government procedures tend to be young men, for example.)

[Mister Mets]

So why does your Party continually oppose laws that require paper trails?

I'm not sure what specific legislation you're referring to. A likely reason would be opposition to other aspects of a proposed law.

[Tami]

Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law

The US state of Texas has made it illegal for social media platforms to ban users "based on their political viewpoints".

Prominent Republican politicians have accused Facebook, Twitter and others of censoring conservative views.

Former US president Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter after a group of his supporters attacked the Capitol in January.

The social networks have all denied stifling conservative views.

However, they do enforce terms of service which prohibit content such as incitement to violence and co-ordinated disinformation.

"Social media websites have become our modern-day public square," said Texas governor Greg Abbott, after signing the bill into law on Thursday.

"They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely.

"But there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas."

I doubt this will stand for very long.

[PwrdOn]

Thanks. Really interesting articles.

I’ll re-read and give issue more thought over next few days. But my immediate impression is that there are more differences between “immigration issues” facing USA and Europe (especially UK) than I realised…that shouldn’t really surprise me, because I know little about US politics. (In Europe large majority of migrants seeking entry outside authorised government procedures tend to be young men, for example.)

Why is it that young men deserve less sympathy than women and children? Most of them are there to try and find work so that they can send money home to their families, or earn enough money so that they can get married. This idea that Latin American and Middle Eastern countries are just dumping all of their unwanted dregs on the doorstep of the West is just unbelievably ignorant, Scarface was not a documentary. Why is it that when white men show up uninvited in foreign lands, they get lauded as adventurers and explorers, but when brown people are doing it, they're just a bunch of hoodlums and gangbangers who are here to rape your daughter and get fat off of welfare checks? If one day, a country like Syria or Honduras became powerful enough where they could sail battleships up to your shores and demand that, not only must their people be allowed in, but that they should receive special privileges and extraterritorial rights, would that make it better?

[Kirby101]

I'm not sure what specific legislation you're referring to. A likely reason would be opposition to other aspects of a proposed law.

I am sure you want to think that. But given their opposition to election security, mail in and paper ballots, anti-gerrymandering, I am sure you are wrong.

But you remain willfully blind to the intent behind the anti-voting laws your Party is passing across the country, no matter how many Republicans let slip out that they is to prevent Democrats form voting.

And no, I won't Google bomb with link after link, it has been done here repeatedly, you just refuse to accept what is apparent.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law



I doubt this will stand for very long.

They think people are being banned for their political views when in reality they are being banned for breaking the platform's rules. How did the republicans become so detached from reality.

[Kirby101]

They think people are being banned for their political views when in reality they are being banned for breaking the platform's rules. How did the republicans become so detached from reality.

Probably Reagan and came to full fruition with Trump.

[PwrdOn]

Conservatives actually have a point here, even if the actual ideas they are trying to broadcast are just completely wrong, it shouldn't be up to a private company to dictate what political views are and aren't acceptable in public discourse. Sure, in theory these companies can enforce whatever policy they want, and anyone who doesn't like that can go and start their own platform, but in practice these social media giants have such a dominant position in the market that their whims effectively dictate what billions of people around the world are able to see and say, and that is simply not acceptable going forward. Whatever policies they are using to deplatform right wingers WILL inevitably be used to stifle the left in due time, because at the end of the day tech CEOs invariably tend to be libertarians with a thin veneer of social progressivism, and that will be the first thing to go the minute somebody tries to meddle with their income stream.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The probably is that Republicans have too broad a view of what is political speech and what isn't.

'Homosexuals don't deserve rights' isn't a legitimate disagreement, it's just hate

[thwhtGuardian]

Conservatives actually have a point here, even if the actual ideas they are trying to broadcast are just completely wrong, it shouldn't be up to a private company to dictate what political views are and aren't acceptable in public discourse. Sure, in theory these companies can enforce whatever policy they want, and anyone who doesn't like that can go and start their own platform, but in practice these social media giants have such a dominant position in the market that their whims effectively dictate what billions of people around the world are able to see and say, and that is simply not acceptable going forward. Whatever policies they are using to deplatform right wingers WILL inevitably be used to stifle the left in due time, because at the end of the day tech CEOs invariably tend to be libertarians with a thin veneer of social progressivism, and that will be the first thing to go the minute somebody tries to meddle with their income stream.

Are tech companies really doing that though? It get's said a lot by conservatives but the examples I've always seen of what they have been banned from tend to be clear violations of terms of use like threats of violence or racism.

[Tami]

Conservatives actually have a point here, even if the actual ideas they are trying to broadcast are just completely wrong, it shouldn't be up to a private company to dictate what political views are and aren't acceptable in public discourse. Sure, in theory these companies can enforce whatever policy they want, and anyone who doesn't like that can go and start their own platform, but in practice these social media giants have such a dominant position in the market that their whims effectively dictate what billions of people around the world are able to see and say, and that is simply not acceptable going forward. Whatever policies they are using to deplatform right wingers WILL inevitably be used to stifle the left in due time, because at the end of the day tech CEOs invariably tend to be libertarians with a thin veneer of social progressivism, and that will be the first thing to go the minute somebody tries to meddle with their income stream.

None of them do, as far as I know. The only things that Social Media Companies and the like deal with is 'Dangerous Behavior'. If Nancy Pelosi was using her Twitter Account to Urge people to attack police officers, Storm the White House, or similar insanity, then her account would be shut down. If Elizabeth Warren began using her Twitter Account to encourage people not to get vaccines but to drink Bleach or Smoke Twelve Packs of Cigarettes a day to fight COVID, then her account would be shut down.

Many Republicans still have Social Media Accounts, it's about what they post, not who they are affiliated with.

This new Texas Law is, well, lame. Yet it could be misused.

[Malvolio]

They think people are being banned for their political views when in reality they are being banned for breaking the platform's rules. How did the republicans become so detached from reality.

Exactly. They're not being banned because they're conservative. They're being banned because they posted things that are in violation of the service agreement they signed onto when they first set up their accounts.

[PwrdOn]

Are tech companies really doing that though? It get's said a lot by conservatives but the examples I've always seen of what they have been banned from tend to be clear violations of terms of use like threats of violence or racism.

Just the fact that they could be banning people for political reasons is alarming enough, and it would be extremely naive to just trust big tech to do the right thing, because when have they ever? Nobody ever reads the terms of service, and companies have been known to include ridiculous clauses and interpret them however they wish, and users are none the wiser until they suddenly discover that they've fallen afoul of some obscure rule. And since most people don't really have the means to sue over something like this, this effectively means that companies can just set whatever terms they want.

Just because it's a private company doing the censorship doesn't make it any better, and in many ways it can be much worse because at least governments are supposed to be working for the good of the public, while corporations have no such pretense and will just seek to impose whatever arbitrary standards will best serve their bottom line.

[Kirby101]

So you think QANON conspiratists, Russian Trolls, Anti-Vax alarmist, anti-mask nutjobs, election fraud fanatics and any disseminator of disinformation, hatred or calls to violence should be allowed to spread whatever crap they want on any platform anywhere. With the owners of the platform having no recourse to stop it. Just call whatever garbage you spew as "political" and it stays. Interesting.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Just the fact that they could be banning people for political reasons is alarming enough, and it would be extremely naive to just trust big tech to do the right thing, because when have they ever? Nobody ever reads the terms of service, and companies have been known to include ridiculous clauses and interpret them however they wish, and users are none the wiser until they suddenly discover that they've fallen afoul of some obscure rule. And since most people don't really have the means to sue over something like this, this effectively means that companies can just set whatever terms they want.

Just because it's a private company doing the censorship doesn't make it any better, and in many ways it can be much worse because at least governments are supposed to be working for the good of the public, while corporations have no such pretense and will just seek to impose whatever arbitrary standards will best serve their bottom line.

Can you list some examples of bans that you thought were unfair?