Pages:
Author

Topic: If you don't like something the solution is more regulation (Read 1004 times)

legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
"German official invites Twitter to relocate headquarters to Europe amid Trump feud"

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/500043-german-official-invites-twitter-to-relocate-headquarters-to-europe-amid



Saw this, doesn't really do anything in the event of the US putting out anti social media regulations because they're going to be forced to follow those regulations when US customers are involved. It's just like the EU's GDPR laws and all their right to be forgotten / deleated stuff -- US companies have to abide by it too, when they're serving EU customers.

But yeah, in the event that the US tries to take the company by force or something like that they'd totally be able to flee. But that's not going to happen. All this was was Trumps rhetoric. Nothing will come of this.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
I'm getting Bernie Sanders vibes from this post, except the rant is about Twitter instead of 'the 1%'.  Weird.

So what happens when one of them just relocates to the UK or the next big social media site is based out of Canada (just examples).
Do we sanction them?  Declare them enemies of America?  Build the great MAGA fire wall so nobody in America can see it?
I agree some sort of regulations are in order.  But democracies around the world need to come together to figure out what the best solution might look like.

Perhaps it is because you don't know a good God damned thing about me in spite of your projections otherwise.

What happens is the USA still remains their primary market and they are still regulated under USA law. What happened when the EU passed regulations on them when they are still based in the US? Oh that's right they changed to fit those regulations! Great try at an argument. See you next time.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
The internet IS going to be regulated regardless if we like it or not. If the USA doesn't regulate it, the EU will, and by default that will be the precedent by which it is regulated by mere lack of action by the USA. These corporate entities are abusing protections granted to them at a time when their industry was small and weak to enable them to grow. Now they are strong and dominate the venues of modern discourse.

They should not be allowed to violate their protections as open platforms while acting as publishers. They should not be allowed to abuse their monopoly positions. They should not be allowed to dictate the directions of elections by interfering with them by picking and choosing which candidates and their supporters get to speak by enforcing the rules only for their opponents, and editorializing only their opposition. I guess to you people election meddling is fine, as long as you are doing the meddling.

I'm getting Bernie Sanders vibes from this post, except the rant is about Twitter instead of 'the 1%'.  Weird.

So what happens when one of them just relocates to the UK or the next big social media site is based out of Canada (just examples).
Do we sanction them?  Declare them enemies of America?  Build the great MAGA fire wall so nobody in America can see it?
I agree some sort of regulations are in order.  But democracies around the world need to come together to figure out what the best solution might look like.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
This topic continues to go on, and some people continue to bend over backwards to try to support more regulations and more government control on the internet. Are we sure that we want that to happen?

Unless this is some sort of regulatory stop on tracking me online -- without my explicit opt in -- like some sort of EU privacy (not sure how that works, just assuming here tbh) then I don't want it.

Government regulation and control is going to ruin the internet, do you guys want that? More government control and agencies running this isn't going to help, its going to hurt. I understand that it may bring short term help to conservatives -- but long term all it does is allow for whoever the President is at the time to run the show.

The internet IS going to be regulated regardless if we like it or not. If the USA doesn't regulate it, the EU will, and by default that will be the precedent by which it is regulated by mere lack of action by the USA. These corporate entities are abusing protections granted to them at a time when their industry was small and weak to enable them to grow. Now they are strong and dominate the venues of modern discourse.

They should not be allowed to violate their protections as open platforms while acting as publishers. They should not be allowed to abuse their monopoly positions. They should not be allowed to dictate the directions of elections by interfering with them by picking and choosing which candidates and their supporters get to speak by enforcing the rules only for their opponents, and editorializing only their opposition. I guess to you people election meddling is fine, as long as you are doing the meddling.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
This topic continues to go on, and some people continue to bend over backwards to try to support more regulations and more government control on the internet. Are we sure that we want that to happen?

Unless this is some sort of regulatory stop on tracking me online -- without my explicit opt in -- like some sort of EU privacy (not sure how that works, just assuming here tbh) then I don't want it.

Government regulation and control is going to ruin the internet, do you guys want that? More government control and agencies running this isn't going to help, its going to hurt. I understand that it may bring short term help to conservatives -- but long term all it does is allow for whoever the President is at the time to run the show.
legendary
Activity: 2828
Merit: 1515
True, but not all unpopular opinions are treated equally.  Like it or not, these social media platforms have become the place where ideas congregate, where humans virtually "assemble," both things that are protected by the first amendment.  It's painfully obvious that they shadow ban, or out-right ban proponents of conservative ideals.  On the other hand they are businesses, which are free to conduct business any way they choose.  I would never condone restrictions on free enterprise.  However, when free enterprise are extended certain protections for one reason or another, they should not be allowed to abuse those protections.  It was our government that provided them with those protections in the first place, so it's up to us to act when there is abuse.

Would you classify Twitter as a monopoly and/or a publisher? Twitter does not have to vet its content nor are they held liable for their content and I think most people agree that a private company cannot possibly be held liable for everything that its millions of users put out. This would take care of the publisher issue where they're free of liability. Twitter's competitor Facebook doesn't make Twitter a monopoly so I don't believe they're the only platform for users to congregate politically. It's certainly the most popular, but not the only one.

I am more likely to support an effort by our government to educate the public, but that begs the question of where and how?  Schools?  Colleges?  Can we really expect some of the most liberal organizations in this country to support such a conservative notion as freedom of speech?  Many of these organizations are directly responsible for political correctness, which is a form of suppression of speech.  

Colleges have a responsibility to teach its students open discourse and to engage with ideas that they disagree with. Unfortunately PC culture have turned them into extreme lefty echo chambers where you're considered racist for not going along with the norm. Stories were floating around with professors endorsing violence against conservative speakers when they would do a lecture on campuses. Then there's that time a 5'7 jew set foot on campus at UC Berkley which nearly caused people to burn the campus down:

Ben Shapiro Lecture causes 9 people to be arrested - https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-berkeley-protest-shapiro-20170914-htmlstory.html

It's been a long time since I've been in a class room but I remember taking a critical thinking class in college.  However, I don't see many implementing those skills.  The most critical thing being ignored by liberals in this particular social media battle is that the shoe could very easily be on the other foot.  Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups.  We'd have riots in the streets.

I agree for more critical thinking in colleges but it's difficult when any dissent is classified as hate speech. That's the political culture nowadays.



legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
snot-nosed narcissistic chump
[...]
troupe of snotier-nosed "Fact Checkers"
[...]
Don't answer that question with your emotions, answer with an honest thoughtful reflection of facts.

Come on Grin

Here is the most thoughtful thing I can come up: being informed, or rather having information available to them, doesn't automatically mean that the person will say smart things or behave rationally so it's pretty much a straw man in this context. By that logic no one ever should question president's words and actions, or disrespect the office of the president as you put it. I don't think that's right.

Too many people think that the President is a king. They might be shocked if they heard somebody say that this is the way they were thinking. But their actions and words show they think this.

Government isn't king. Not in the USA.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
snot-nosed narcissistic chump
[...]
troupe of snotier-nosed "Fact Checkers"
[...]
Don't answer that question with your emotions, answer with an honest thoughtful reflection of facts.

Come on Grin

Here is the most thoughtful thing I can come up: being informed, or rather having information available to them, doesn't automatically mean that the person will say smart things or behave rationally so it's pretty much a straw man in this context. By that logic no one ever should question president's words and actions, or disrespect the office of the president as you put it. I don't think that's right.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus.  In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion.  That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019.



Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government.  

Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that?
The blue bar represents revenue.
The main source of revenue for the federal government is taxes. (over 90%)
If more revenue were generated, the red bar would be smaller.

Think of it this way:

Timmy has $4,300 of expenses per month, but only earns $3,400 per month.

Each month Timmy pays his bills with a credit card, and then sends his entire pay check to the credit card company.

As a result, Timmys debt increases $900 every month.

What effect does the amount of Timmys pay check have on his debt?  

What would happen if Timmy got demoted and his monthly income dropped to $3,000?  Would he still be adding $900 a month to his debt, would he be adding more, or would he be adding less?




answer:
If Timmy's monthly income dropped by $400, then his monthly deficit would increase by $400 and his $900 monthly deficit would become a $1,300 monthly deficit.

If you notice you didn't actually address my response rather just repeated your premise. This is straying far off topic anyway.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus.  In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion.  That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019.



Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government.  

Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that?
The blue bar represents revenue.
The main source of revenue for the federal government is taxes. (over 90%)
If more revenue were generated, the red bar would be smaller.

Think of it this way:

Timmy has $4,300 of expenses per month, but only earns $3,400 per month.

Each month Timmy pays his bills with a credit card, and then sends his entire pay check to the credit card company.

As a result, Timmys debt increases $900 every month.

What effect does the amount of Timmys pay check have on his debt?  

What would happen if Timmy got demoted and his monthly income dropped to $3,000?  Would he still be adding $900 a month to his debt, would he be adding more, or would he be adding less?




answer:
If Timmy's monthly income dropped by $400, then his monthly deficit would increase by $400 and his $900 monthly deficit would become a $1,300 monthly deficit.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that? Less than 10% of the total? What percentage of the whole is that? A very tiny fraction. Like I said, spending is more of an issue.

Given that they've done fuck all to address the spending part (e.g. still shoveling trillions into Pentagon despite claiming to be ending wars) and the only significant action affecting the debt was the tax cut, which grows the debt - it still looks that conservatives don't care about the debt anymore.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus.  In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion.  That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019.



Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government.  

2020 will be a lot worse.  In April 2020 alone, the federal government had a ~$780 billion deficit.


~

That's 43 media links in 10 minutes.

You gotta stop falling for click bait headlines.

Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that? Less than 10% of the total? What percentage of the whole is that? A very tiny fraction. Like I said, spending is more of an issue.

Everything you don't like or agree with is "cickbait" or from a "conspiracy site". You should see if Twatter is hiring, then you could be one of their "fact checkers" and be the arbiter of what is true or not. You seem to take to it naturally.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus.  In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion.  That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019.



Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government.  

2020 will be a lot worse.  In April 2020 alone, the federal government had a ~$780 billion deficit.


~

That's 43 media links in 10 minutes.

You gotta stop falling for click bait headlines.

copper member
Activity: 2338
Merit: 4543
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations.  True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing.  Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.

That's one small part of it. I'm not necessarily opposed to tracking complaints but people can already file complaints with the FCC, and the FTC, etc. To ask the FTC to give him a report he doesn't need an EO.

However he's also directly asking to come up with regulations:

Quote
within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify [some section 230 stuff]

As well as telling state Attorneys General (which he has zero jurisdiction over) to do something, and asking for federal legislation, etc. Just a bizarre wish list.

When that section was written the big social media platform was My Space, and it mostly occupied by tweens and teens.  A lot has changed since then, and the applicable rules and regulations should be assessed far more frequently, in my opinion.  The internet is a dynamic entity, and deserves dynamic responses when large corporations start abusing protections that were applied to a fledgling industry.


Do you really have such little faith in the system?  POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.  

Then... why?

I mean one of the right-wing complaints I'm hearing against Twitter is that they're putting their thumb on the scales ahead of the election. Trump is throwing a bag of cement on the scales, given that he's a candidate and is trying to create a more favorable media landscape for himself (or an illusion thereof) with an ill-conceived EO.

The "why" is simple; to prevent abuse.  The "how" is the more difficult question to answer, and I hope that accumulating more data will make answers easier to come by.

Furthermore; it's not only the president that's being abused by some snot-nosed narcissistic chump who thinks he's more informed than the POTUS, it's half of the American people (assuming 50/50 distribution of conservatives and liberals.)  I mean, really people!  I know you don't like Trump, but look at from the perspective of the disrespect being shown to the office of the Presidency.  Do you really think Jack Dorsey and his troupe of snotier-nosed "Fact Checkers" are more informed that our President?  Don't answer that question with your emotions, answer with an honest thoughtful reflection of facts.

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
legendary
Activity: 3388
Merit: 3514
born once atheist
...  Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups.  We'd have riots in the streets.  

.....

Not sure about rioting in streets (actually, that's already happening, but I digress) but if Jack Dorsey was and doing those things you mention, our dear impotus would definitely not be trying to censure the twitter platform...
more likely he'd be be kissing his (Jack Dorsey's) feet.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
eliminating federal debt

That's probably not the case anymore. I don't recall any significant conservative backlash against the tax cut a couple of years ago that is ballooning the deficit.

The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations.  True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing.  Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.

That's one small part of it. I'm not necessarily opposed to tracking complaints but people can already file complaints with the FCC, and the FTC, etc. To ask the FTC to give him a report he doesn't need an EO.

However he's also directly asking to come up with regulations:

Do you really have such little faith in the system?  POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.  

Then... why?

I mean one of the right-wing complaints I'm hearing against Twitter is that they're putting their thumb on the scales ahead of the election. Trump is throwing a bag of cement on the scales, given that he's a candidate and is trying to create a more favorable media landscape for himself (or an illusion thereof) with an ill-conceived EO.

Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt. If you think taxes are what fuels spending you have a childlike understanding of economics. Letting people keep more of their money is not the same thing. If you are going to make an argument, at least make a valid one like his spending is excessive.

Attorney Generals are under the rule of The Department of Justice which is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government, making them EXPLICITLY within the president's jurisdiction regardless of it being a state office. Furthermore he is not crafting a new law, but asking for revision of enforcement of an existing law, which is exactly the authority the executive branch has.

legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation...

Do you really have such little faith in the system?  POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.  
I still have faith.  Just not as much as I used to.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
eliminating federal debt

That's probably not the case anymore. I don't recall any significant conservative backlash against the tax cut a couple of years ago that is ballooning the deficit.

The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations.  True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing.  Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.

That's one small part of it. I'm not necessarily opposed to tracking complaints but people can already file complaints with the FCC, and the FTC, etc. To ask the FTC to give him a report he doesn't need an EO.

However he's also directly asking to come up with regulations:

Do you really have such little faith in the system?  POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.  

Then... why?

I mean one of the right-wing complaints I'm hearing against Twitter is that they're putting their thumb on the scales ahead of the election. Trump is throwing a bag of cement on the scales, given that he's a candidate and is trying to create a more favorable media landscape for himself (or an illusion thereof) with an ill-conceived EO.
Pages:
Jump to: