Hillary warns free speech on social media means "we lose control"

[rambot]

Big Business is in bed with the government ... it is the union of both of them together that is the problem. They both want to enrich one another and have control over everyone

I am almost totally on board for what you're saying here which I think is pretty rare to say so I want to acknowledge that but there are a couple of things I would say different:
1) I'd argue business is trying to CONTROL the government. IT's not interested in getting in bed with it; it is interested in dominating it. And it is interested in doing it THAT way because that way they get more MONEY (power to them is less important because the aquisition of more money just means more power by default).
2) The government already knows that it has control over us....because that is it's function. But (and this is VERY VERY important) it's also not "the government". The problem is the ELECTED OFFICIALS who vote for the laws put into place. I couldn't really care less about Jeanine Baxter in human resources at the white house. Let her do her job, I say. It is the people who control the direction of our society through the power they wield with their votes in government. THEY are the problem.

CLEARLY they are the ones becoming enriched by their own actions. So I wouldn't say it's the "government" but specifically them.

 

[eleos1954]

I am almost totally on board for what you're saying here which I think is pretty rare to say so I want to acknowledge that but there are a couple of things I would say different:
1) I'd argue business is trying to CONTROL the government. IT's not interested in getting in bed with it; it is interested in dominating it. And it is interested in doing it THAT way because that way they get more MONEY (power to them is less important because the aquisition of more money just means more power by default).
2) The government already knows that it has control over us....because that is it's function. But (and this is VERY VERY important) it's also not "the government". The problem is the ELECTED OFFICIALS who vote for the laws put into place. I couldn't really care less about Jeanine Baxter in human resources at the white house. Let her do her job, I say. It is the people who control the direction of our society through the power they wield with their votes in government. THEY are the problem.

CLEARLY they are the ones becoming enriched by their own actions. So I wouldn't say it's the "government" but specifically them.

It takes two to tango. Big business lobbies government to enact laws (most certainly in their favor) .... they work together on those matters and always will ... it's a two headed beast that controls the citizenry ... they support each other with the government giving an illusion laws and regulations will serve the public .... when in reality it serves big business and big government and the citizenry gets crumbs off the table.

They are both culpable.

 

[Valletta]

I don't have an answer but I hope we can all agree that spreading lies and hate speech is toxic to the common good.

For starters, there should be no government funding of public broadcasting, directly or indirectly.

 

[Valletta]

I am almost totally on board for what you're saying here which I think is pretty rare to say so I want to acknowledge that but there are a couple of things I would say different:
1) I'd argue business is trying to CONTROL the government. IT's not interested in getting in bed with it; it is interested in dominating it. And it is interested in doing it THAT way because that way they get more MONEY (power to them is less important because the aquisition of more money just means more power by default).
2) The government already knows that it has control over us....because that is it's function. But (and this is VERY VERY important) it's also not "the government". The problem is the ELECTED OFFICIALS who vote for the laws put into place. I couldn't really care less about Jeanine Baxter in human resources at the white house. Let her do her job, I say. It is the people who control the direction of our society through the power they wield with their votes in government. THEY are the problem.

CLEARLY they are the ones becoming enriched by their own actions. So I wouldn't say it's the "government" but specifically them.

The laws are routinely broken by executive branch agencies. Their sizes need to be reduced.

 

[rambot]

For starters, there should be no government funding of public broadcasting, directly or indirectly.

Funny. IT's been private broadcasters that are consistently being accused of being the problem.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Funny. IT's been private broadcasters that are consistently being accused of being the problem.

Fox News comes to mind immediately with settlement to prove it.

 

[Vambram]

Fox News comes to mind immediately with settlement to prove it.

IMO, generally speaking, negotiated settlements between plaintiffs and defendants in a civil lawsuit does little to actually prove guilt or innocence.

 

[rambot]

IMO, generally speaking, negotiated settlements between plaintiffs and defendants in a civil lawsuit does little to actually prove guilt or innocence.

I would disagree.

But that is said out of a fair amount of ignorance.

 

[Vambram]

I would disagree.

But that is said out of a fair amount of ignorance.

I am not speaking with ignorance. And I don't believe that you are, either. We just have different points of view.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

IMO, generally speaking, negotiated settlements between plaintiffs and defendants in a civil lawsuit does little to actually prove guilt or innocence.

$787 Million isn't usually given away for nothing.

 

[Vambram]

$787 Million isn't usually given away for nothing.

The FoxNews corporation decided that it was worth it to pay that agreed upon settlement instead of going through a long legal process with all of the accompanying negative publicity while also risking whether or not the judge and jury would rule against FoxNews. If they lose via a jury or judge's decision, FoxNews could have been ordered to pay an amount much, much higher than $787 million.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The FoxNews corporation decided that it was worth it to pay that agreed upon settlement instead of going through a long legal process with all of the accompanying negative publicity while also risking whether or not the judge and jury would rule against FoxNews. If they lose via a jury or judge's decision, FoxNews could have been ordered to pay an amount much, much higher than $787 million.

So, not for nothing.

 

[Vambram]

So, not for nothing.

It was, essentially, a business decision instead of any kind of admission to any guilt.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Do you think I have the right to express my opinions on religion fully on *this* social media site?

And yet here you are. Expressing view points and speaking within the rules of the forum.

Let’s see you join a Muslim forum and speak against their beliefs. You think you will be embraced?

Just like posting on x. You are free to express your view points and opinions within their rules.

The moment Musk stopped the left’s censorship of conservatives, he became enemy number two

 

[Hans Blaster]

For starters, there should be no government funding of public broadcasting, directly or indirectly.

Why would you prohibit my state (which you probably don't live in) from operating a public broadcasting service?

 

[RileyG]

Free speech is the right to say or write something. It is not the right to have it published. The social media companies are the ones with the free speech rights.

Yes. Does that also include conservative social media and liberal social media? Why or why not?

 

[RileyG]

Do you think I have the right to express my opinions on religion fully on *this* social media site?

This is a Christian forum. Mocking or attacking Christianity (NOT saying YOU do, but other atheists might) is not condoned because this forum is geared towards Christians and Christianity.

I would be banned from a LGBT website if I said trans women are men or marriage is between one man and one woman.

It’s a two way street.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And yet here you are. Expressing view points and speaking within the rules of the forum.

That I am. That I operate on *their rules* indicates that it is *they* who have the speech rights here, not you or I.

Let’s see you join a Muslim forum and speak against their beliefs.

What makes you think I can speak against Christian beliefs here?

You think you will be embraced?

I said *no* such thing. Not even for this site. I expected people to react to my non-religious arguments like I was some sort of "satan" worshipping pagan. It happens all the time when the topic is nowhere near religion.

Just like posting on x. You are free to express your view points and opinions within their rules.

"X" is basically a Nazi bar at this point. I would never join that site.

The moment Musk stopped the left’s censorship of conservatives, he became enemy number two

The "left" has no power to censor and Musk as been obviously vile for longer than he has owned twitter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The "left" has no power to censor and Musk as been obviously vile for longer than he has owned twitter.

You are correct. Their power was removed by Musk. Their censorship has been exposed and investigated. Even Facebook stopped capitulating to them.

 

[Valletta]

Why would you prohibit my state (which you probably don't live in) from operating a public broadcasting service?

I was thinking more federal, but as a taxpayer I am expressing my opinion that I don't want my taxpayer money spent on government propaganda. Emergency broadcast is fine. Executive branch agencies currently waste plenty of money on self-promotion and promotion of their ideas.