When our country was founded, with a FAR smaller population, there were thousands of independent newspapers across the country that represented media - it was much, much more democratic. The founding fathers would have been greatly opposed, I think, to the modern situation. We used to have laws requiring diversity of ownership; as their power grew, they got the laws repealed.We shouldn't have corporations as powerful as twitter or people powerful enough to unilaterally control them.
Excused, since you're right.Excuse the simplicity> Looks and feels like the damn sharks not only purchased new teeth, they got them sharpened. All the better to eat the poor fish.
We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.
Right wingers have been arguing against Twitter doing what it pleases for literally years now.ROFL
Dems had no issues with Twitter when it leaned democrat and was censoring mainly right wingers. The said oh its a private company. Now that a suspected right winger wants to buy it, there's a big fuss and it's a "media company" that can not do as it pleases.
The first part I highlighted is utter bullshit. It is so divorced from reality, I am dumbfounded that anyone could think this is true.So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.
Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.
It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.
Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.
Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.
But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.
The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.
We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.
We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.
oh NOW you want to stop twitter from being whatever the possible new owner thinks it should be... whoops.So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.
Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.
It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.
Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.
Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.
But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.
The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.
We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.
We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.
Ok. I read your entire op. Have you ever heard of a VPN? There will never be a time from this point forward, where you can ban communications from anyone.So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.
Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.
It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.
Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.
Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.
But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.
The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.
We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.
We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.
I think conservatives have wildly misunderstood the liberal position on media conglomerates. They just see "twitter bad" and "liberals bad" therefore "liberals love twitter."oh NOW you want to stop twitter from being whatever the possible new owner thinks it should be... whoops.
When our country was founded, with a FAR smaller population, there were thousands of independent newspapers across the country that represented media - it was much, much more democratic. The founding fathers would have been greatly opposed, I think, to the modern situation. We used to have laws requiring diversity of ownership; as their power grew, they got the laws repealed.
Alright. So I read this one, too. Here's the deal. Back in the 60's and 70's journalists/reporters were working class people. They worked their asses off, like Woodward and Bernstein.When our country was founded, with a FAR smaller population, there were thousands of independent newspapers across the country that represented media - it was much, much more democratic. The founding fathers would have been greatly opposed, I think, to the modern situation. We used to have laws requiring diversity of ownership; as their power grew, they got the laws repealed.
when I am told by a liberal rubbing my nose in it that capitalism states that I should be fine with them banning opinions they do not agree with because its their right to do so, what else am I to think?I think conservatives have wildly misunderstood the liberal position on media conglomerates. They just see "twitter bad" and "liberals bad" therefore "liberals love twitter."
Right wingers have been arguing against Twitter doing what it pleases for literally years now.
I think maybe you are upset that you are likely older than Biden, and Biden is more accomplished, and more educated and intellectually proficient than you are.Censorship of Trump, but not crazy Iranian terrorists? Suppression of facts in support of getting a senile old place holder into the WH?
No, the current Twitter management are lying propagandists.
Free speech is important. Without it, we get morons like Joe and Kammy.
Oh really?We shouldn't have corporations as powerful as twitter or people powerful enough to unilaterally control them.
First off, this is spin. It's not "banning opinions they do not agree with." People aren't banned from Twitter for being conservative. They're banned for spreading specific, dangerous misinformation.when I am told by a liberal rubbing my nose in it that capitalism states that I should be fine with them banning opinions they do not agree with because its their right to do so, what else am I to think?
And how strict do you want this anti-moderation law to be? Should DP be allowed to ban someone who spams porn here? Just posts racial slurs over and over?I am for open communications platforms not being able to do that lawfully. as a backup solution, i will back Musk's idea.
Who is you? I'm literally a socialist. Pretty sure us socialists have be screaming about doing a little bit more than just busting up monopolies.Oh really?
Then maybe you all should have been screaming about monopoly busting instead of cheering for people that got banned?
You all is the derivative of all of you.Who is you? I'm literally a socialist. Pretty sure us socialists have be screaming about doing a little bit more than just busting up monopolies.
I think maybe you are upset that you are likely older than Biden, and Biden is more accomplished, and more educated and intellectually proficient than you are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?