The "Blog Burning" Has Begun In Earnest

[Darth]

We've had a few "discussions" over the years Darth.

You never give any evidence or analogous situations to illustrate your supposed points.

This is the last one. You do NOT discuss, nor offer evidence, nor pointed analogy, nor...frankly...fucking anything.

Or do you actually believe yourself so correct or so smart, all the time, that a simple incessant repeating of nothing but statements, with no evidence, ever, suffices to "prove" your position.

You're a hollow man, with an amorphous form, and no substance at all. Constant use of repetition and parroting back of another's points, without a scintilla of evidence for your own show: weakness, shallow thought if any at all, arrogance and, I will add, an attitude of a spoiled 3 year old.

Bye-bye.

Was that a response or the beginning of War and Peace?

 

[holdover]

A KKK site bans a guys because he said something that was pro black or pro Jewish. No problem . But now that KKK site forms a coalition with multiple social media sites banning any pro black or pro Jewish views effectively silencing them . That's a problem in a free society .

 

[Darth]

@prambo

... "You're a hollow man, with an amorphous form, and no substance at all."

Woven like a beautiful tapestry. You win the webby for best ad-hominen 2018!

Nah, he didn't fit in "racist", "Nazi/literally Hitler", or "bigot" as that type of response typically garners.

 

[holdover]

... "You're a hollow man, with an amorphous form, and no substance at all."

I think he saw your facebook page

 

[Darth]

A KKK site bans a guys because he said something that was pro black or pro Jewish. No problem . But now that KKK site forms a coalition with multiple social media sites banning any pro black or pro Jewish views effectively silencing them . That's a problem in a free society .

?

So one entity can run their business how they please, but a group of entities can't?



Why does the right to associate dissolve as more people join?

 

[kev74]

No , your right, wiki's can be unreliable, It was the first definition I grabbed .It shouldn't be confusing though.
Simply outlying the definitions of the discussion so everyones on the same page. Ill let you grab a definition for : Political repression,and FBI COINTELPRO and see how much difference it makes in the discussion. Your trying to defeat the argument by discrediting the source. which is futile , they are pretty well defined and documented .

Maybe you have different definitions of political repression? But when you support this you are supporting political repression by default. This is third world politics.

Are you aware that operations like this are conducted by the US intelligence agencies against foreign powers? Are you aware that people in the US government have most likely committed treason against the US? In the state dept. the DOJ FBI and CIA? Do you think its a coincidence they are going after the people exposing them? Where will people hear about the crimes of Hillary Clinton? CNN? CNN is controlled news , that's why alternate sites have been peaking . why do you think the freedom of speech was the first amendment? Because its the most important virtue of freedom.



Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, of the people; and if the cause, the interest, and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and trustees.

• John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.

• John Adams,

• 
  The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.

• 
  the press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve.

• 
  In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

Well said.

 

[holdover]

?

So one entity can run their business how they please, but a group of entities can't?



Why does the right to associate dissolve as more people join?

No of course not.

 

[holdover]

A govt can be repressive in any form : democratic, autocratic or downright dictatorship.The salient feature which defines the repressive govts is the lack of will on the part of govt to think and act for the betterment of the greater society and the country/state/kingdom as a whole - apathy.

This apathy, with time, grows into arrogance on the part of rulers, and they begin to think, the power bestowed upon them is their destiny. ( Hillary)And we know what happens when a person/persons have power without responsibility.

Repression can come in following ways:

• Deny basic rights of the people. For e.g prohibitive cost of food, living space and other necessary requirements.
• Discourage any such step which will empower the ordinary public. Discouraging people from education, free speech and unbiased media.
• Use the govt agencies such as intelligence agencies etc to terrorize people and keep them from revolting against the repression.
• Prevention of exchange of ideas among the populace, which in long term or short, can be detrimental to the authority of the ruler.
• Use economic policies to siphon off public money to govt treasury (and finally to a private account in swiss banks) with the means of heavy taxation, repressive financial policies.
• Strict control over information flow, in and out.
• Waging wars with other countries for vanity and let the public pull the burden.

 

[Darth]

?

This is about private entities not allowing stuff they don't want in their platform?

 

[Robin]

For some unknown to me reason, I like Darth, even though I have never met him, but damn Prambo, that was a thing of beauty.
Robin

 

[Curmudgeon]

Nah, he didn't fit in "racist", "Nazi/literally Hitler", or "bigot" as that type of response typically garners.

I almost rescinded. Took me a few minutes to realize "amorphous form" was either redundant or contradictory.

 

[Curmudgeon]

?

This is about private entities not allowing stuff they don't want in their platform?

I have made a point to not allow homeless San Franciscans in my home and have encouraged my neighbors to do the same. It's mostly done by algorithms so I don't have to look my bigoted self in the mirror.

 

[Curmudgeon]

No , your right, wiki's can be unreliable, It was the first definition I grabbed .It shouldn't be confusing though.
Simply outlying the definitions of the discussion so everyones on the same page. Ill let you grab a definition for : Political repression,and FBI COINTELPRO ...

Again, you're conflating private businesses with government entities.

 

[holdover]

?

This is about private entities not allowing stuff they don't want in their platform?

No this is about political repression. There is a line that was crossed.

 

[holdover]

Again, you're conflating private businesses with government entities.

No, now theres where your wrong. Its Private business with political power.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

We cannot allow corporations to repress groups of people. Its a no brainer. And its dangerous

 

[Curmudgeon]

We cannot allow corporations to repress groups of people. Its a no brainer. And its dangerous

OK. What's your plan to stop it?

ETA... your last 2 sentences I quoted are just political rhetoric; so please expand.

 

[holdover]

OK. What's your plan to stop it?

ETA... your last 2 sentences I quoted are just political rhetoric; so please expand.

No its not political rhetoric, its perspective on what's taking place. Its not a simple black and white ownership matter here. Its misplaced political power, to which the population can do little to thwart.

My plan? Yes my plan, Ive been hatching it for decades now! This just happened the other day, so my ""plan"" is pretty vague at the moment. I would hazard a guess that Some type of anti trust law forbidding corporations to act on behalf of any political entity or in coalition against any group .

But that's neither here nor there. the first thing is to foresee the dangers of such a thing, to identify a problem with it.

Can you not see the implications to the public of such a thing? Can you not see the dangers to the country this could present?

 

[holdover]

I don't know what the hell your abbreviation's are

 

[Curmudgeon]

My abbreviations? ETA = edited to add.

So tell me how specifically corporations are repressing folks? They aren't limiting their free speech, they just don't want certain speech on their platform. And maybe they are "ganging up" - I don't think so, I just think everyone is so afraid of getting sued these days. Remember, a corporation's prime objective is to make money for its shareholders. Lawsuits reduce profits.

Back on topic - let's say I go to your house and begin to shout, "kill all the San Franciscans!" Over and over. You might ask me to leave. Is that infringing on my freedom of speech? Of course not. And if you call all your neighbors and tell them what I'm doing and suggest they do the same and kick me off their front lawns you're still not repressing me.

The internet isn't free either monetarily or in the sense of freedom. It's why PornHub isnt on YouTube. They went out, started their own site and never claimed they were infringed. Then went on to make loads of cash.

 

[holdover]

You keep missing the point. Your framing your argument around personal rights of ownership, where you are generally correct. I don't disagree with you there.

 

[Curmudgeon]

OK. Sorry were talking past each other. Where do you disagree then?

 

[holdover]

Misplaced Political power ,

Exsample:

MasterCard and Visa, multi trillion dollar global corporations decide to pull accounts of certain political candidates , meaning they can no longer process donations using their cards. Maybe they did this on their own, maybe Russia or China decides they would not do business with them if they allowed a certain candidate to use their service. Well master card and visa isn't going to lose billions of dollars , So do they they do.

Now master card may still be pressured by outside elements ( or not) to apply pressure to some other forms of media.

Apply this this same thing through social media . Now again, we are not talking about one or two websites with a legitimate bitch , were talking about the top ten, in unison , influencing public knowledge and ability to silence whole groups of dissenters simultaneously across the net.

I cannot express the amount political power this group would possess, separated from government accountability.

One of the main problems within the American system right now has been corporate and foreign lobbyists allowed to operate legally in our government. As powerful as they are they are limited to mostly cash transactions.

What we are looking at here is the ability of global corporations to censor political groups through multimedia without accountability. How valuable is such a tool to political party's or foreign governments? legalized repression .

Had the American press not sold out to become an unofficial branch of the government , it could counteract such a coalition . But people have turned away from the propaganda stations and turned to the social media for more accurate information without spin. If this is information censored, the people will be blinded. Social media has front run the news by placing instant videos of events on Social media before any editing can be done by editors , this is a problem if you want to control the information disseminated to the public.

The problem is far to much political power would be placed into the hands of not accountable , non governmental entities that answer to no one.

 

[Curmudgeon]

So you're speaking hypothetically?

I get your point, I don't however advocate for more laws to address this.

In my mind the department of internet standards, or whatever, becomes this giant, inefficient drain on the taxpayers that becomes a politically motivated hit squad. Kind of like the FBI and IRS have become recently.

I believe the only solutions involve either like-minded folks getting together to set up their own platforms, or a gigantic reduction in the devisive rhetoric currently coming out of DC. I don't have hope that either will happen though. I guess that's where my "what's your plan?" is coming from.

 

[Curmudgeon]

BTW... I blame the Citizen's United decision for some of this.

 

[holdover]

So you're speaking hypothetically?

Well its actually happening now.

I get your point, I don't however advocate for more laws to address this.

I know what your saying , But something has to be done about this or this country is gone.

I believe the only solutions involve either like-minded folks getting together to set up their own platforms, or a gigantic reduction in the devisive rhetoric currently coming out of DC. I don't have hope that either will happen though. I guess that's where my "what's your plan?" is coming from.

I really don't have any plan at this point, Never even considered that this could happen. What we are looking here are the tools of tyranny. Corporations will always act on behalf of themselves . the exact opposite of what government is supposed to do. Given massive political power ,they will continue to do so , if history is guide , it will tell us this will end in disaster.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I'm afraid the country is already gone.

 

[holdover]

I think your right.

 

[Robin]

One word, Soros!
Robin

 

[holdover]

One of many

 

[prambo]

Also posted elsewhere:

'First Amendment Rights' and the Lesson of Robespierre