Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Harris will be President towards the end of Biden's term. He will retire for health reasons. The guy can barely climb a flight of stairs or speak a sentence where he doesn't forget what he was saying by the time he get to the end of it.

[Hannibal]

Serious question Hanni. If Trump had won and BLM had stormed the Capitol on January 6th, would the GOP have voted against a bipartisan commission to investigate? That speaks volumes to their hypocracy and unfortunately their dedication to cult over country. The Dems spinelessly caved in on every demand McCarthy made and he and Moscow Mitch still won't take yes for an answer. Al-Qaeda would have voted against the 9/11 Commission to hide the truth and protect the guilty. Today's GOP has the same moral and ethical equivalency.

A bipartisan commission to investigate BLM riots? Sure, no objections. It's completely irrelevant to the attack on American democracy of January 6th. But have at it if you feel its that important.

If BLM had stormed the capital it would be a pile of cinders and dead bodies, and there would be a bipartisan commission blaming the racism of white people for it. If an unarmed black protestor were shot climbing through a window, I guarantee you the man who shot her would not still be anonymous. Point being, these bullshit show trials are a tool of the Left.

How does either side manage their extremes? I don't know. The Right does not have an extreme forming mobs that torch car dealerships, burn down Wendys, occupy police stations, occupy court houses, smash and loot Target, throw Molotovs at cops, form "autonomous zones" in the middle of major cities, and pull random innocent motorists from their cars and beat the shit out of them. If we ever reach the point where the extreme right truly responds in kind to the extreme left, we can ponder this question seriously.

[Da Geezer]

(1) Geezer- You say that I should imagine if a bridge wouldn't let me cross if I had a Trump bumper and that's "actually" what's going on with YouTube, Facebook, etc. That's completely ridiculous. There is tons of pro-Trump content available for you to watch on either platform. Have certain deadbeat Alt Right "celebrities" gotten tossed? Yes, they sure have, and there are rules violations YouTube can point to for every one of them, from having bots inflate their view numbers (meaning more $$$ money they didn't actually earn) to directing abuse towards fellow users. Section 230 also does not preclude platforms from moderating content.

(2) Why would Parler sue YouTube? Yeah, the Apple Store could be determined to an unfair restraint on trade. A post I made just a short while involved the Democrats passing an outline for Apple, Google, and others to be broken up. Every Republican voted against it. I'm far more interested in breaking these companies up because of their actual monopoly power and not the whiney bitchfest of "my favorite Alt Right celeb, who owns the libs so good, had to move back in with his mom after he couldn't monetize angry rants on YouTube anymore".

1. Could you name me a reason that the NY Post article examining Hunter Biden's sale of influence around the world should be banned simultaneously by all on-line purveyors? Why ban an actual "partner" from testifying that Joe was at the table discussing this graft? And it is not a particularly good argument to say " That's completely ridiculous". The bridge analogy is on-point. You are saying that the bridge owner is letting lots of cars with Trump stickers cross the bridge. Then the one car with a Trump sticker carrying someone that the political powers-that-be in Detroit don't want in Detroit is stopped. This particular car is provably stopped because the bridge owner needs to be in the good graces of the Detroit pols. That is the point. Banning the President of the US from a social media platform is a different thing than banning an alt-right kook.

And Section 230 might allow moderating content, but the legislative history of the act shows that the 230 exemption from suit was BECAUSE the social media platforms were afraid that their open forums might contain false and defamatory content for which they might be held responsible. This was based on their assurances that they were going to be a free market of ideas, open to all. With the extensive and totally woke moderating that is now taking place, these platforms have become a publisher of opinion. Look how they have rigorously banned any dissenting opinion to the government position on covid. If they are a publisher of opinion, then they should be treated the same as any publisher in terms of false or defamatory statements. Any other treatment is a subsidy.

2. Parler would sue the social media companies because Parler paid to cross the bridge, accepting all the conditions of that contract. They were stopped because they were setting up an open alternative social media site that would compete with the Prog-controlled social media sites. All the Prog-sites acted AT THE SAME TIME. This is critical to the anti-trust claim that Parler has made, and it shows the power of the monopoly. This is illegal in the US. A competitor of the bridge company was trying to get to Detroit in order to build another bridge to compete with the original bridge.

You say "A post I made just a short while involved the Democrats passing an outline for Apple, Google, and others to be broken up. Every Republican voted against it." I missed that post. Could you please re-post it? Where was it passed? What was the vote? Seems like it might have been on the news. What is real is that the Dems have not and will not pass any law that affects their largest donor - the social media companies (donation in-kind). To believe otherwise is nieve.

You and I agree that these monopolies should be broken up. Competitors, like Parler, should be allowed to compete. The "open market of ideas" worked well for Twitter, and it probably would work for Parler. You can bluster about the alt-right all you want, but the actual on-the-ground chance of negatively affecting these huge donors is near zero.

[Hannibal]

Yes, they sure have, and there are rules violations YouTube can point to for every one of them

This is completely false. Steven Crowder, Vincent James (red Elephants), Red Ice TV, Alex Jones, and Stefan Molyneaux are but a few examples of the many youtubers who were kicked off without violating the TOS -- at least not in a way that exceeds or even meets what Liberals are allowed to do on that platform with zero consequences.

Alex Jones peddles conspiracy theories and frequently clings to false narratives. In that respect, he's no worse than MSNBC or The Young Turks. Or CNN, for that matter.

[iam416]

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is only accepting one-on-one interviews with "black and brown" journalists. No white journalists need apply. Her justification for unilaterally excluding reporters from covering her based exclusivey on skin color is, of course, "diversity and inclusion."

I wonder if Ms. Lightfoot is one of them "extremists" or just your garden variety D. Actually, I don't wonder that at all.

[Hannibal]

This video showing how voting machines are hackable and insecure (made in the wake of the 2000 and 2004 elections to prove that George W. was elected by a secret voting machine rigging conspiracy) is still on youtube. With no content warning telling me that elections in the US are perfectly secure. In the wake of the 2016 election, this documentary was referenced here and there as an explanation for how Russian hackers gave Donald Trump the election.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...tant-heres-why

Stein herself has claimed the machines are easily hacked, and has already contested that absentee ballots may be part of the problem because of their significant rise in this election. And there have been several examples of how a balloting machine might be hacked. There has even been a popular HBO documentary, titled “Hacking Democracy,” which has detailed the problems surrounding using e-voting machines.

Unlike Nick Fuentes and other Republican enemies of the state, the producers of this documentary weren't banned from using the banking system, banned from all social media, and put on the no-fly list.

[Da Geezer]

It's like they've sent her off to some "future candidate incubator".

Like Hillary

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent- Hannibal talking about YouTube got me thinking about this... if YouTube didn't remove videos, didn't de-platform people, but said the only way we'll allow you to make ad revenue is to comply with our terms of service, which may be "woke" in nature, and we won't promote or highlight your videos unless you're in the program. Would that be a freedom of speech issue or not?

[Ghengis Jon]

If BLM had stormed the capital it would be a pile of cinders and dead bodies, and there would be a bipartisan commission blaming the racism of white people for it. If an unarmed black protestor were shot climbing through a window, I guarantee you the man who shot her would not still be anonymous. Point being, these bullshit show trials are a tool of the Left.

How does either side manage their extremes? I don't know. The Right does not have an extreme forming mobs that torch car dealerships, burn down Wendys, occupy police stations, occupy court houses, smash and loot Target, throw Molotovs at cops, form "autonomous zones" in the middle of major cities, and pull random innocent motorists from their cars and beat the shit out of them. If we ever reach the point where the extreme right truly responds in kind to the extreme left, we can ponder this question seriously.

My question was serious, not looking for hyperbole about cinders and dead bodies. Do you think the GOP would vote against a bipartisan commission had BLM stormed the Capitol in the wake of a Trump victory? If so, you think they would have used the same reasoning as given the other day?

Your memory seems to be extraordianarily selective. How were the 33 show trials/investigations in 2 1/2 years into Bengazi a tool of the left?

We're discussing the Capitol riot, not BLM so try to stay on point. Distraction and deflection, the right's standard response when faced truth, does not serve you here. But let me indulge. IMO, assaulting the Capitol with the intent of preventing a Constitutionally specified duty, clamouring for the murder of the Vice President (gallows already built and on display), and attempting to overthrow the results of a free and fair election is FAR FAR worse than burning Portland or Minneapolis. Not even close. More importantly, they have nothing to do with each other and are separate conversations, regardless what extremists with an agenda say.

[iam416]

Strangelove:

Your question, of course, assumes YT is a freedom of speech issue to begin with (and it isn't under existing First Amendment doctrine). So, to think about the question replace YT with the State of Ohio. The State of Ohio cannot stop people from speaking in public fora based on viewpoint. However, can the State of Ohio promote or pay or otherwise provide benefits to speakers? Put another way, if, e.g, Ohio State pays a speaker to come to speak on the topic of CRT, are they obligated to pay someone else to provide a counterpoint? No. Are the obligated to allow protestors on public grounds outside the event? Yes, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

So, based on that dime store bit of reasoning, I think that YT, assuming they are a "state actor", could not block access to their platform based on a viewpoint, but could still "promote" speakers as they see fit.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Strangelove:

Your question, of course, assumes YT is a freedom of speech issue to begin with (and it isn't under existing First Amendment doctrine). So, to think about the question replace YT with the State of Ohio. The State of Ohio cannot stop people from speaking in public fora based on viewpoint. However, can the State of Ohio promote or pay or otherwise provide benefits to speakers? Put another way, if, e.g, Ohio State pays a speaker to come to speak on the topic of CRT, are they obligated to pay someone else to provide a counterpoint? No. Are the obligated to allow protestors on public grounds outside the event? Yes, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

So, based on that dime store bit of reasoning, I think that YT, assuming they are a "state actor", could not block access to their platform based on a viewpoint, but could still "promote" speakers as they see fit.

Thanks. Yeah for the question I was accepting that YouTube was a monopoly or "state actor".

[Hannibal]

The 1st Amendment argument WRT youtube is admittedly shaky. I think that the argument that they have taken it upon themselves to act a a publisher and therefore should no longer benefit from Section 230 protection is a stronger argument, as is the argument that they have arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced their terms of service. If the terms of service are binding for the content creators, then they should also be binding for youtube. There is also an argument that they should be regulated because all monopolies that perform a critical service are regulated, and it is in the public interest to stop youtube from doing certain things.

[Hannibal]

My question was serious, not looking for hyperbole about cinders and dead bodies. Do you think the GOP would vote against a bipartisan commission had BLM stormed the Capitol in the wake of a Trump victory? If so, you think they would have used the same reasoning as given the other day?.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there wouldn't be a vote to be had, because there would be no presumption of guilt on the part of BLM, and the Republicans would not push for this commission.

[lineygoblue]

Yeah. I'm no fan of her policies. But, whatever. The Ds are going to nominate someone in 2024 that is of a like mind. I'm more personally turned off by how bad she is at politics and how she seemingly fails up. I mean, she was fucking awful in the D Primary. AWFUL. And she's not much better now -- I mean, she's generally not asked to talk, so that makes it better.

But she's very good at the schoolgirl giggle thing. That might be enough to get her the D nomination this time around.

She's an excellent giggler.

[Hannibal]

Kamala Harris doesn't strike me as being particularly intelligent or competent. Or charismatic. But she has a wicked suit of diversity armor that will make her a tough foe in any election.