Does anyone believe the Republicans are doing this because they believe in trust busting and regulation, or more likely, that they don’t like the outcomes about how their political messaging is handled or received on the internet.
Note that for years progressive voices have complained about censorship in media and lack of representation but they never had the political power to investigate anything.
Moreover, after the communications act of 1996, consolidation in media allowed the likes of Fox and Clearchannel to build conservative media empires, and while progressives complained and demanded a fairness doctrine or FCC regulation to prevent too much ownership, there was no zeal by GOP to do anything about it.
This looks to me to be a pure political play to the base and IMHO it is cause for concern that an administration that frequently attacks media and calls them an enemy is constantly attacking tech companies, not for the kinds of economic arguments economists would make, but for politically vindictive reasons. It looks like using government power to advance the interests of a political party.
Basically, opposing Trump or the GOP paints a target on your back, so expect corporate interests to fall in line and suck up to avoid a shakedown.
The GOP now controls all three branches of government, a majority of state governments, despite consistently losing the popular vote. Can they really claim they’re being harmed by tech companies, because if there is some conspiracy to silence their message, somehow they’re still winning like gangbusters.
It's an expression I've heard sometimes in America. From the context in which I've seen it used, I believe it means roughly "I don't like brown/black people, but lately it has become difficult to say it out loud and I'm angry about that"
People are typically not concerned about "diversity of thought" when it comes to fiscal policy or foreign policy. They're concerned about the things that they'll get in trouble for saying. You know what that is.
US Progressives made a secular church and are tone policing everyone who steps out of the new orthodoxy. It's a very well documented issue in the states, since the Closing of the American Mind and the Diversity Myth in 80s, then Unqualified Reservations in the 2000s, then Donald Trump getting elected.
I haven’t seen any conservative raked over the coals for arguments about libertarian economics or foreig policy.
Almost invariably, they face backlash for opinions on gay marriage, trans issues, immigrants, and race or gender discrimination.
Do you think criticism of Damore would have been as fervent if he circulated a memo calling for deregulation and tax cuts?
Don’t muddle the waters by mixing up opposition to conservative economic or foreign policy with opposition to racial and gender equality and tolerance of LGBTQ.
Identity politics sets people afire far more than abstract economics for precisely the reason that it is personal and often something that’s a fact of your birth or upbringing which is not a choice.
1. homosexuals - unclear that sexual identity should trump religious identity on the grounds that people choose their religious identity. Maybe don't pick that fight?
2. trans - new social category used to add up to 51% over normal people. Undermining people trying to be good men and good women by focusing on their own genetalia/body and eliminating categories in society so that we can have a more culturally relativistic postmodern utopia that is experienced by christians as satanic since in practice its diametrically opposed to christians themselves to assert thousands of ways of knowing as more important that a prescribed way of life concerning mom and dad raising children. At best, its a distraction and it makes American style democracy even more about protecting 'victimized minorities' from 'oppressive majorities' and thereby undermining democracy itself. These bombastic social issues and papering over them with collectively reciting individual rights against a democratic way of life are the reason why liberals are seen as feckless in the face of conflict between groups that cannot be made to get along. Trans people are people. Let's leave it at that.
3. Immigrants - this is clearly mostly an economic issue, and tolerance requires borders. Replacement migration is substitute for making new americans ourselves. It would be an improvement for leftist goals if the government cared about the difficulty of having children today. An accountability system from the economy to its own people, much less a majority, is missing when we conceive of an economy that is not in service to its people.
Race or gender discrimination - equality under the law. Leftists want to elevate minorities in the form of rainbow coalition/intersectionality/coalition of the fringes. Lady justice is supposed to be blind, yet the 'liberal' media love to attack white men and sell advertising agianst it for racists. White male republicans are wrongfully discriminated against by the mainstream culture, which is not the same thing as the society. A lot of the culture just hates middle america the same as the middle east (amy chua) and this tribalism is discriminating against people in such a way as to be cross cutting effect some non-whites, some females, and some non-republicans. You can't turn on ESPN to escape from it. It's totalitarian and therefore is not respectable. Meanwhile, leftists want to be rewarded based on victim status and ensure equality of outcome (facebook pays everyone with the same title the same, and brings on women and minorities that are unqualified and including 'white people', barely literate and ask me to help them write emails in english. Ask any recruiter for them and they can confirm this for you.
Identity is the bedrock of all politics, which is obvious. Your inability to see that is only your own ethnocentrism.
Black conservatives such as Candice Owens also talk about this. Basically one side will label any idea they don't like as racist and call black conservatives white nationalists etc.. The other is saying that there should be diversity of opinions including ones that may be uncomfortable and even racist because ultimately they believe the bad ones, such as racism will get weeded out. The other issue is that the race card has become so abused in the US that it has lost meaning. When black conservatives are labelled white nationalists 1+1 is not equaling 2.
Candice Owens is a crackpot. If she's the best rhetorical card you have to play, you don't have much of an argument. She's a failed Youtuber making a second go of it as a political commenter, by way (literally) of Infowars.
There are serious black conservatives. Tim Scott, for instance. Michael Steele. Crystal Wright, maybe. Find one of them being called a "white nationalist", rather than trying to read tea leaves out of the reactions to an Internet troll.
Did you have the same concerns about Fox or Clearchannel? Have you read the messages from people who resigned from those companies? Look up Tobin Smith.
This has little to do with Google and much to do with victim carding by conservatives, as they did when the IRS looked into the disproportionate number of fraudulent non-profit shells used by the Koch’s and Mercer’s.
Conservatives are not used to losing their privilege of being a majority and don’t like being a minority voice and having to deal with the majority disagreeing.
How do you think an atheist feels in the Bible Belt, or a liberal in Alabama? Diversity of thought only seems a priority in the newfound world where conservative voices find themselves outnumbered, but I see no empathy or criticism of the monoculture you find elsewhere.
Tell me, what would happen to a liberal student attending Liberty University these days if they circulated a memo criticizing the GOP?
It's one thing to oppose Trump. It's another when you control 80-90% of search traffic and you are banning certain people (moreso on the conservative side) and are biasing search results etc..
These companies were able to grow to the size they are because of safe harbor. The idea behind safe harbor was that it was for the public good IF the platforms stayed neutral.
If you are a progressive, you can openly talk about your political views at these companies, but if you are are a Trump supporter or a conservative you have to be underground or face being purged. This company ideology has made it's way into the products that they offer with Twitter and Facebook and Google banning accounts, shadow banning results etc. based on subjective criteria. In the mobile space for example, both Google and Apple can effectively shut you down by banning you from the app stores.
The lack of trust busting finally bit the republicans in the butt which is why their acting, but fixing this is a good thing. As much as this may allow some people with ideas I find extremely repulsive to spread those ideas, the alternative is a group of people who are un-accountable to the public filtering those views in ways that are very difficult for the average person to detect. That is giving way too much power to a select group of people. As history has shown power corrupts which is why we need to the checks and balances. Before Citizens United there was another check and balance in the system because that bias would have been considered an "in kind" political donation.
From a startup perspective this is also a good thing because in certain verticals these big players have the ability to squash upstarts, buy out their staff etc..
Most of the bans instituted appear to from external pressure, not internal employees, at least going by publicly available statements of various companies involved.
In the same way that consumer boycotts against advertisers got Fox News to censor some of its pundits.
PayPal just banned Alex Jones, you think this is because the rank and file progressive employees just decided to do it, or because they received massive numbers of public complaints?
There’s a huge difference between employee political views and product algorithms, and the idea conservatives don’t seem to understand that the general public is targeting companies with pressure campaigns against their ideology in much the same way religious groups used to get TV censored for criticism of religious or some mild sexuality.
Conservatives are not unique in this. Progressive channels on YouTube have been censored because of complaints that videos of civilian deaths caused by US military or anti terrorist videos were promoting violence.
Venezuela’s state TV which was promoting propaganda got censored at one point and a lot of progressives got really mad.
If you’re preaching white supremacy wrapped in a nice dog whistle, don’t be surprised a flood of public complaints and threats of boycotts against advertisers get your content taken down.
That’s how political action always worked, it’s how a lot of civil rights movements got TV to change what images they promoted.
I find the republican stance on this a little ironic, considering the places that are the easiest to get banned from on the internet are right-wing. Just try posting that you like Hillary Clinton on the infowars or Breitbart forums.
You can make a Trump support group on Facebook just fine.
22 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 60.3 ms ] threadNote that for years progressive voices have complained about censorship in media and lack of representation but they never had the political power to investigate anything.
Moreover, after the communications act of 1996, consolidation in media allowed the likes of Fox and Clearchannel to build conservative media empires, and while progressives complained and demanded a fairness doctrine or FCC regulation to prevent too much ownership, there was no zeal by GOP to do anything about it.
This looks to me to be a pure political play to the base and IMHO it is cause for concern that an administration that frequently attacks media and calls them an enemy is constantly attacking tech companies, not for the kinds of economic arguments economists would make, but for politically vindictive reasons. It looks like using government power to advance the interests of a political party.
Basically, opposing Trump or the GOP paints a target on your back, so expect corporate interests to fall in line and suck up to avoid a shakedown.
The GOP now controls all three branches of government, a majority of state governments, despite consistently losing the popular vote. Can they really claim they’re being harmed by tech companies, because if there is some conspiracy to silence their message, somehow they’re still winning like gangbusters.
People are typically not concerned about "diversity of thought" when it comes to fiscal policy or foreign policy. They're concerned about the things that they'll get in trouble for saying. You know what that is.
Almost invariably, they face backlash for opinions on gay marriage, trans issues, immigrants, and race or gender discrimination.
Do you think criticism of Damore would have been as fervent if he circulated a memo calling for deregulation and tax cuts?
Don’t muddle the waters by mixing up opposition to conservative economic or foreign policy with opposition to racial and gender equality and tolerance of LGBTQ.
Identity politics sets people afire far more than abstract economics for precisely the reason that it is personal and often something that’s a fact of your birth or upbringing which is not a choice.
2. trans - new social category used to add up to 51% over normal people. Undermining people trying to be good men and good women by focusing on their own genetalia/body and eliminating categories in society so that we can have a more culturally relativistic postmodern utopia that is experienced by christians as satanic since in practice its diametrically opposed to christians themselves to assert thousands of ways of knowing as more important that a prescribed way of life concerning mom and dad raising children. At best, its a distraction and it makes American style democracy even more about protecting 'victimized minorities' from 'oppressive majorities' and thereby undermining democracy itself. These bombastic social issues and papering over them with collectively reciting individual rights against a democratic way of life are the reason why liberals are seen as feckless in the face of conflict between groups that cannot be made to get along. Trans people are people. Let's leave it at that.
3. Immigrants - this is clearly mostly an economic issue, and tolerance requires borders. Replacement migration is substitute for making new americans ourselves. It would be an improvement for leftist goals if the government cared about the difficulty of having children today. An accountability system from the economy to its own people, much less a majority, is missing when we conceive of an economy that is not in service to its people.
Race or gender discrimination - equality under the law. Leftists want to elevate minorities in the form of rainbow coalition/intersectionality/coalition of the fringes. Lady justice is supposed to be blind, yet the 'liberal' media love to attack white men and sell advertising agianst it for racists. White male republicans are wrongfully discriminated against by the mainstream culture, which is not the same thing as the society. A lot of the culture just hates middle america the same as the middle east (amy chua) and this tribalism is discriminating against people in such a way as to be cross cutting effect some non-whites, some females, and some non-republicans. You can't turn on ESPN to escape from it. It's totalitarian and therefore is not respectable. Meanwhile, leftists want to be rewarded based on victim status and ensure equality of outcome (facebook pays everyone with the same title the same, and brings on women and minorities that are unqualified and including 'white people', barely literate and ask me to help them write emails in english. Ask any recruiter for them and they can confirm this for you.
Identity is the bedrock of all politics, which is obvious. Your inability to see that is only your own ethnocentrism.
There are serious black conservatives. Tim Scott, for instance. Michael Steele. Crystal Wright, maybe. Find one of them being called a "white nationalist", rather than trying to read tea leaves out of the reactions to an Internet troll.
This has little to do with Google and much to do with victim carding by conservatives, as they did when the IRS looked into the disproportionate number of fraudulent non-profit shells used by the Koch’s and Mercer’s.
Conservatives are not used to losing their privilege of being a majority and don’t like being a minority voice and having to deal with the majority disagreeing.
How do you think an atheist feels in the Bible Belt, or a liberal in Alabama? Diversity of thought only seems a priority in the newfound world where conservative voices find themselves outnumbered, but I see no empathy or criticism of the monoculture you find elsewhere.
Tell me, what would happen to a liberal student attending Liberty University these days if they circulated a memo criticizing the GOP?
Personally, I'm more than happy to keep handing out rope to the bubble makers. Corp's are made of people.
These companies were able to grow to the size they are because of safe harbor. The idea behind safe harbor was that it was for the public good IF the platforms stayed neutral.
If you are a progressive, you can openly talk about your political views at these companies, but if you are are a Trump supporter or a conservative you have to be underground or face being purged. This company ideology has made it's way into the products that they offer with Twitter and Facebook and Google banning accounts, shadow banning results etc. based on subjective criteria. In the mobile space for example, both Google and Apple can effectively shut you down by banning you from the app stores.
The lack of trust busting finally bit the republicans in the butt which is why their acting, but fixing this is a good thing. As much as this may allow some people with ideas I find extremely repulsive to spread those ideas, the alternative is a group of people who are un-accountable to the public filtering those views in ways that are very difficult for the average person to detect. That is giving way too much power to a select group of people. As history has shown power corrupts which is why we need to the checks and balances. Before Citizens United there was another check and balance in the system because that bias would have been considered an "in kind" political donation.
From a startup perspective this is also a good thing because in certain verticals these big players have the ability to squash upstarts, buy out their staff etc..
In the same way that consumer boycotts against advertisers got Fox News to censor some of its pundits.
PayPal just banned Alex Jones, you think this is because the rank and file progressive employees just decided to do it, or because they received massive numbers of public complaints?
There’s a huge difference between employee political views and product algorithms, and the idea conservatives don’t seem to understand that the general public is targeting companies with pressure campaigns against their ideology in much the same way religious groups used to get TV censored for criticism of religious or some mild sexuality.
Conservatives are not unique in this. Progressive channels on YouTube have been censored because of complaints that videos of civilian deaths caused by US military or anti terrorist videos were promoting violence.
Venezuela’s state TV which was promoting propaganda got censored at one point and a lot of progressives got really mad.
If you’re preaching white supremacy wrapped in a nice dog whistle, don’t be surprised a flood of public complaints and threats of boycotts against advertisers get your content taken down.
That’s how political action always worked, it’s how a lot of civil rights movements got TV to change what images they promoted.
You can make a Trump support group on Facebook just fine.