Being a DEI Officer must be one of the easiest, highest paying jobs in the world. Kind of like the 10+ administrative staff in every university academic department who does the job one person can do.
Ironic note that every time the country has to fight monopolies and those super powerful companies, itâs always the âanti-businessâ leftists on the side of the too big to fail corporations and it to âpro-businessâ conservatives fighting to create legislation to reign in the rich and powerful.
From John Sherman of Ohio (R) and his Sherman Act in 1890 to today where all the Dâs love consolidating power in the hands of big business like Silicon Valley.
1 Like
You really do hate twitter and the âcultureâ that supposedly surrounds it huh?
I do wonder exactly what âopinionsâ of yours youâre upset at not being able to share there honestly. Your name is also quite familiar, did you happen to be in Prosidentâs discord server?
2 Likes
Poggers Pawzer. 
I understand perfectly. Youâre bummed your examples only hurt your case. Critical mass and inertia seem not to be something you understood though.
If you had examples where this was a true competitive market, youâd have a point. Itâs not. The dominant players have been set for quite a while, and you have to go back far to find shifts. It doesnât mean itâs impossible for a dominant player to be supplanted, but in any given year, itâs an extremely unlikely event.
Downplaying the significance of Twitter is ridiculous these days. Iâve not said itâs already a public utility, Iâve said it should be incorporated into that regulatory category. Yes, that obviously means updating the law.
Of course, âpublic utilityâ doesnât have to be the label ultimately used. Itâs a framework and a guidance point. The great thing about legislating is you can create new labels to address new situations. Our laws regulating such companies are poor fits for today, designed in the 20th century (in some cases the early 20th century).
Any honest assessment recognizes that Twitter is a piece of critical infrastructure today, and the law should reflect that. Itâs the primary communication platform for most major power centers in society for instant transmission to mass audiences. A failure to recognize why thatâs critical is either a very outdated mindset or just someone wanting to downplay it because they feel threatened that its critical nature might lead to regulating its ability to censor down.
I get that you want to have an argument over what qualifies as hate speech. Itâs a pointless detour. Anyone looking at the question knows that the country divides quite a bit by region in political opinion. I didnât even say a majority of the country disagrees with San Francisco politics, I said much of the country does (which is a tame statement). No one will take a dispute of that seriously.
Yeah we do. Though I interchange describing it as âtheâ modern public square and the âprimaryâ public square. Itâs not the only one, but itâs certainly the most prominent one and plays a critical role in national political interaction. Thatâs enough to warrant statutory regulation. (If someone wants to argue that some different type of digital service is more important, they can, but regardless itâs still prominent enough to warrant regulation, and ultimately I would say thereâs a small cross-section of digital services that warrant regulation, like âsearchâ with Google).
Yes, again, we already know how those who like censorship like to defend it. The same arguments could be made against the first amendment. All it does is re-enforce that deep down, you know how critical Twitter is today. Your reaction to the idea of Twitter changing ownership is the same emotional response people would normally have to finding out that some government agency is changing hands to their political opponents.
1 Like
Havenât hid my low opinion of how Twitter is governed, and certainly have mocked it. Though any joking comment where I describe Twitter monolithically is mostly an implied reference to âtrendingâ Twitter.
Not been on such a discord server. Do you normally engage in creepy behavior like this when someone makes a strong argument you dislike?
You do realize the two parties dramatically changed in the mid 1900âs right?
You have it backwards. Currently the ones who support business regulation (big government is the term often used), are Democrats. The ones who support corporate independence are currently Republicans.
The ones mostly fighting for consumers right now are people like Katie Porter and Elizabeth Warren. You donât have to like them, but they have done a lot to hold companies accountable for predatory practices that hurt consumers. Warren especially. Even a proposed bill to stop Congress people from trading individual stocks - which they do based on inside knowledge and has benefited many despite some âdisclosureâ agreements.
You might want to look up laws passed or proposed in the last 50 years.
She was one of the driving forces behind establishing the Consumer Protection Bureau established by the Frank-Dodd Act. Those were done after the 2008 recession caused by the predatory lending crisis.
Current Repubs are the âhands off my companiesâ folks. They proudly say so as a major platform plank and state the market will regulate which businesses live or die.
That is why it is ironic when the same folks then want the Govt to regulate a company that does not let them send death threats, call people racial slurs, promote hatred against specific groups of people, etc.
4 Likes
Though I really disagree on your whole notion that a bunch of the country disagrees with what is categorized as âhate speechâ it would appear that you, yourself have a differing opinion on what âcreepy behaviorâ means. I simply searched your post history for Twitter and a couple other terms and came upon how much you thought most of the âgood CC threadsâ were made by Prosident. Combined with your dislike of âwokeâ culture and twitter it made me remember someone with a very similar name from that discord, is all.
If they did switch sides (in more than words) why do they support the same ideals?
From safe spaces being the exact same idea as segregation (only change is the color in which they say they are protecting - itâs the same theory) to many others like support for abortion even though it was designed by a woman who wanted to eliminate African Americans in the US (eugenics anyone)
What they say might be different but it is what they do. The Rockefellers of today are silicon valley and only the Rs are fighting them. The Ds are 100% behind the rich and powerful. Itâs like when the D elites look down on working class whites and call them deplorableâŚ
Gets down to company size. If the company is too big to fail and engages in anti competitive practices (say like TWITTER board tryin go poison pill Elon) itâs supported by Dem but fought by Repugs even though they do not like Elon himself.
Repugs support small and midsize business, like the mom and pop down the store. Dems seem to hate this and actively want them gone.
Biggest difference I see TODAY, is leftist are very authoritarian while the right used to be that in the 70s and 80s.
3 Likes
Meanwhile, looking at ACTUAL bills being passed in many states thatâs very relevant to the current conversation⌠I donât see Dems doing any such thing trying to restrict people like Texas, Florida, and some other âredâ states are trying to do.
Acting like Twitter is in the wrong for not wanting to deal with Elon, who censors his own employees more than twitter censors anyone.
2 Likes
Want to cite laws Repugs are passing that âlimitâ what people can do?
Many Dems donât have to, because they have the institutional power. You know, like the kind that enables the ability to be racist. Why have laws when you can force your will through your wealth, influence and power?
2 Likes
Sure, all the âpro-lifeâ bills. The âParental rightsâ bills, of course the latter is quite vague in so much of itâs wording but weâve seen them crop up in many states after being started in one. That very much limits what one can do, doesnât it? The second restricts what youâre allowed to talk about at schools and exactly what has to be told to parents as well, doesnât it? Not very free speech, that bill.
Nothing like that being passed by Dems, are there?
2 Likes
Can we just get this thread closed down?
Pretty please mods. Iâll owe you guys one.
It means it is a role people would be angry about if a white person was in it, which in itself would be racist, no?
I digress, I donât care either way. I want people doing the work that are not only worthy of it, but bring the passion to it and create something I enjoy and will give money to them if it hits all the right points.
That being said, I donât want a game or a crew that is created to just check off the boxes.
1 Like
So lets go back to the hate speech talked about above and compare.
Your pro-life = you want to kill babies. Predominantly black and brown babies. Itâs why so many PP locations are in minority communities. Why to you want to eliminate black and brown people from the US like Margret?
What sane person wants to talks to kindergartners about sexuality with the additional caveat they canât tell the child you canât tell anyone else about our conversation?
Sure mean words like what you might call hate speech is much worse than trying to exterminate black and brown people or telling adults they canât talk to extremely young children about sex while also telling them in secret and hiding it from their parents.
I think mean words while bad are tolerable. Killing people with then intent of getting rid of a race or having private sexual conversation with extremely young children to be worse.
1 Like
NM, I am dropping gout now. yeah it might be time - I did stay away for awhile but to dragged back in 
These threads have a way of doing that, lol.
Not comparing much are you? But you are quite tipping your hand.
Itâs not just Kindergarten, some of them go right up to Middle and high school for one; two itâs not just âsexualityâ but also gender identity. Not being able to even reference having someone of the same gender being your partner, spouse, etc or have a conversation as a result of a child in the classroom having two same-gender parents is what this also restricts as well as any discussion about Transgender parents, family members or about the child themselves.
You know what happens to kids when they get âoutedâ to parents and family as being ANY part of the LGBTQ+? Too often not very many good things, and if theyâre bringing it up at school and not home thereâs probably a reason.
Imagine even comparing allowing one to do with oneâs body what one likes, including discussing your life where appropriate and in a manner children can understand to the comparisons youâre trying to make. Which, is what you do isnât it?
1 Like
There are so many of your statements which deserve response, it is difficult to pick and choose what to write about.
From my perspective, after reading what you wrote, what you say only scratches the surface of issues which if not reigned in correctly could have devastating consequences.
I will start with the fact that Twitter and Facebook specifically, to include the other âFree Speechâ platforms have a enormous issue with how information is distributed throughout the network. A person can say a thing, if it is correct or not, this thing can then be said by 3 million more people. After it has made the rounds, the population who did not have to go through the vetting process to be part of the discussion which would normally have been had in the âtown squareâ are able to venerate this statement as factual information.
Over the last three years we have seen just how much this can distort the world view of subjects, looking at you Covid, when a giant amount of stupid people are given the opportunity to shape the public in their grotesque misshapen image.
Simple regulation, from what I can see, wonât prevent the damage which is bound to come. Specifically because the entity that is tasked with regulating these companies, if legislation were to be passed, are some of the most lethargic human beings on planet earth.
The rise in splitting the population in two halves correlates consistently with the rise in social media. It is true that the idea of having two parties who disagree on almost everything has been a staple of the discourse in modern political spheres. Now though, this split has become so volatile and irreconcilable, that when polled, most citizens of The United States of America think we will have a full scale war to contend with in the future.
Regulation, in my opinion, isnât going to solve the issue. These companies need to be phased out, and granted compensation for the elimination of them entirely. If the government doesnât do it, from where I stand, the people will end up doing it for them.
2 Likes
Funny I read the bill in FL (I have family there this would effect) and NONE of what you said is true. itâs pretty much K-3 ONLY. You Canât have sexual talks with little kids IN THE CLASSROOM. You canât tell them to hide any sexual conversation you DO have from their parents. THEY can hide it, but you canât tell them to.
Rather rational to me.
I didnât need to be OUTED as I wasnât LGBTQ+ - my family just thought I was. Yeah I know what happens and had the beatings. I was pulled out of class to go to a special speech class because I had a lisp. I know what itâs like to be told you gotta stay with the women because you donât belong with the men. I can still do many things most men never will do - itâs also part of why I made such a good single dad - see above.
Like stopping another life?
I have never discussed sex with a child. Ever. I barely discuss it with others. No one knows what I prefer and they have no need to, thatâs private. And I am the most open person I have ever seen. I can talk about the physical and sexual abuse I have been through (sure look at my past posting) I can talk about my own failures at work or with marriages but sex is a private thing that doesnât need to be discussed, ESPECIALLY with little children
1 Like