CDZ An idea regarding the American media

[ClaireH]

You may be right but it seems like splitting hairs to me. I think the point I'm trying to make is that they should be able to conduct their business however they want, including refusing or at least minimizing their service to others.

Cake baker can say he's not going to make his fancy cakes for gay customers. Facebook can say they're not going to give the same privileges to certain users. It's up to them as far as I am concerned.

Not really... Because you can't refuse service based on race or sexuality as I understand it. I don't see that as splitting hairs. Businesses CAN'T conduct themselves however they want. There are rights guaranteed to every citizen. Everybody, including businesses, have to respect those rights.

Personally, I wish conservatives would just create their own social media platform and go to that. They bitch and moan about how mean Facebook and Twitter are. Then they boycott them. Then they come back to them and bitch and moan some more. Just go do your own thing and run it however the hell you want. If they want to remove all liberals or anyone who doesn't worship Trump, fine. Go for it and have fun.

I do not believe it's morally or legally correct to allow a business to refuse service based on things that have nothing to do with said service.

Unless of course you are a publisher... I do not believe any newspaper should be required to print whatever story I send them. Publishers can be sued for slander or a number of other things.

Platforms can't... Their service is only the venue in which communication takes place. They cannot be sued. Only the people who post/interact on it. Platforms are the cake.

The hair I would split is this: If a baker has a cake behind the counter and a gay couple cones in and asks to buy it, then the shop owner should not refuse in accordance with equal access laws. If the same couple comes in and wants the baker to create a cake, the baker should be able to refuse, ESPECIALLY if creating it wold force them to endorse something that goes against their conscience.

I see it is keeping personal rights a priority over business rights. When corporations have more rights than the populace (think controlling message by use of unfair business practices) things go south quickly. As has been stated, Twitter and Facebook are both monopolies because they are acting like monopolies, particularly with their estimated 90% customer base of digital information, the fact they are a means to an end with being a platform not producer of information, and their more recent political biased actions that made it more obvious to more people. Yes, they need a competitor that supports lawful, free speech. Maybe Elon Musk or similarly weighted financial character might consider such an endeavor. He definitely isn’t a fan of Zuckerberg lol

 

[XponentialChaos]

there are other donut shops for the cops to go to

But there are no other comparable FaceBoook or Twitter

Go to Parler or Myspace. Might be cheaper knock-offs but you have other options.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

 

[Mac-7]

Go to Parler or Myspace.

Who? What?

when TR broke up Standard Oil it only controlled 85% of the market

 

[Mac-7]

Go to Parler or Myspace.

Who? What?

when TR broke up Standard Oil it only controlled 85% of the market

 

[rowdyronabilene]

The American dream is liberty. Unfortunately, we have to live together in some form or other. To get along in the long run, we each have to give up some of our own liberty to respect the liberty of others. As more people become considered, the need for regulation becomes greater. Call them commissions, councils, assemblies, governments, associations, memberships, etc.; they are all essentially the same - methods to regulate a population of people who ultimately would prefer to have no rules at all. As some invest more in those regulatory groups than others, and as some are more aggressive at securing their liberties than others, every regulatory group will evolve from the original purpose to seeking self-preservation and the power to thrive, just like the individuals that comprise the group. Life is naturally competitive, we each must earn our own survival. We as humans make great use of our intellect to survive, pitting our intellects against other intellects, thus the media - some of our knowledge sources - will be used according to those producing and consuming. Be skeptical of everything.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Go to Parler or Myspace.

Who? What?

when TR broke up Standard Oil it only controlled 85% of the market

The point is that you do have other options. You may not like those options, but that’s your problem. They’re there.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

And if you still don’t like that option either, then you can just continue to use the big-name brand and continue bitching and moaning that they don’t change their policies to suit your desires. Which is all you’re doing right now.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Go to Parler or Myspace.

Who? What?

when TR broke up Standard Oil it only controlled 85% of the market

The point is that you do have other options. You may not like those options, but that’s your problem. They’re there.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

And if you still don’t like that option either, then you can just continue to use the big-name brand and continue bitching and moaning that they don’t change their policies to suit your desires. Which is all you’re doing right now.

Authoritarians who misuse their power in order to silence others are not doing so because they are liberal.

They are doing so because they aren't.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Go to Parler or Myspace.

Who? What?

when TR broke up Standard Oil it only controlled 85% of the market

The point is that you do have other options. You may not like those options, but that’s your problem. They’re there.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

And if you still don’t like that option either, then you can just continue to use the big-name brand and continue bitching and moaning that they don’t change their policies to suit your desires. Which is all you’re doing right now.

Aurhoritarians who misuse their power in order to silence others are not doing so because they are liberal.

They are doing so because they aren't.

If you don’t like their business, then go somewhere else.

 

[task0778]

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

What you're talking about here is somebody regulating speech. I can see this quickly going downhill really fast when the powers that be enforce their idea of journalistic integrity and accuracy, to the detriment of whoever doesn't agree with them. NO - the right to disagree ought to be zealously guarded, even now we're seeing people losing jobs, safety, and security when they voice a dissenting opinion. We should NOT have anybody with any authority to discipline or in any way interfere with another person's right to speak his/her piece. Subject to SCOTUS rulings on the current limitations we already have.

To me, it's a matter of choice. MY choice, I can read, watch, or listen to anybody I want to, and by the same token NOT read, watch, or listen to someone else. Be it a person, network, publication, website, TV/radio station, whatever, it's my call and I don't want or need anyone else telling me who lacks integrity or accuracy. I think that road leads to the mind control of a totalitarian state.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Go to Parler or Myspace.

Who? What?

when TR broke up Standard Oil it only controlled 85% of the market

The point is that you do have other options. You may not like those options, but that’s your problem. They’re there.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

And if you still don’t like that option either, then you can just continue to use the big-name brand and continue bitching and moaning that they don’t change their policies to suit your desires. Which is all you’re doing right now.

Aurhoritarians who misuse their power in order to silence others are not doing so because they are liberal.

They are doing so because they aren't.

If you don’t like their business, then go somewhere else.

You don't even know the meaning of the word "liberal" , do you?

 

[Mac1958]

The American dream is liberty. Unfortunately, we have to live together in some form or other. To get along in the long run, we each have to give up some of our own liberty to respect the liberty of others. As more people become considered, the need for regulation becomes greater. Call them commissions, councils, assemblies, governments, associations, memberships, etc.; they are all essentially the same - methods to regulate a population of people who ultimately would prefer to have no rules at all. As some invest more in those regulatory groups than others, and as some are more aggressive at securing their liberties than others, every regulatory group will evolve from the original purpose to seeking self-preservation and the power to thrive, just like the individuals that comprise the group. Life is naturally competitive, we each must earn our own survival. We as humans make great use of our intellect to survive, pitting our intellects against other intellects, thus the media - some of our knowledge sources - will be used according to those producing and consuming. Be skeptical of everything.

I have no problem with the point of view of those who are wary of the idea I tossed out in the OP. This is certainly a "slippery slope" situation, in which it's reasonable to wonder how far the controls would/could go.

As I've mentioned, I would absolutely not want the government involved in something like this. Partisan politics tends to poison that which it touches. And I can see the concerns of even a self-regulatory body, although I can say that I have no problems with FINRA in my industry.

The problem here is journalistic standards, which have now fallen so far that they really no longer exist. This drop has been a primary factor in the split in reality that we're seeing in our politics, and I look at it as a serious threat to this country.

If I thought we had the capacity to raise and maintain journalistic standards on our own, I wouldn't go NEAR an idea like this. But we clearly lack that capacity at this point, and I don't know how else we get from here to there.

 

[Mac1958]

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

What you're talking about here is somebody regulating speech. I can see this quickly going downhill really fast when the powers that be enforce their idea of journalistic integrity and accuracy, to the detriment of whoever doesn't agree with them. NO - the right to disagree ought to be zealously guarded, even now we're seeing people losing jobs, safety, and security when they voice a dissenting opinion. We should NOT have anybody with any authority to discipline or in any way interfere with another person's right to speak his/her piece. Subject to SCOTUS rulings on the current limitations we already have.

To me, it's a matter of choice. MY choice, I can read, watch, or listen to anybody I want to, and by the same token NOT read, watch, or listen to someone else. Be it a person, network, publication, website, TV/radio station, whatever, it's my call and I don't want or need anyone else telling me who lacks integrity or accuracy. I think that road leads to the mind control of a totalitarian state.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about finding a way to increase journalistic standards, and I can't think of another way to do it. See my post, two down from yours, the one before this.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

What you're talking about here is somebody regulating speech. I can see this quickly going downhill really fast when the powers that be enforce their idea of journalistic integrity and accuracy, to the detriment of whoever doesn't agree with them. NO - the right to disagree ought to be zealously guarded, even now we're seeing people losing jobs, safety, and security when they voice a dissenting opinion. We should NOT have anybody with any authority to discipline or in any way interfere with another person's right to speak his/her piece. Subject to SCOTUS rulings on the current limitations we already have.

To me, it's a matter of choice. MY choice, I can read, watch, or listen to anybody I want to, and by the same token NOT read, watch, or listen to someone else. Be it a person, network, publication, website, TV/radio station, whatever, it's my call and I don't want or need anyone else telling me who lacks integrity or accuracy. I think that road leads to the mind control of a totalitarian state.

A totalitarian state is what he is after.

I am amazed at the number of ultra- conformist leftists who argue against what is actually a liberal principle, all the while claiming they are liberal.


It almost seems like a Catch 22 these days, but with the Stalinist leftists so hell bent on destroying every last vestige of western liberalism, it is now up to conservatives to actually conserve it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You don't even know the meaning of the word "liberal" , do you?

I’m not interested in getting into a nitpicking discussion of semantics that has very little to do with the main argument in my post.

 

[dblack]

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

The short answer is, "I have no freaking idea".

We've never seen anything like this: A large, entirely separate, fully-functioning, self-contained, closed circuit informational ecosystem. The idea that I offered in the OP tries to address it by creating a body that might (theoretically) return and enforce standards and keep reality & fiction/conspiracy separated. Otherwise, it would be up to the players themselves to change their ways and become responsible. Do you see that happening? I don't. Fantasy and conspiracy are too lucrative.

Uncharted territory. I don't know. But I think this situation is pretty close to becoming an existential threat.

A step in the right direction would be to take their complaints seriously. I'm not talking about the conspiracy nonsense, but if Democrats really want to unite the country (sadly, I think most don't) they'll actually listen to what the Trump supporters are saying and make meaningful policy adjustments to address their concerns. There's no need to cater to their every desire. But there is some common ground and Democrats would do the country an incredible favor if they tried to find it.

The best characterization I've seen, regarding the "silent majority" of Trump voters, is this post by Mike Rowe, the night before the election: Off The Wall: Care to Make another Presidential Prediction?

Read it if you have time, I think it's very insightful. A quote (on why many people voted for Trump):

People who hate Trump almost as much as Biden voters hate Trump, but who hate the “woke culture,” even more. These people are exhausted by nightly images of rioters and looters allowed to run amuck. They’re sick of the incessant virtue signaling from every quarter of society. They’re weary of cancel culture, safe spaces, “mostly peaceful” protests, the 1619 Project, and the countless attacks on free speech, and lectures from what they believe to be a completely biased media. For them, Trump is not a candidate – he’s a giant middle finger to those who would suppress the Hunter Biden story, or re-edit Gone With the Wind, or rewrite Huck Finn, or disrespect our flag, or topple statues of anyone who doesn’t measure up to their enlightened sensibilities. For these people, Trump is the only way to confront the “wokeness” that now defines big media, higher education, corporate America, Hollywood, and professional sports.” It’s the only way to say, “Enough already.”

 

[Mac1958]

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

The short answer is, "I have no freaking idea".

We've never seen anything like this: A large, entirely separate, fully-functioning, self-contained, closed circuit informational ecosystem. The idea that I offered in the OP tries to address it by creating a body that might (theoretically) return and enforce standards and keep reality & fiction/conspiracy separated. Otherwise, it would be up to the players themselves to change their ways and become responsible. Do you see that happening? I don't. Fantasy and conspiracy are too lucrative.

Uncharted territory. I don't know. But I think this situation is pretty close to becoming an existential threat.

A step in the right direction would be to take their complaints seriously. I'm not talking about the conspiracy nonsense, but if Democrats really want to unite the country (sadly, I think most don't) they'll actually listen to what the Trump supporters are saying and make meaningful policy adjustments to address their concerns. There's no need to cater to their every desire. But there is some common ground and Democrats would do the county an incredible favor if they tried to find it.

The best characterization I've seen, regarding the "silent majority" of Trump voters, is this post by Mike Rowe, the night before the election: Off The Wall: Care to Make another Presidential Prediction?

Read it if you have time, I think it's very insightful. A quote (on why many people voted for Trump):

People who hate Trump almost as much as Biden voters hate Trump, but who hate the “woke culture,” even more. These people are exhausted by nightly images of rioters and looters allowed to run amuck. They’re sick of the incessant virtue signaling from every quarter of society. They’re weary of cancel culture, safe spaces, “mostly peaceful” protests, the 1619 Project, and the countless attacks on free speech, and lectures from what they believe to be a completely biased media. For them, Trump is not a candidate – he’s a giant middle finger to those who would suppress the Hunter Biden story, or re-edit Gone With the Wind, or rewrite Huck Finn, or disrespect our flag, or topple statues of anyone who doesn’t measure up to their enlightened sensibilities. For these people, Trump is the only way to confront the “wokeness” that now defines big media, higher education, corporate America, Hollywood, and professional sports.” It’s the only way to say, “Enough already.”

Yes, I agree completely. The major media has long leaned Left, and largely lost its shit (along with most of the Left) when Trump was elected. So, as each side just LOVES to do, they overcompensated. AND, as each side just LOVES to do, it fed right into "liberal media" meme for Trump and his media. And off we go.

Another way to look at it is that they gave the Trump media an excuse to head off into crazyland. Then everything just fed on itself, as it does on most issues, and both sides got much worse.

So these increased standards and expectations have to apply across the board or they will not work.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You don't even know the meaning of the word "liberal" , do you?

I’m not interested in getting into a nitpicking discussion of semantics that has very little to do with the main argument in my post.

YOU brought up the subject by referring to the opposition to liberals.

Liberalism is most certainly NOT an authoritarian political philosophy that invests political control in the hands of a few.

That is not nitpicking or semantics on my part. Rather, is an illustration of your monumental failure to understand even the first thing about the very terms you are tossing about.

 

[Mac-7]

point is that you do have other options. You may not like those options, but that’s your problem. They’re there.

No, the point is that a monopoly does not have to control 100% of the market to be harmful to society

 

[XponentialChaos]

That is not nitpicking or semantics on my part. Rather, is an illustration of your monumental failure to understand even the first thing about the very terms you are tossing about.

Semantics.

Have fun with that. Don't care.

 

[XponentialChaos]

No, the point is that a monopoly does not have to control 100% of the market to be harmful to society

You: "there are other donut shops for the cops to go to. But there are no other comparable FaceBoook or Twitter"

There are other donut shops for you. You just don't like their donuts.