How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

[dblack]

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

 

[martybegan]

But removing government from the equation does not remove the force, or the threat of force, it just decentralizes it.

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

 

[dblack]

I'm gonna have to ask you to clarify before I respond. This sounds like the progressive tact of equating economic power with government. Is that what you're going for?

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

Yes. Fatigue sets in after a while

But I think it's actually a really important aspect of this. Socialists insist that we must subjugate ourselves, that it's just a question of whether government or business will be in charge. And then say that government is better because we get to vote now and then. But they are ignoring the radical difference between economic power and political power. If you piss off Mark Zuckerberg, the worst he can do is take down your posts on his website. If you piss off the government they can, and will, do far worse.

 

[martybegan]

No, that the use of force will always be part of human interactions, it's just a question of who wields it.

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

Yes. Fatigue sets in after a while

But I think it's actually a really important aspect of this. Socialists insist that we must subjugate ourselves, that it's just a question of whether government or business will be in charge. And then say that government is better because we get to vote now and then. But they are ignoring the radical difference between economic power and political power. If you piss off Mark Zuckerberg, the worst he can do is take down your posts on his website. If you piss off the government they can, and will, do far worse.

That's the worst Zuckerberg can do himself, but if he's allowed control of the narrative in 20 years his minions might try to exert control, and they may be in government service by that time.

 

[dblack]

And how is that point relevant? Are you saying that if we don't pass laws to control social media, angry mobs will attack Facebook? Isn't it more likely they'd just stop using it?

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

Yes. Fatigue sets in after a while

But I think it's actually a really important aspect of this. Socialists insist that we must subjugate ourselves, that it's just a question of whether government or business will be in charge. And then say that government is better because we get to vote now and then. But they are ignoring the radical difference between economic power and political power. If you piss off Mark Zuckerberg, the worst he can do is take down your posts on his website. If you piss off the government they can, and will, do far worse.

That's the worst Zuckerberg can do himself, but if he's allowed control of the narrative in 20 years his minions might try to exert control, and they may be in government service by that time.

And if his minions did gain control of government, would you want government to be in charge of regulating social media? Or not?

 

[martybegan]

After 62 pages on the same thing, most posts devolve into the irrelevant.

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

Yes. Fatigue sets in after a while

But I think it's actually a really important aspect of this. Socialists insist that we must subjugate ourselves, that it's just a question of whether government or business will be in charge. And then say that government is better because we get to vote now and then. But they are ignoring the radical difference between economic power and political power. If you piss off Mark Zuckerberg, the worst he can do is take down your posts on his website. If you piss off the government they can, and will, do far worse.

That's the worst Zuckerberg can do himself, but if he's allowed control of the narrative in 20 years his minions might try to exert control, and they may be in government service by that time.

And if his minions did gain control of government, would you want government to be in charge of regulating social media? Or not?

At that point they would have de facto control already, just not de jure control.

 

[dblack]

Oh... I assumed you were making a point of some kind.

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

Yes. Fatigue sets in after a while

But I think it's actually a really important aspect of this. Socialists insist that we must subjugate ourselves, that it's just a question of whether government or business will be in charge. And then say that government is better because we get to vote now and then. But they are ignoring the radical difference between economic power and political power. If you piss off Mark Zuckerberg, the worst he can do is take down your posts on his website. If you piss off the government they can, and will, do far worse.

That's the worst Zuckerberg can do himself, but if he's allowed control of the narrative in 20 years his minions might try to exert control, and they may be in government service by that time.

And if his minions did gain control of government, would you want government to be in charge of regulating social media? Or not?

At that point they would have de facto control already, just not de jure control.

Heh.. ok, well, hell, lets just have government run everything then, eh?

 

[martybegan]

Maybe i was going for the whole with or without government there will be force involved when people interact.

again, 62 pages of the same thing....

Yes. Fatigue sets in after a while

But I think it's actually a really important aspect of this. Socialists insist that we must subjugate ourselves, that it's just a question of whether government or business will be in charge. And then say that government is better because we get to vote now and then. But they are ignoring the radical difference between economic power and political power. If you piss off Mark Zuckerberg, the worst he can do is take down your posts on his website. If you piss off the government they can, and will, do far worse.

That's the worst Zuckerberg can do himself, but if he's allowed control of the narrative in 20 years his minions might try to exert control, and they may be in government service by that time.

And if his minions did gain control of government, would you want government to be in charge of regulating social media? Or not?

At that point they would have de facto control already, just not de jure control.

Heh.. ok, well, hell, lets just have government run everything then, eh?

There's that fatigue showing......

The issue again to me boils down to one side now controlling a major part of the way people now interact with each other. It would be like armed thugs for one side denying access to the town hall steps to the other 100 years ago.

 

[dblack]

There's that fatigue showing......

The issue again to me boils down to one side now controlling a major part of the way people now interact with each other. It would be like armed thugs for one side denying access to the town hall steps to the other 100 years ago.

And there's huge difference between "control" exercised by economic power and control exercised by government.

"Denying access"..... are you noticing the drift in your vocabulary lately?

 

[martybegan]

There's that fatigue showing......

The issue again to me boils down to one side now controlling a major part of the way people now interact with each other. It would be like armed thugs for one side denying access to the town hall steps to the other 100 years ago.

And there's huge difference between "control" exercised by economic power and control exercised by government.

"Denying access"..... are you noticing the drift in your vocabulary lately?

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

I used it comically, evidently not correctly.

The thugs stand in front of the steps, they don't do anything, but they do glare are people of a certain political leaning.

 

[dblack]

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Of course you disagree because it isn't your point of view or values being squashed like a bug.

What are you values?

Go find a duck to lick. I have nothing but contempt for your stupid ass so there will be no debate with you.

Troll

And yet you answered my question. I hope that's not too abstract for you to understand.

You don't "debate" punk, you preach. You don't want a "War" over free speech, you'll lose.

I preach? Wow, I don't even have a collar. BTW, I am an authority on punks, you use punk as a pejorative; what I call a punk is a slimy little coward who lies and threatens people while safely secured in a cage, or in some cases seated behind a keyboard.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Someone got picked on a lot ^^^^

 

[martybegan]

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

it's my admittedly fuzzy concept of a digital commons.

 

[dblack]

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

it's my admittedly fuzzy concept of a digital commons.

Well, it's a chew toy for this dog. The conflation of economic and political power is one of the biggest problems in public policy, in my view. Socialists aggressively promote the idea that they are one in the same - because the want to control both - but I think it's a mistake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

What do you propose? In the case of FB, it's a private company. In the case of Colleges - some are private, some are public.

Do you propose interfering in private companies? If so - what about the conservative dominated media?

If colleges get ANY public funding it should be stripped of they persist with the nonsense. And Facebook needs to burn in hell but people are too stupid to give it up. Gotta tell ma & pa what I had for dinner yo. Beyond stupid. Social media is a poison even without the political bullshit. As for Hollywood I pirate every single movie they make, fuckem. Act like a douche I'll just steal your licensed material.

I disagree.

They should provide a fair assortment of diverse views. They don't HAVE to provide a platform for EVERY speaker. They shouldn't, for example, have to provide a platform for Neo-Nazi's. At this point though - I question whether they are providing enough diverse views - that is the purpose of college, regardless of whether public money is involved or not. And - keep in mind, protests are also free speech, as long as they are peaceful.

Of course you disagree because it isn't your point of view or values being squashed like a bug.

She disagrees because your statement is factually wrong – and no one’s point of view or values are being ‘squashed like a bug.’

Again, state colleges and universities are held to the same First Amendment requirements, subject to the same First Amendment case law.

And like other rights, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, it is not a right to say anything one wises anywhere he wishes at any time he wishes.

State colleges and universities are allowed by the First Amendment to take steps to ensure the public safety when rightwing speech seeks to incite imminent lawlessness or violence, where no free speech rights are ‘violated.’

For the record, and food for thought:

"Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University (BJU), announced March 3 that the fundamentalist school is dropping its longstanding ban on interracial dating. The move comes after widespread criticism of the policy in the wake of presidential candidate George W. Bush's campaign appearance at the school. Jones surprised students and supporters by announcing the policy change during an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live." Jones acknowledged that recent scrutiny of the school's policies was behind the decision. "This thing has gotten so out of hand," he said. "All of a sudden the university is at the center of a Republican presidential debate.""
Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban

 

[martybegan]

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

it's my admittedly fuzzy concept of a digital commons.

Well, it's a chew toy for this dog. The conflation of economic and political power is one of the biggest problems in public policy, in my view. Socialists aggressively promote the idea that they are one in the same - because the want to control both - but I think it's a mistake.

As do I, however capitalism, which separating them de jure, has the result of people with more economic power having easier access to more political power.

I am not saying that is a bad thing, it's just the way it works.

Now one can have little economic power and still gain political power, it's just more difficult.

 

[dblack]

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

it's my admittedly fuzzy concept of a digital commons.

Well, it's a chew toy for this dog. The conflation of economic and political power is one of the biggest problems in public policy, in my view. Socialists aggressively promote the idea that they are one in the same - because the want to control both - but I think it's a mistake.

As do I, however capitalism, which separating them de jure, has the result of people with more economic power having easier access to more political power.

The question of who is controlling government, and how, is entirely separate from the question of what government is empowered to do. In fact, empowering government to interfere with private business creates overwhelming incentive for businesses to control government. Often it's a matter of survival.

I suppose it's a chicken and egg then, but it really doesn't matter who started it. Breaking the chain should be the goal.

 

[martybegan]

What happens when economic powers delve into concepts usually controlled by government?

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

it's my admittedly fuzzy concept of a digital commons.

Well, it's a chew toy for this dog. The conflation of economic and political power is one of the biggest problems in public policy, in my view. Socialists aggressively promote the idea that they are one in the same - because the want to control both - but I think it's a mistake.

As do I, however capitalism, which separating them de jure, has the result of people with more economic power having easier access to more political power.

The question of who is controlling government, and how, is entirely separate from the question of what government is empowered to do. In fact, empowering government to interfere with private business creates overwhelming incentive for businesses to control government. Often it's a matter of survival.

I suppose it's a chicken and egg then, but it really doesn't matter who started it. Breaking the chain should be the goal.

And replacing it with what?

As someone once said, "before you can demolish that fence, please tell me why it was there in the first place."

 

[dblack]

What does this mean? If you don't mind clarifying.

it's my admittedly fuzzy concept of a digital commons.

Well, it's a chew toy for this dog. The conflation of economic and political power is one of the biggest problems in public policy, in my view. Socialists aggressively promote the idea that they are one in the same - because the want to control both - but I think it's a mistake.

As do I, however capitalism, which separating them de jure, has the result of people with more economic power having easier access to more political power.

The question of who is controlling government, and how, is entirely separate from the question of what government is empowered to do. In fact, empowering government to interfere with private business creates overwhelming incentive for businesses to control government. Often it's a matter of survival.

I suppose it's a chicken and egg then, but it really doesn't matter who started it. Breaking the chain should be the goal.

And replacing it with what?

Well, I was talking about collusion between government and business. I don't want to "replace" it with anything.