Media Bias

[Cunt]

NO ONE loves censorship more than conservatives, and yet no one bitches about being censored more than conservatives. From trying to run Howard Stern off the air his entire career, to canceling Phil Donahue for speaking out against the Iraq War, to canceling Bill Maher for saying that terrorist aren't cowards, to censoring naughty words and crotches and tits off of television, to trying to censor rap and rock music, to trying to ban books about gay relationships, and trying to ban Harry Potter books for teaching kids witchcraft, etc. etc...

And then these Fox News morons have the gall to bitch about censorship when they lose Twitter followers.

Crowder just announced a lawsuit against facebook. Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

What government protection?

Section 230, in the US (I don't know your little place)

[Hermit]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

[pErvinalia]

NO ONE loves censorship more than conservatives, and yet no one bitches about being censored more than conservatives. From trying to run Howard Stern off the air his entire career, to canceling Phil Donahue for speaking out against the Iraq War, to canceling Bill Maher for saying that terrorist aren't cowards, to censoring naughty words and crotches and tits off of television, to trying to censor rap and rock music, to trying to ban books about gay relationships, and trying to ban Harry Potter books for teaching kids witchcraft, etc. etc...

And then these Fox News morons have the gall to bitch about censorship when they lose Twitter followers.

Crowder just announced a lawsuit against facebook. Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

What government protection?

Section 230, in the US (I don't know your little place)

Section 230 of what? And what does it say?

[Cunt]

NO ONE loves censorship more than conservatives, and yet no one bitches about being censored more than conservatives. From trying to run Howard Stern off the air his entire career, to canceling Phil Donahue for speaking out against the Iraq War, to canceling Bill Maher for saying that terrorist aren't cowards, to censoring naughty words and crotches and tits off of television, to trying to censor rap and rock music, to trying to ban books about gay relationships, and trying to ban Harry Potter books for teaching kids witchcraft, etc. etc...

And then these Fox News morons have the gall to bitch about censorship when they lose Twitter followers.

Crowder just announced a lawsuit against facebook. Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

What government protection?

Section 230, in the US (I don't know your little place)

Section 230 of what? And what does it say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

[Hermit]

It's part of a law that is irrelevant to whatever point it is our member from Yellowknife is failing to make.

Section 230 of what? And what does it say?

Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.[a] Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

[pErvinalia]

Crowder just announced a lawsuit against facebook. Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

What government protection?

Section 230, in the US (I don't know your little place)

Section 230 of what? And what does it say?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Section 230 doesn't relate to censorship.

[Cunt]

OK.

Crowder is probably just kidding about the lawsuit against facebook too. He is a pretty funny dude.

[JimC]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

I agree, but there may be some indirect government influence. Large tech companies may be seeking a cosy relationship with large governments (yes, to benefit their bottom line in the long run), and may make decisions on censorship which therefore have a political component (unstated of course...)

[Cunt]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

I agree, but there may be some indirect government influence. Large tech companies may be seeking a cosy relationship with large governments (yes, to benefit their bottom line in the long run), and may make decisions on censorship which therefore have a political component (unstated of course...)

...starting to sound like you've been listening to Crowder all of the sudden.

[JimC]

Not at all, just allowing for the possibility of such influences, without asserting either way their reality or not.

[Hermit]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

I agree, but there may be some indirect government influence. Large tech companies may be seeking a cosy relationship with large governments (yes, to benefit their bottom line in the long run), and may make decisions on censorship which therefore have a political component (unstated of course...)

Can you give me an example?

I think the boot is very much on the other foot. The media are owned by the 0.1 percenters, and the 0.1 percenters own the politicians. That's why we have neoliberals or governments further to the right controlling most western style democracies. They are preselected by the real powers before voters get to choose which of the pre-approved set they will be governed by. Do you think it's a coincidence that the candidate with the greatest number of billionaires financing his campaign has won last November? Would you like to have a wild guess why Bernie Sanders keeps getting kneecapped? Turning to the local scene, do you expect Tony Albanese to rock the boat if Labor wins the next general election?

As Robert S. Borden wrote in 1976, "If voting could change anything it would be made illegal!" It's an exaggeration, but not all that far off the mark.

[Hermit]

OK.

Crowder is probably just kidding about the lawsuit against facebook too. He is a pretty funny dude.

He wants the courts to tell privately owned companies how to run their business. I got the information from his website. It's a two minute read. You might manage.

Good luck to him. He'll need plenty of it to even get the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to accept that he has a case for claiming that Facebook has engaged in unlawfully unfair/deceptive acts.

[Cunt]

Not at all, just allowing for the possibility of such influences, without asserting either way their reality or not.

There is a reason his election livestream had so many viewers when it got nuked.

There aren't any bigger American conservative variety shows. They are as rare as hens teeth.

[JimC]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

I agree, but there may be some indirect government influence. Large tech companies may be seeking a cosy relationship with large governments (yes, to benefit their bottom line in the long run), and may make decisions on censorship which therefore have a political component (unstated of course...)

Can you give me an example?

I think the boot is very much on the other foot. The media are owned by the 0.1 percenters, and the 0.1 percenters own the politicians. That's why we have neoliberals or governments further to the right controlling most western style democracies. They are preselected by the real powers before voters get to choose which of the pre-approved set they will be governed by. Do you think it's a coincidence that the candidate with the greatest number of billionaires financing his campaign has won last November? Would you like to have a wild guess why Bernie Sanders keeps getting kneecapped? Turning to the local scene, do you expect Tony Albanese to rock the boat if Labor wins the next general election?

As Robert S. Borden wrote in 1976, "If voting could change anything it would be made illegal!" It's an exaggeration, but not all that far off the mark.

The key is "may be"; I have no concrete example, but the possibility is there. Big business and major governments like the US have multitudes of connections, some antagonistic, some symbiotic. It seems reasonable to me that some plausibly deniable commonality of purpose in the area of censorship might exist. Your view that the driving force behind the motivation of tech corporations is purely to maximise profit is essentially correct, IMO, but corporations do not exist in a vacuum. They operate in an economic and political ecosystem, and their bottom line is not immune from government policies. Thus, the conditions are set for political dimensions to affect their decision making.

[Cunt]