Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[LesPalenik]

In the video below (1 hr long), Michael Moore reports that the January 6 terrorist attack is not over and that it was enabled by the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQCsVVVknzQ

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

On this website dedicated to photography, and other important snaps of time, an excellent photograph by Nina Berman:

A photograph by Nina Berman, resembling a scene from "1984"

[Robert Roaldi]

Social media have been pushing back against being categorized as publishers. This is understandable, like everyone else, they want to maximize their income and minimize their responsibilities. Nobody wants extra work. Seems like they are clinging to the notion that they are carriers the way the phone companies are (were). It has been pretty obvious to me that they are neither strictly publisher nor carrier, they are new and different public media and regulation has not kept up with the way the environment has evolved. I think it's a mistake to try to shoehorn them into existing categories. To some extent, these changes have also affected traditional phone carriers too. You can now send text messages simultaneously to many recipients, that's not exactly a private phone call anymore.

The exemption to law suits was granted to the social media companies in the early days of their creation to facilitate their expansion. It was a way to avoid bogging down a new industry that was just getting going and that was deemed to be important to the wider culture. This was an explicit choice at the time and has not been revisited. (I linked to a podcast interview a few months ago in which an expert in the field told about that development history. I cannot find it at the moment.)

Alan keeps describing Facebook's and Twitter's actions as censorship of political ideas. In this instance, that's nonsense. Trump was not just voicing a viewpoint that they disagreed with. Those platforms are full of different opinions on numerous subjects. In any case, Trump has access to many distribution channels for his thoughts, as Pres, so just because these two in question tossed him out doesn't bother me that much. Given how he has been spewing out conspiracy nonsense for years now, they should have done it sooner to bring this all to a head. But I can see how they could behave like that one day. It might too tempting for them not to. Would they censure criticism of one of their largest customers someday? Have they already? I don't know. If they were media, in the old sense, there would be a separation between editorial and advertisement, or there was in the old days when there were hundreds of these entities competing in the marketplace. We don't have that anymore.

The code has a bug and it needs to be fixed, and it's not a technology problem.

[Robert Roaldi]

In the video below (1 hr long), Michael Moore reports that the January 6 terrorist attack is not over and that it was enabled by the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQCsVVVknzQ

That's pretty disturbing. I haven't kept up with the details and was unfamiliar with video showing the capitol police opening doors for the rioters. He asks some good questions about lack of barricades and why the police presence was so minimal. They had weeks to prepare. The investigation will be interesting. In the old days, there would be a lot of shredders running in the dead of night. Nowadays, there are email and text trails to dig up out of the backups. If someone gave an order, they should be found out, if they really try.

For the moment, I am sticking to my gut feel that a nitwit like Trump is incapable of organizing anything like a coup. He's no leader of men in any sense, although he seems to be a not bad con man, insofar as he's conned more people than I would have guessed he could. And the band of rioters who did get into the capitol were seemingly not top rank either, just a rabble roused by an idiot whose con they fell for. A real coup would have dispensed with the idiotic confederate flags and captured radio stations and social media sites, at the very least. They seem to me to be simply dangerous clowns. They need to be taken down of course. They also need to find out if there aren't more dangerous groups hiding in the wings. Moore's mention of the posters for armed marches is very uncomfortable. The real badass hardcore may be small but they can do a lot of harm. So far as that goes, streets full of militia goons with AR-15s will be the biggest boost that 2nd Amendment repealers could hope for.

There are stories in politico.com and thehill.com about the difficulties that the GOP may be facing in the future. Good. I hope they rip themselves a new one. Enabling that sack of sh*t for the past 4 years just because he might deliver the nutbar vote was a pact with the devil and Satan may be coming for their souls now. Instead of working for the benefit of citizens they opted for hoarding power. I can only hope that there is a stiff price to pay for doing that.

[chez]

Biden decided to release all vaccines being reserved for second doses to be used as the first dose hoping that production would make up the difference.
Effectively he's overruling Fauci who was opposed to this procedure.  But now that Fauci was asked to stay on, I suppose he'll change his mind.  So with all the complaints of Trump not following his expert's advice, Biden, who hasn't even become president yet, is the one not listening.  Of course, the biased press will protect Biden and downplay the whole thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/02/dr-anthony-fauci-says-us-will-not-delay-second-doses-of-covid-vaccine
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/08/955034989/bidens-plan-to-release-more-vaccine-is-a-gamble-is-it-worth-the-risk

I think you'll see if you choose to dig a bit deeper that most of the rest of the world is taking this approach as further studying the trials shows the 2nd shot can be delayed for up to 6 weeks without any appreciable affects. I know Canada and the U.K are taking this same approach.

1st shot gives you 80% resistance.

2nd shot raises it to 95%

[Peter McLennan]

I asked Peter to explain his point not for you to tell me it's been explained. It hasn't.  He's big enough to explain himself.

Alan, your professed lack of knowledge about the differences between mass media like Twitter and Facebook and private conversations by email and telephone is disingenuous and insulting.

[chez]

MY point is that he went against Fauci's advice who's the chief guy at the CDC regarding viruses.  If Trump had done it, he would have been castigated by the press.  But the press says nothing with Biden.  This double standard and "fake news" is why 47% of Americans voted for Trump. Why so many Americans are tired of the BS press and phony political bureaucracy.  So now we're back to same-o same-o.  We're being lied to and BS'd.  Even if you don't get Trump, do you get my point?

Since all this delay 2nd shot investigation has occurred basically the last week...how do you know Fauci didn't change his mind with the latest data available to him about the vaccine. You are just peeing your pants waiting somehow to slam Biden.

[TechTalk]

Unfortunately, the poorly informed vote.

And post false and misleading misinformation and disinformation online for others to read.

[TechTalk]

Fauci's advice who's the chief guy at the CDC regarding viruses.

Anthony Fauci doesn't work at the CDC.

[digitaldog]

Anthony Fauci doesn't work at the CDC.

When have the facts mattered to this fellow?

[Alan Klein]

Alan, what I got from your point is that you are diverting the attention from one thing to another.
I don't know if Fauci ever made that recommendation. Even if he did, maybe he made that recommendation some time ago when they were just preparing for the vaccination.
Maybe he changed his mind and now he is advocating the new and more effective vaccination method. This is not a big deal, and if anything, we should be happy for the fine tuning of the vaccination process. That's what counts, taking care of the population and preventing infections.

Anyway, Trump is done and soon gone, and Biden will start making America great again.

I don't disagree that Biden may have gotten advice from other experts. It may be a great idea.  But you ignored my point which is had Trump done this, the media would have accused him of ignoring Fauci his chief expert in the virus community, and putting millions at risk with his decision.   The press did that for nine months with Trump.  But, because Biden did it, nothing like that is even mentioned.  The CDC didn't call a news conference to present its new recommendation and decision.  It was a unilateral decision from Biden.   The press has a double standard.  They distort the news.  It's easy with a headline to make an action look good or bad.  The media is dishonest and report unfairly to fit their political beliefs. 

[Alan Klein]

Fantasy land. We have given you examples of how fb helped Trump and Twitter has been his mouthpiece for as long as he was politically relevant.

Twitter shut down republicans beside Trump, not Democrats.  Right now they're on the Democrat side.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, your professed lack of knowledge about the differences between mass media like Twitter and Facebook and private conversations by email and telephone is disingenuous and insulting.

My understanding of Twitter is that a person sends out a tweet to all people who have signed up to their account and they can return the tweet to him and others who are also signed up.   That sounds like a private messaging system to me. If it goes beyond that, I know nothing about it.  I have no idea what goes on in Facebook at all.  Peter, I'm sorry you feel you have to insult me and my lack of knowledge and experience with those systems.   It wasn't called for.

[William Walker]

I'm an old fogey.  I know nothing about tweets and Facebook. 

Now, I get emails that are advertisements and promotions every day.  However, that doesn't mean that Verizon Wireless or Comcast my ICP can read my private emails or messages.  Can't tweets be sent privately?  Likewise Facebook communications.  In other words, the administrator can censor public posts.  But private messages and tweets are off-limits legally?  Would and could that work? Or are the sites set up so you can't do that? WOuld it be legal for Congress to set up rules to that effect without violating constitutional protections?

Let me ask another related question.  Leaving aside the fact that sites are privately owned, like Verizon or Comcast, would you want to see more private communication not seen by the management of these companies.  There're a lot of separate complaints about how these companies use our private conversations to sell us things and listen in to our thoughts knowing our every move.  Wouldn't it be beneficial for society to reduce this invasion of our privacy?  Why should Twitter or Facebook interfere with my political positions or positions on anything.  What's to stop them from saying any comments on anti-gay or pro-gay will be deleted.  There's a huge opening for interfering with open communications and free speech for people as these companies have huge power to interfere.  Stopping the political thought of one group of people over another is just plain wrong. I don't see them being able to do that as a good thing.  This is not LuLA with a few members.  We're talking about companies that control billions of people worldwide and huge power to abuse.  Don;t you see that as a problem?

Ouch!

[Alan Klein]

Anthony Fauci doesn't work at the CDC.

Sorry, He's the chief immunologist at the National Institutes of Health and has advised six presidents in his position as director since 1984 and is the chief medical advisor to Trump and our government on the Covid matter. 
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio#:~:text=Fauci%20was%20appointed%20director%20of,such%20as%20Ebola%20and%20Zika.

[jeremyrh]

Twitter shut down republicans beside Trump, not Democrats.  Right now they're on the Democrat side.

You only think this (if you do) because you haven't read the information that we have provided to you.  Maybe do some research and jump back in when you have caught up.

[Alan Klein]

Ouch!

Fine.  I can defend that private enterprise point as well. I agree with much of it but I'm also concerned with free speech being stopped.   So let's just take away their protection from lawsuits if they want to play politics.  Let them play in the marketplace like everyone else and be exposed to lawsuits just like everyone else.

But it does raise a corollary issue.  Let's say the phone company decided to shut down your phone service because they didn;t like your politics that you were transmitting.  Now let's say you have no other service to go too which is possible if you're using an internet phone connection serviced by let's say Comcast, as I do. I'm stuck with them for landline and internet service.  So now I have no phone or internet service.  Can congress constitutionally force them to stop doing that?  Could the DOJ sue.  After all, I remember when the justice department broke up AT&T into all those little phone companies.  Would "twittering" fall under that same monopoly banner?  How about Facebook?  Companies could go broke if their ability to use these services is pulled.  Politicians won't be able to say what they want.  That gives Twitter and Facebook huge power to influence politics and commerce.  This creates a real problem with our rights to free speech. Also, regulation of interstate commerce is also allowed by our constitution and is just as valid as protecting free speech.   How are we going to work this out?

We may find out pretty soon.  I think Jeremy was right when he posted that the Democrats have gripes about this issue as well as Republicans.

[Alan Klein]

You only think this (if you do) because you haven't read the information that we have provided to you.  Maybe do some research and jump back in when you have caught up.

I agree with you. Democrats have a gripe too, especially when Trump used Facebook in the last election.  But that wasn't anything political on Facebook's side.  They were just providing the service for commercial reasons.  That's different when social media pulls services for political and speech reasons.  Companies can't do business without these companies any more than they could operate if the telephone company pulled their phone services.   Politicians and companies today live and die with their social media accounts.  I don't think we want these companies to have power over our right to free speech. 

Of course, maybe the best approach is a hands-off one.  Like I said earlier, another twitter may appear providing competition.  They would not regulate speech at all.  Many politicians and companies would be attracted to them.  Frankly, I don't think Facebook wanted to get involved in this stuff. I'm surprised Zuckerberg went along. It was the CEO at Twitter who's the politician. Zuckerberg is more interested in growing his company and making money.  He told Congress he didn't want to regulate speech, or so he said at the time. 

[Robert Roaldi]

I agree with much of it but I'm also concerned with free speech being stopped.   

Free speech has not been stopped. Although I see elsewhere that the GOP are framing it this way.


Meanwhile, a different controversy emerges abut what to call the riots/demonstrations/insurrection/mess, https://taskandpurpose.com/news/defense-department-capitol-hill-riots-protests/.

[chez]

I don't disagree that Biden may have gotten advice from other experts. It may be a great idea.  But you ignored my point which is had Trump done this, the media would have accused him of ignoring Fauci his chief expert in the virus community, and putting millions at risk with his decision.   The press did that for nine months with Trump.  But, because Biden did it, nothing like that is even mentioned.  The CDC didn't call a news conference to present its new recommendation and decision.  It was a unilateral decision from Biden.   The press has a double standard.  They distort the news.  It's easy with a headline to make an action look good or bad.  The media is dishonest and report unfairly to fit their political beliefs.

Are you really trying to compare what Biden is trying to do ( and most of the rest of the western world ) to deliver the first dose ( 80% effective ) to as many people as possible and as quickly as possible rather than sitting 3 weeks on viles of vaccine awaiting people's 2nd dose while not getting more people with their first dose...to Trump going against industry experts ( and most of the rest of the western world ) and not advocating social distancing, wearing masks and opening up shops during outbreaks?