Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 09:50:09 am
-
I never thought that Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, would say something that I can enthusiastically support. A good credo for our Coffee Corner.
Even in the face of a cancel culture and tribal political war, Zuckerberg believes that free speech is absolute, and he does not think private companies should censor politicians.
“The hardest threat to free expression comes from our culture itself,” he told The Post. “Because democracy depends on people holding each other’s right to express ourselves above our own desire to get our way in every debate that we have.
“And increasingly, it seems like a larger number of people are willing to put whatever political outcome they want above respecting other people’s ability to express themselves and have a voice,” he said.
“I think that that’s really dangerous.”
https://nypost.com/2019/10/19/why-mark-zuckerberg-wants-to-recruit-outside-the-ivy-league-liberal-bubble/
-
Very interesting.
I am currently listening to The Rubin Report with Douglas Murray titled, "Revealing The Origins Of The Current Madness Of Crowds." Murray brings up the point that many movements tend to fall victim to the King George Retirement effect, where after slaying the last Dragon King George can't stop looking for more dragons to slay eventually doomed to swing his sword at air dreaming of his fighting days. In other words, movements fight for equality and get so addicted to fighting, that when equality comes, they contort that reality so as to have an accuse to keep on fighting, even though it does not make sense. This, of course, leads them to fight for over corrections beyond equality, and we get things like suppressing free speech.
He gives a few examples. Murray and Rubin, are both gay, so the examples his list within this movement seem to be pretty well thought out.
-
Saint George, I think.
Murray writes well, for the Spectator magazine amongst others. His book has been the subject of a good deal of comment, both pro and anti.
Jeremy
-
Saint George, I think.
Murray writes well, for the Spectator magazine amongst others. His book has been the subject of a good deal of comment, both pro and anti.
Jeremy
Transatlantic cousins; be gentle.
;-)
-
Well speaking of Zuckerburg supporting free speech, here is a podcast talking about his firing of Palmer Luckey.
Why Facebook Ousted The Founder of Oculus, Palmer Luckey | Blake Harris | TECH | Rubin Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pbG3w_p8w)
The gist of it is that Palmer start Oculus, which was then bought by Facebook prior to the 2016 election. Palmer was a vocal Trump supporter in the beginning of the campaign who then kept his comments to himself after seeing the backlash Peter Thiel got. However, Palmer did still contribute to political campaigns and groups in support of Trump. Then the Daily Beast outed Palmer's donations and a shit storm ensued with a lot of false accusations by the press.
In an attempt to calm the situation down, Palmer wrote a statement trying to clear the air, that Zuckerberg would not allow him to publish. Zuckerberg then forced Palmer to release a false statement saying he supported another candidate under the threat of being fired, which is illegal in CA. Palmer did this, but was then fired 6 months later anyway.
So I am not sure Zuckerberg may actually believe anything he just said.
-
Zuckerberg isn't protecting free speech. He is normalizing lying.
-
Well speaking of Zuckerburg supporting free speech, here is a podcast talking about his firing of Palmer Luckey.
Why Facebook Ousted The Founder of Oculus, Palmer Luckey | Blake Harris | TECH | Rubin Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pbG3w_p8w)
The gist of it is that Palmer start Oculus, which was then bought by Facebook prior to the 2016 election. Palmer was a vocal Trump supporter in the beginning of the campaign who then kept his comments to himself after seeing the backlash Peter Thiel got. However, Palmer did still contribute to political campaigns and groups in support of Trump. Then the Daily Beast outed Palmer's donations and a shit storm ensued with a lot of false accusations by the press.
In an attempt to calm the situation down, Palmer wrote a statement trying to clear the air, that Zuckerberg would not allow him to publish. Zuckerberg then forced Palmer to release a false statement saying he supported another candidate under the threat of being fired, which is illegal in CA. Palmer did this, but was then fired 6 months later anyway.
So I am not sure Zuckerberg may actually believe anything he just said.
I'm sure he's very concerned about Congress breaking up Facebook or doing something that would hurt his bottom line. But, his concept of not interfering with debate and opinion is valid. Before we go off half-cocked in trying to demand the "truth", whatever that is, and demand accounting by organizations to monitor their sites, we want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Take LULA. You can pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't threatening or insulting. Can you imagine if Jeremy had to monitor for the "Truth". And then report to some government agency that requires him to file a monthly report how he implemented a "truth" policy and how he decided on certain facts. And if he didn't comply, would he be fined or imprisoned? What a chill to free and open debate.
And anyway, what is truth? Is Canon better than Nikon? Should we have a 15% tax rate or a 20% tax rate? Most things are opinion. Even when you're discussing "facts" how does one determine what they are? Did the British public really vote for Brexit? Or were their arms twisted? Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate Biden because of an appearance of using his VP position to get his son a job? Or was it because he wanted to damage his political opponent. Do we want a government agency to decide what the truth is in these matters?
Frank mentions "normalizing" lying. At least in America, the Supreme Court has said that the antiseptic to lies is telling the other side, all sides. Having fresh air becomes the antiseptic and that only happens when everyone can get a chance to tell their side. Shutting people up is not the answer. Would we want the government monitoring this thread?
-
So what do we do about the fact that many people believed (and probably still do) that Hilary was running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint? Is being allowed to disseminate outright fabrications free speech now? It is someone's opinion, so therefore it's ok?
Is it ok for people to peddle lies about the dangers of vaccines, endangering people's lives?
We have consumer protection agencies that make sure that toasters don't set fire to our houses because we don't expect everyone to be an expert in electrical engineering. But we allow financial institutions to run circles around people who are not financially literate and cite "caveat emptor" because, you know, "free market".
We don't live in small villages anymore. An idiot with a stupid idea can go viral online now. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing has changed.
-
So what do we do about the fact that many people believed (and probably still do) that Hilary was running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint? Is being allowed to disseminate outright fabrications free speech now? It is someone's opinion, so therefore it's ok?
.
I enjoyed watching AOC ripping Zuckerberg to shreds the other day - Slobodan will be excited for weeks!!
-
AOC and her ilk remind me of Marxists who after they gained power would shut up their competition by jailing or shooting them. I think free speech, despite its problems, is a better way. It's one of the most treasured of our guarantees of liberty in our constitution.
-
AOC and her ilk remind me of Marxists who after they gained power would shut up their competition by jailing or shooting them. I think free speech, despite its problems, is a better way. It's one of the most treasured of our guarantees of liberty in our constitution.
30 House Republicans pretty much used the same tactics yesterday in disrupting a legitimate closed hearing to obtain testimony in the Impeachment inquiry. Curious that this was an OK approach during the Benghazi hearings and Secretary Clinton (then Republican Trey Gowdy was eloquent in his defense of this approach). How soon they forget.
-
So what do we do about the fact that many people believed (and probably still do) that Hilary was running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint? Is being allowed to disseminate outright fabrications free speech now? It is someone's opinion, so therefore it's ok?
Is it ok for people to peddle lies about the dangers of vaccines, endangering people's lives?
We have consumer protection agencies that make sure that toasters don't set fire to our houses because we don't expect everyone to be an expert in electrical engineering. But we allow financial institutions to run circles around people who are not financially literate and cite "caveat emptor" because, you know, "free market".
We don't live in small villages anymore. An idiot with a stupid idea can go viral online now. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing has changed.
It may not be right and would be immoral, but it is legal and I would not want to live in a state where it is not!
It is a slippery slope allowing government to control speech, and it is a power I would never want the government to have.
-
AOC and her ilk remind me of Marxists who after they gained power would shut up their competition by jailing or shooting them. I think free speech, despite its problems, is a better way. It's one of the most treasured of our guarantees of liberty in our constitution.
'Information' is the main trade at this moment. With all its good and bad.
I think it is a good thing that companies that are main traders of information, like Facebook, are regulated in some way, for all they care about is making money. a very narrow perspective.
Some people are robbing banks for that same stimulans.
Only the government - being the representative body of the people as a nation, has a broader perspective that represents the well-being of the nation as a whole.
They can choose to regulate some of the not wanted side effects, as they choose to do with robbing banks.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with controling the spreading of 'alternative facts' also known as plain lies, that a lot people accept as true.
As in all these cases it is the weakness and strength of the democracy of that nation that will control this process to find a balance.
-
30 House Republicans pretty much used the same tactics yesterday in disrupting a legitimate closed hearing to obtain testimony in the Impeachment inquiry. Curious that this was an OK approach during the Benghazi hearings and Secretary Clinton (then Republican Trey Gowdy was eloquent in his defense of this approach). How soon they forget.
Was the Benghazi hearings behind closed doors, and were the Republican selectively leaking testimony that only support their side?
The fact is, Adam Schiff is one of the most corrupt and partisan members of congress, and the proceedings he is doing is a farce. There is no due process and a contortion of what is going on. So long as the hearings remain secret, I will not support anything nor believe any of the allegations. For one of the most serious proceedings that could occur in this country, it is a disgrace with how the Dems are handling it, and this is evident by the fact that at least two Dems in the senate have already stated, on Fox News nonetheless, that they would vote against the impeachment for the same reason.
-
'Information' is the main trade at this moment. With all its good and bad.
I think it is a good thing that companies that are main traders of information, like Facebook, are regulated in some way, for all they care about is making money. a very narrow perspective.
Some people are robbing banks for that same stimulans.
Only the government - being the representative body of the people as a nation, has a broader perspective that represents the well-being of the nation as a whole.
They can choose to regulate some of the not wanted side effects, as they choose to do with robbing banks.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with controling the spreading of 'alternative facts' also known as plain lies, that a lot people accept as true.
As in all these cases it is the weakness and strength of the democracy of that nation that will control this process to find a balance.
Any law that restricts speech will be struct down by the Supreme Court, as has been done in the past, with the exception of speech that can cause an immediate harm to a person's body, like causing a panic by yelling fire. This is especially the case if the statements are a parody and not easily believed like Rob's example of a HRC running a child porn ring.
"Deliberate misstatements of fact were at issue in Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988). Hustler magazine had stated that a prominent fundamentalist minister, Jerry Falwell, had drunken sex with his mother in an outhouse. Although the Court noted that "false statements of fact are particularly valueless," it drew a distinction between false statements not meant or likely to be believed by readers and other false statements of fact. The Court held that First Amendment prohibited awarding damages for false statements about public figures that cannot reasonably be believed. Satire and parody often involve false statements, and so long as persons would not take the statements to be true, they cannot be the basis for a tort action."
Now of course it have always been the case the one can sue over false allegations that are believable, and the court has up held this. The only change that I could see actually happening would be the court revisiting New York Times v Sullivan, which Clarence Thomas has been hinting about wanting to revisit. This case essential separates public figures from private figures when it comes to whether to not one can sue for libel. With private persons, one just needs to prove that damage was caused by a false statement. With public figure, one must also prove malice, which is very difficult.
Considering both Thomas's and the Cavanaugh's history (who's accusers childhood friend and main witness has recently come forward stating that not only did she find the story not credible in the least, but was threatened by associates with character assignation if she did not comply), I would not be surprised if this picked up steam.
-
30 House Republicans pretty much used the same tactics yesterday in disrupting a legitimate closed hearing to obtain testimony in the Impeachment inquiry. Curious that this was an OK approach during the Benghazi hearings and Secretary Clinton (then Republican Trey Gowdy was eloquent in his defense of this approach). How soon they forget.
Having a closed hearing and locking out the other party is not right regardless of which party is doing it. They're trying to impeach Trump by having a secret trial where only the prosecutor is allowed to make his case. That's un-American.
-
Was the Benghazi hearings behind closed doors, and were the Republican selectively leaking testimony that only support their side?
Yes and yest to both questions. For more details you can read this piece by a former senior advisor to the Republican controlled House Oversight Committee: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-trumps-defenders-now-approached-benghazi-back-then/600556/ Of course your response might be that he flipped to joining the Democratic party in 2017. The issue here is that the House has the right to conduct hearings, including Impeachment inquiries, according to their rules. The 'Trial' is in the Senate. This is no different from police interrogations or Grand Jury hearings that are conducted behind closed doors.
Three House committees are involved in the inquiry hearings and there are more than 45 Republican Congressmen who serve on those committees (close to 1/4 of all elected House Republicans). They hear all the testimony and have equal time to question witnesses. At some point all of this will turn into a public process before a formal vote on Impeachment is taken (if one ever is). Please explain to me how this is NOT a fair process.
The fact is, Adam Schiff is one of the most corrupt and partisan members of congress, and the proceedings he is doing is a farce. There is no due process and a contortion of what is going on. So long as the hearings remain secret, I will not support anything nor believe any of the allegations. For one of the most serious proceedings that could occur in this country, it is a disgrace with how the Dems are handling it, and this is evident by the fact that at least two Dems in the senate have already stated, on Fox News nonetheless, that they would vote against the impeachment for the same reason.
What evidence do you have that Congressman Schiff is corrupt? Is he partisan? Perhaps he is but he is no more partisan than Congressmen Jordan, Meadows, and a host of others on the Republican side. I don't watch Fox news and a Google search does not point me to the statement you made about two Senators who will vote against impeachment. It's pretty much irrelevant right now as we don't have any article(s) of impeachment for anyone to make an intelligent comment about. Furthermore, it would help me understand your thinking if you could elaborate on why the current approach is a disgrace.
-
Having a closed hearing and locking out the other party is not right regardless of which party is doing it. They're trying to impeach Trump by having the secret trial where only the prosecutor is allowed to make his case. That's un-American.
As noted in a subsequent post, over 45 Republican Congressmen serve on the three Committees that are conducting the impeachment inquiry. they hear all the testimony and have the right to question those testifying. How is this un-American? How are Grand Jury and police interrogation hearings un-American? How is the Constitution's statement empowering the House to set its own rules for such hearings un-American?
-
Yes and yest to both questions. For more details you can read this piece by a former senior advisor to the Republican controlled House Oversight Committee: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-trumps-defenders-now-approached-benghazi-back-then/600556/ Of course your response might be that he flipped to joining the Democratic party in 2017. The issue here is that the House has the right to conduct hearings, including Impeachment inquiries, according to their rules. The 'Trial' is in the Senate. This is no different from police interrogations or Grand Jury hearings that are conducted behind closed doors.
Three House committees are involved in the inquiry hearings and there are more than 45 Republican Congressmen who serve on those committees (close to 1/4 of all elected House Republicans). They hear all the testimony and have equal time to question witnesses. At some point all of this will turn into a public process before a formal vote on Impeachment is taken (if one ever is). Please explain to me how this is NOT a fair process.
What evidence do you have that Congressman Schiff is corrupt? Is he partisan? Perhaps he is but he is no more partisan than Congressmen Jordan, Meadows, and a host of others on the Republican side. I don't watch Fox news and a Google search does not point me to the statement you made about two Senators who will vote against impeachment. It's pretty much irrelevant right now as we don't have any article(s) of impeachment for anyone to make an intelligent comment about. Furthermore, it would help me understand your thinking if you could elaborate on why the current approach is a disgrace.
Well, I was not aware that the Benghazi hearings were in secret as well, which I would also call a disgrace.
Schiff made up a parody of the phone call and read that aloud to congress in front of reporters without stating it was a parody. That was highly partisan and lying to congress in an official hearing, which is illegal. On top of that, his staff met with the whistle blower and he lied about this as well, more then once. And the fact that this hearing is in secret is scary; these are criminal charges they are suggesting the President is guilty of and it should be in the open.
I dont watch Fox news either, only read visit the website and others as well. I can not find the exact link, but two weeks ago it was stated that a couple lf the Dems in the Senate do not support this due to the secrecy. If the Dems in the house are so sure they have something, I want to see a vote, and then I will start taking the whole thing seriously.
To quote you from another thread, "To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo: Democracy and truth die in darkness"
-
As noted in a subsequent post, over 45 Republican Congressmen serve on the three Committees that are conducting the impeachment inquiry. they hear all the testimony and have the right to question those testifying. How is this un-American? How are Grand Jury and police interrogation hearings un-American? How is the Constitution's statement empowering the House to set its own rules for such hearings un-American?
If Schiff wasn't selectively leaking information and repeatably lying, it may not be an issue, but he is.
-
Getting back to Alan's main point, if you have not yet listened to Zuckerberg's speech at Georgetown, I would recommend you do. It was quite inspiring and I have to give him credit for standing up to China. Unlike Google and others, Zuckerberg refused to modify Facebook for China even though doing so ensured he would loose significant profits.
It seems like Zuckerberg does have the convictions of his principles, unlike Adam Silver or LeBron James.
-
Joe, your comments on schiff are right on. He's a sleaze. His committee, Intelligence, is not the right committee to investigate impeachment. That's for the Judiciary Committee run by Nadler. But he dropped the ball. Pelosi doesn't trust him. So she gave it to Schiff. He slithers better.
-
Joe, your comments on schiff are right on. He's a sleaze. His committee, Intelligence, is not the right committee to investigate impeachment. That's for the Judiciary Committee run by Nadler. But he dropped the ball. Pelosi doesn't trust him. So she gave it to Schiff. He slithers better.
We could always give it to the Ranking Minority member, Devin Nunes. His exemplary behavior of running right to the White House for talking points when the President's Russia problem was first heating up is worth studying.
What information do you have that Congressman Schiff is a sleaze? You and others object to personal name calling here on LuLa, should not you have the same standard for those in public life?
-
+1
-
As noted in a subsequent post, over 45 Republican Congressmen serve on the three Committees that are conducting the impeachment inquiry. they hear all the testimony and have the right to question those testifying. How is this un-American? How are Grand Jury and police interrogation hearings un-American? How is the Constitution's statement empowering the House to set its own rules for such hearings un-American?
The House of Representatives can do whatever it wants. But when it's investigating to impeach the President of the United States, the people expect a fair and balanced inquiry. Otherwise it's going to appear for what is is - a political lynching.
-
More of the left trying to do away with free speech:
Ocasio-Cortez, Democrats Skewered After Embarrassing Attacks On Zuckerberg
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-democrats-skewered-after-embarrassing-attacks-on-zuckerberg (https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-democrats-skewered-after-embarrassing-attacks-on-zuckerberg)
-
As I understand it from way up here in the Great White North, what we're seeing is not a trial. It's an investigation.
-
We could always give it to the Ranking Minority member, Devin Nunes. His exemplary behavior of running right to the White House for talking points when the President's Russia problem was first heating up is worth studying.
What information do you have that Congressman Schiff is a sleaze? You and others object to personal name calling here on LuLa, should not you have the same standard for those in public life?
I didn't see you complain when people here called Trump a traitor. An act of treason is punishable by death in the US. Schiff is getting off easy being called just a sleaze.
-
As I understand it from way up here in the Great White North, what we're seeing is not a trial. It's an investigation.
The investigation has been going on since before the election. A witch hunt is a better description.
-
The investigation has been going on since before the election. A witch hunt is a better description.
If you're gonna call it that, you have to capitalize it: "Witch Hunt"
-
If you're gonna call it that, you have to capitalize it: "Witch Hunt"
??
-
The House of Representatives can do whatever it wants. But when it's investigating to impeach the President of the United States, the people expect a fair and balanced inquiry. Otherwise it's going to appear for what is is - a political lynching.
There are 47 Republican House members participating in the impeachment inquiry.
-
(Peter)If you're gonna call it that, you have to capitalize it: "Witch Hunt"
??
Trump always capitalizes it. Don't you read his tweets? He capitalizes lots of unusual things. Things like "Elected"...
-
Couldn't resist:
-
Couldn't resist:
“Big Mouth” is a post title. It’s supposed to be capitalized.
-
“Big Mouth” is a post title. It’s supposed to be capitalized.
Capitalising every word in a headline (or, by analogy, a topic title) is an American habit; we don't use it in the UK.
Jeremy
-
“Big Mouth” is a post title. It’s supposed to be capitalized.
Not my point. Just a funny juxtaposition between "free speech" and "big mouth."
-
I think we beat this to death. I'm signing off to get on with life. Carry on. :)
-
Person 1: "Schiff is a sleaze."
Person 2: "Evidence?"
Person 1: "I am a conservative. I don't need no stinking evidence."
-
Person 1: "Schiff is a sleaze."
Person 2: "Evidence?"
Person 1: "I am a conservative. I don't need no stinking evidence."
Evidence?
-
Evidence?
Evidence, as Boris and Mr T demonstrate every day, is where one says that it is.
;-)
-
If Schiff wasn't selectively leaking information and repeatably lying, it may not be an issue, but he is.
If you do not like lies, then you must despise the Bone Spur Boy. And what Schiff lies? And with 40+ Republicans on those committees, what's to leak? And transcripts have been--or will soon be--released. And the hearings will soon be public. So don't be more of a dope than you have to.
-
If you do not like lies, then you must despise the Bone Spur Boy. And what Schiff lies? And with 40+ Republicans on those committees, what's to leak? And transcripts have been--or will soon be--released. And the hearings will soon be public. So don't be more of a dope than you have to.
Awww Peter, thank you so much for letting me know how much of a dope I am.
You are aware that it is against forum policies to name call other members correct?
-
Awww Peter, thank you so much for letting me know how much of a dope I am.
You are aware that it is against forum policies to name call other members correct?
There's going to be a bunch of people soon standing in the corner having to write a hundred times on the blackboard: "I will be polite to my fellow posters. I will be polite to my fellow posters..." :)
-
So don't be more of a dope than you have to.
Unacceptable. Behave. Name-calling signifies only lack of coherent argument.
Jeremy
-
Having a closed hearing and locking out the other party is not right regardless of which party is doing it. They're trying to impeach Trump by having a secret trial where only the prosecutor is allowed to make his case. That's un-American.
There are 40-some Republicans on the three committees of the impeachment inquiry--and this is "locking out?" And this is, in essence, a grand jury process where, YES, only the prosecutor makes their case as has always been true. It's not a trial, guilty/not guilty, it's a determination if there is enough evidence to charge the person and bring him to trial where guilty/not guilty will be decided.
It's astounding and depressing how many people are totally ignorant of the constitution and the workings of the legal system.
-
It's astounding and depressing how many people are totally ignorant of the constitution and the workings of the legal system.
Some even become President. Now there's a depressing thought...
-
Unacceptable. Behave. Name-calling signifies only lack of coherent argument.
Jeremy
Agreed. Especially as it applies to politicians.
-
There are 40-some Republicans on the three committees of the impeachment inquiry--and this is "locking out?" And this is, in essence, a grand jury process where, YES, only the prosecutor makes their case as has always been true. It's not a trial, guilty/not guilty, it's a determination if there is enough evidence to charge the person and bring him to trial where guilty/not guilty will be decided.
It's astounding and depressing how many people are totally ignorant of the constitution and the workings of the legal system.
The founders of the Constitution wanted to have an open process for a major event like impeachment. How else could you convince Americans that the process was fair and not just politics as usual? The pressure of that concept has been borne out as Pelosi had a vote to open the process. Otherwise she'd be called a Commissar that's running a Star Chamber trial like in the old days of the Soviet Union.
Impeachment is NOT a grand jury. Nothing of the sort. That's just the anti-Trump media trying to convince the world that's what it is to stop any defense of Trump which Americans would ordinarily expect in a fair hearing. The press and the Democrats just wanted to push the impeachment through without a hearing. You bought their fake goods. But most voters aren't going to buy tainted stuff. They know a setup when they see one.