Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: John Camp on June 22, 2020, 09:51:10 pm
-
They seem to do a lot of serious damage, and not much good -- they do provide *some* people with a harmless outlet for their cat photos or their knitting algorithms, but generally, they seem to spend a lot of time inflicting damage on the culture.
How would you do that, get rid of them? Quite simple, really. The US has two kinds of "media" -- non-social, in which the owners are responsible for content; and social, which are really derived from old laws primarily dealing with telephones, which held that the phone companies weren't responsible for what people said on their system. Facebook and other media companies managed to get themselves classified under the telephonic laws, so that it Person A libels or slanders Person B, well, it ain't *their* fault. Bullshit. Facebook ain't a telephone. In my view, people who are libeled or slandered on it should be able to sue, just as they can sue a newspaper or a network for a content that appears on those media. Simply reclassifying the would require that Facebook get really serious about monitoring their forums, or get driven into bankruptcy with thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lawsuits. I think the reclassification would eventually cost Facebook a ton of money, but so what, not my problem.
-
They seem to do a lot of serious damage, and not much good -- they do provide *some* people with a harmless outlet for their cat photos or their knitting algorithms, but generally, they seem to spend a lot of time inflicting damage on the culture.
How would you do that, get rid of them? Quite simple, really. The US has two kinds of "media" -- non-social, in which the owners are responsible for content; and social, which are really derived from old laws primarily dealing with telephones, which held that the phone companies weren't responsible for what people said on their system. Facebook and other media companies managed to get themselves classified under the telephonic laws, so that it Person A libels or slanders Person B, well, it ain't *their* fault. Bullshit. Facebook ain't a telephone. In my view, people who are libeled or slandered on it should be able to sue, just as they can sue a newspaper or a network for a content that appears on those media. Simply reclassifying the would require that Facebook get really serious about monitoring their forums, or get driven into bankruptcy with thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lawsuits. I think the reclassification would eventually cost Facebook a ton of money, but so what, not my problem.
If you did that, you'd probably have to have the law apply to LuLa and all other fora, too. Maybe blog and web page hosting companies.
Jim
-
If you did that, you'd probably have to have the law apply to LuLa and all other fora, too. Maybe blog and web page hosting companies.
Jim
That's true. Consider all the personal insults that occur on the "PLAYPEN: Covid-19-Everything Political" thread. It's sometimes amusing, though. ;D
-
America isn't ready to revoke the 1st Amendment.
-
They seem to do a lot of serious damage, and not much good -- they do provide *some* people with a harmless outlet for their cat photos or their knitting algorithms, but generally, they seem to spend a lot of time inflicting damage on the culture.
How would you do that, get rid of them? Quite simple, really. The US has two kinds of "media" -- non-social, in which the owners are responsible for content; and social, which are really derived from old laws primarily dealing with telephones, which held that the phone companies weren't responsible for what people said on their system. Facebook and other media companies managed to get themselves classified under the telephonic laws, so that it Person A libels or slanders Person B, well, it ain't *their* fault. Bullshit. Facebook ain't a telephone. In my view, people who are libeled or slandered on it should be able to sue, just as they can sue a newspaper or a network for a content that appears on those media. Simply reclassifying the would require that Facebook get really serious about monitoring their forums, or get driven into bankruptcy with thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lawsuits. I think the reclassification would eventually cost Facebook a ton of money, but so what, not my problem.
I think it's worth thinking about how they operate. All the surveys I read say that a large percentage of the population gets their "news" from social media. Social media have evolved way past private conversations, so maybe the current legal framework is not adequate to the task.
When social media consists of people talking to each other, then it does resembles a phone call. This forum is an example of that, I'd say. Except even then Facebook censors what is permitted on their site. I remember controversies about photographs depicting nudity. So in that respect, the conversations are not really like a private phone call, they're more like a publication.
The traditional press could be biased of course, but it was pretty difficult to hide the bias. You could find out who owned a newspaper, study the content and publish your findings about it. No one ever thought that Soviet newspapers were really a free press. Nobody was fooled. In Facebook's case during the last US election, it has been shown that they were co-opted by large numbers of phoney users whose origins were very difficult to trace and very much fit the definition of propaganda. If people are getting their current event information from an entity that has no control over its sources and no operating guidelines on how to operate in the media sphere, that's not doing public discourse any good.
There used to be rules about not letting any one entity get too powerful. There were good reasons for that.
-
America isn't ready to revoke the 1st Amendment.
When it was enacted nobody had access to the internet.
-
the only 'social media' site I am on is LinkedIn and I've gotten a couple of consulting jobs as a result. Don't have a Facebook or Twitter account and do not intend to.
-
I think it's worth thinking about how they operate. All the surveys I read say that a large percentage of the population gets their "news" from social media. Social media have evolved way past private conversations, so maybe the current legal framework is not adequate to the task.
When social media consists of people talking to each other, then it does resembles a phone call. This forum is an example of that, I'd say. Except even then Facebook censors what is permitted on their site. I remember controversies about photographs depicting nudity. So in that respect, the conversations are not really like a private phone call, they're more like a publication.
The traditional press could be biased of course, but it was pretty difficult to hide the bias. You could find out who owned a newspaper, study the content and publish your findings about it. No one ever thought that Soviet newspapers were really a free press. Nobody was fooled. In Facebook's case during the last US election, it has been shown that they were co-opted by large numbers of phoney users whose origins were very difficult to trace and very much fit the definition of propaganda. If people are getting their current event information from an entity that has no control over its sources and no operating guidelines on how to operate in the media sphere, that's not doing public discourse any good.
There used to be rules about not letting any one entity get too powerful. There were good reasons for that.
A newspaper is not like a social media. Papers have full control of what gets printed. The news, opinions, letters to the editor, etc. The public cannot "print" what they want. That's unlike a social media like Facebook, Twitter, and even LuLa for the most part. Letting everyone's opinion "fly" unimpeded is the best kind of free speech there is. It's the only kind that is impervious to someone shutting it down. After all, who's going to be the gatekeeper? Would you want me deciding whether your ideas should be posted here? Would you want me deciding whether you're telling the "truth" or not? :)
Also, you can't sue anyone for opinions which is in essence biased. You can only sue for defaming someone for libel. Even then, that only applies to regular people not famous people or people in politics.
-
Could be that the deciding push to limit the power and influence of Facebook will come from Europe, and not only from spreading the political disinformation but also because of its sheer power and dominance of social media.
Germany has been at the forefront of a global backlash against Facebook, which faces increasing criticism that it is being used to spread political disinformation.
The country’s antitrust watchdog had objected in particular to how Facebook pools data on people from third-party apps - including its own WhatsApp and Instagram - and online tracking of people who do not have accounts via Facebook “like” or “share” buttons.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-germany/top-german-court-reimposes-data-curbs-on-facebook-idUSKBN23U2P4?il=0
-
A newspaper is not like a social media. Papers have full control of what gets printed. The news, opinions, letters to the editor, etc. The public cannot "print" what they want. That's unlike a social media like Facebook, Twitter, and even LuLa for the most part. Letting everyone's opinion "fly" unimpeded is the best kind of free speech there is. It's the only kind that is impervious to someone shutting it down. After all, who's going to be the gatekeeper? Would you want me deciding whether your ideas should be posted here? Would you want me deciding whether you're telling the "truth" or not? :)
Also, you can't sue anyone for opinions which is in essence biased. You can only sue for defaming someone for libel. Even then, that only applies to regular people not famous people or people in politics.
So far as personal opinion goes, I don't disagree in principle. But if the delivery and usage looks more and more like journalism, and the way Facebook pushes news onto people's feeds comes damn close, then it's not as clear cut as you paint.
Remember when people were upset when a newspaper printed a correction on page 32 at the bottom of the page? Imagine if corrections are never printed and the original lie remains online forever. I don't think that pretending that the world hasn't changed will wash for long. There is still content online about Pizzagate. There are many web sites made to look like small-town newspaper sites that are owned and managed by central data content managers with agendas to push.
Has there ever been a case where a contributor on FB or any other social media was sued by someone for libel or out and out lying?
Snake oil salesmen could only fool a few people at a time in small towns and had to work at it. Nowadays propaganda machines can run circles around any online watchdogs and can do real harm. Adopting caveat emptor sounds good in theory at first glance but what happens when the cost of bad info becomes widespread. A society has the right to protect itself.
OTOH, maybe it is sorting itself out. Hardly anyone I know has the stomach for social media, they treat it largely as a joke already, like the National Enquirer, when it comes to news and public affairs anyway. It's still ok for keeping in touch with family or some wider community. Twitter, for example, is becoming an ideal marketing tool for the sex industry.
Anyway, just to be snarky about it, I know exactly how to convince people that social media needs to be controlled. Just have pro-choice and ERA activists start to make really heavy use of social media to push their agenda. Then wait for the reaction, it won't be far behind. It wasn't that long ago that the FBI was tracking rock and roll bands. ;)
-
So far as personal opinion goes, I don't disagree in principle. But if the delivery and usage looks more and more like journalism, and the way Facebook pushes news onto people's feeds comes damn close, then it's not as clear cut as you paint.
Remember when people were upset when a newspaper printed a correction on page 32 at the bottom of the page? Imagine if corrections are never printed and the original lie remains online forever. I don't think that pretending that the world hasn't changed will wash for long. There is still content online about Pizzagate. There are many web sites made to look like small-town newspaper sites that are owned and managed by central data content managers with agendas to push.
Has there ever been a case where a contributor on FB or any other social media was sued by someone for libel or out and out lying?
Snake oil salesmen could only fool a few people at a time in small towns and had to work at it. Nowadays propaganda machines can run circles around any online watchdogs and can do real harm.
That's a slippery slope.
OTOH, maybe it is sorting itself out. Hardly anyone I know has the stomach for social media, they treat it largely as a joke already, like the National Enquirer, when it comes to news and public affairs anyway. It's still ok for keeping in touch with family or some wider community. Twitter, for example, is becoming an ideal marketing tool for the sex industry.
Anyway, just to be snarky about it, I know exactly how to convince people that social media needs to be controlled. Just have pro-choice and ERA activists start to make really heavy use of social media to push their agenda. Then wait for the reaction, it won't be far behind. It wasn't that long ago that the FBI was tracking rock and roll bands. ;)
That's a slippery slope. The best balance is to leave posts to all comers. That way, everyone gets their bias and opinions posted and let the readers decide.
I think the problem right now is that social media in the U.S. enjoys Congressional protection against lawsuits. It was given to them to encourage the free interchange of ideas. However, if Twitter and others are going to ban certain ideas, then their right to protection is no longer valid. Of course, they say they have a social responsibility to ban certain "news" as being violent or other some such reason. But the truth is they're being political and banning only certain news they disagree with defeating the whole point of the Congressional protection and encouragement of free exchange of ideas. Twitter and others like them can't have it both ways.
-
One of the major problems is anonymity. Global entities are free to create an infinite number of accounts on social media and say whatever they like. "Free speech" writ large, to the greater detriment.
If people aren't held responsible for what they post, they'll post crap. Judging by history, it appears to be human nature. For example, anyone remember Citizens Band radio? It arrived with great promise to unify us all. After about two years, the entire enterprise imploded due to what was essentially audio vandalism.
On the other hand, people value privacy and anonymity, and rightly so.
Technology is often a two-edged sword. Absent regulation of some kind, it'll just get worse.
-
Letting everyone's opinion "fly" unimpeded
Like vomit. The internet is the bucket that catches all of it.
-
That's a slippery slope. The best balance is to leave posts to all comers. That way, everyone gets their bias and opinions posted and let the readers decide.
I think the problem right now is that social media in the U.S. enjoys Congressional protection against lawsuits. It was given to them to encourage the free interchange of ideas. However, if Twitter and others are going to ban certain ideas, then their right to protection is no longer valid. Of course, they say they have a social responsibility to ban certain "news" as being violent or other some such reason. But the truth is they're being political and banning only certain news they disagree with defeating the whole point of the Congressional protection and encouragement of free exchange of ideas. Twitter and others like them can't have it both ways.
But if they are private companies and not public media, why shouldn't they be allowed to only give voice only to opinions that they agree with?
Why should Facebook feel it necessary to allow all viewpoints? Is there something forcing them to?
Does the First Amendment even apply if they are simply a collection of private bulletin boards and not the public press? You can't have it both ways.
-
But if they are private companies and not public media, why shouldn't they be allowed to only give voice only to opinions that they agree with?
Why should Facebook feel it necessary to allow all viewpoints? Is there something forcing them to?
Does the First Amendment even apply if they are simply a collection of private bulletin boards and not the public press? You can't have it both ways.
It's a thorny issue. I agree that Facebook should do what they like and ban what they want being a private concern. However, there are a few issues that are different than in the case of a private newspaper. First, the airways belong to everyone. The government (people) own them and a license is granted, at least in the case of radio and TV stations. Also, in order to stimulate the free exchange of ideas, Congress passed legislation protecting Facebook and other like them from lawsuits for what is transmitted to encourage that free exchange of ideas. If they're going to limit that speech to only those they agree with, why should they be granted protection if they insist on censoring? Frankly, I think the best way to handle this is for the public to stop using sites who play games. The Left has learned this. They force corporations to favor their views. If a big number of people stop using their services, it would be in their interest to stay out of the censorship business and just be a transmission wire just like a telephone company's phone wire. Don't listen in. Don't censor.
-
John, are you aware that you just agreed with Trump?
-
First, the airways belong to everyone.
Alan, even though "the airways belong to everyone", much of it has been auctioned off by the governments to commercial entities who use it to make profits. Anyway, much of the social media don't depend on the airways. Only cell data and ISPs that transmit wirelessly are using the "airways". The Internet is largely fibre nowadays. In fact, you could argue that all data is transmitted at some point by fibre optics, which is not "the airways". Read "Flash Boys" by Michael Lewis to learn how this affects us all.
I agree that part of the policing is up to the end user. I don't use Facebook or Twitter for the reasons you outlined.
-
John, are you aware that you just agreed with Trump?
Please explain.
-
Please explain.
The essence of the ongoing debate is the nature of the social media: are they utilities, like telephone or electricity, or are they publishers, like newspapers or tv. So far, they've been treated as utilities, thus shielding them from legal liability for posted material on their sites.
However, the moment they started editorializing and censoring the content on their platforms, they opened the door to be considered as publishers, thus legally responsible for the content.
Trump was pissed off that Twitter started editorializing his tweets, adding warnings and disclaimers to them, and signed an executive order that would strip them of the legal shield as utilities.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html
-
The essence of the ongoing debate is the nature of the social media: are they utilities, like telephone or electricity, or are they publishers, like newspapers or tv. So far, they've been treated as utilities, thus shielding them from legal liability for posted material on their sites.
However, the moment they started editorializing and censoring the content on their platforms, they opened the door to be considered as publishers, thus legally responsible for the content.
Trump was pissed off that Twitter started editorializing his tweets, adding warnings and disclaimers to them, and signed an executive order that would strip them of the legal shield as utilities.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html
Of course the question is whether Trump's action to encourage free speech from people who Twitter takes away free speech from the Twitter owners in the process.
-
if you want to prohibit social media - you also want to prohibit internet ( access)
It is what some dicators do when it turns against them.
You have to accept social media as something from today with the technology of today.
I think the anonymity of postings is indeed an issue; the same issue we see with Bitcoins and SPAM...
probably that would diminish a lot of crap and criminality.
The social companies are balancing between the freedom of speach, the law, and their imago.
It is a natural balance it think, as long there are enough companies to concur.
Traditional media has had many centuries to balance the way they publish; social media is only 20 years old. Needs time to evolve.
...
Trump was pissed off that Twitter started editorializing his tweets, adding warnings and disclaimers to them, and signed an executive order that would strip them of the legal shield as utilities.
a typical next day reaction from a political narcist that wants to be reelected. ( would he have reacted if it concerned somebody else?)
a man with NO plan... (only one)
.. Would you want me deciding whether your ideas should be posted here? Would you want me deciding whether you're telling the "truth" or not? :)
...
NO!, rather your wife... ;)
-
if you want to prohibit social media - you also want to prohibit internet ( access)
It is what some dicators do when it turns against them.
You have to accept social media as something from today with the technology of today.
I think the anonymity of postings is indeed an issue; the same issue we see with Bitcoins and SPAM...
probably that would diminish a lot of crap and criminality.
The social companies are balancing between the freedom of speach, the law, and their imago.
It is a natural balance it think, as long there are enough companies to concur.
Traditional media has had many centuries to balance the way they publish; social media is only 20 years old. Needs time to evolve.
a typical next day reaction from a narcist political that wants to be reelected.
a man with NO plan, but...
NO!, rather your wife... ;)
American social media is protected by law if not my wife. Not so in your country or Europe in general. Google and others have been fined for not imposing censorship on their sites. I find it strange that you should be so condemning of Trump or anything we do here along that line when your government censors free speech regularly.
-
The essence of the ongoing debate is the nature of the social media: are they utilities, like telephone or electricity, or are they publishers, like newspapers or tv.
This excludes the possibilities of being both, or neither, or something else entirely. Binary either/or arguments are the preferred choice of those with a black and white view of the world. Of course, viewing the world as black or white also presents itself in other ways that make living in a connected world more difficult and uglier.
-
This excludes the possibilities of being both, or neither, or something else entirely. Binary either/or arguments are the preferred choice of those with a black and white view of the world. Of course, viewing the world as black or white also presents itself in other ways that make living in a connected world more difficult and uglier.
The NY Times, Washington Post and other newspapers publish newspapers and are on-line. With printed newspapers, they have complete editorial control as to what's published. With on-line posts, it varies. The WP pretty much allows everything to be posted; all the sleaze and vomit posters can throw up. The NYT reviews your post and if approved will allow its posting. I don't know how the law handles this situation whether the online portion is handled as a publisher or social media. Can the paper be sued but not their on-line portion? Does anyone know?
-
Can the paper be sued but not their on-line portion? Does anyone know?
Is there someone that cares? If there is, I guess it would depend on their motivation and desired outcome. The next step would be to consult an attorney willing to offer advice and opinion on the likelihood of success based on the motivation and desired result.
Lawsuits are often initiated or threatened by those with deep pockets as an intimidation tactic to create fear and/or a chilling effect. Or sometimes, as a way of avoiding paying what is owed or breaking a contract.
-
Slobo encapsulated what I was saying -- are the social media outlets to be considered utilities or are they publishers? I think it's obvious that they've become publishers, it's just that they don't attempt to control their writers (reporters, authors, whatever they are.) This has led to very serious societal problems, including rampant racism, politicians who deliberately and widely spread discredited conspiracy theories, foreign intervention in our elections, vicious attacks on individuals who have become unpopular for various reasons, widespread efforts to exploit (monetarily and politically) the naive and stupid, and so on. Part of the reason I posted the original comment was a story I read about a public health official who wanted Californians to wear masks. Somebody who opposed masks on ideological grounds posted her personal phone number and email addresses on rightwing sites, and the woman got jammed up with hate mails and calls.
Making social media outlets into publishers wouldn't be outright censorship, it would simply make those outlets responsible for what they put up, or allow people to put up. Think of it as a jobs program for underemployed people -- Facebook alone would have to hire tens of thousands of people to monitor their spaces. You could even soften it a bit -- once something libelous is published, they have three days or a week to take it down without jeopardy. Or you could say that somebody would have to complain about content before it had to be taken down. I also think all postings should come from verified, non-robotic email addresses.
To Slobo -- I'm not agreeing with Trump. He's at war with Twitter for a specific reason. I think Twitter could leave all of his posts up, as long as they don't create for Twitter a legal liability. Or, they could even leave up those that do create a legal liability, if they want to take a chance on going to court.
To Alan -- you said, "Also, you can't sue anyone for opinions which is in essence biased. You can only sue for defaming someone for libel. Even then, that only applies to regular people not famous people or people in politics." I think you have the last part of that exactly backwards. Politicians and other celebrities who seek public notice are somewhat restricted in their ability to sue ordinary people for their commentaries, not the other way around. If a celebrity says "Alan acted like an asshole," you can sue him. If you say a celebrity "acted like an asshole," there's a very good chance that the courts would throw our his lawsuit on the grounds that he seeks publicity and he has to take the bad with the good. I think things are somewhat different in Europe and the UK.
-
John, That's what I meant. People call politicians Nazis, but they can't sue. As an aside, a lot of people have called me n asshole but I don't think I can sue. That's an opinion, not libel. Libel would be more like calling someone a crook who stole from his boss's company when there's no proof and damaging that personal reputation so he couldn't get a job. It could be someone famous too who could then sue as some have sued newspapers. But calling someone a jerk or nasty is just opinion and not sueable. Otherwise everyone here could be suing everyone else here. :)
-
John, That's what I meant. People call politicians Nazis, but they can't sue. As an aside, a lot of people have called me n asshole but I don't think I can sue. That's an opinion, not libel. Libel would be more like calling someone a crook who stole from his boss's company when there's no proof and damaging that personal reputation so he couldn't get a job. It could be someone famous too who could then sue as some have sued newspapers. But calling someone a jerk or nasty is just opinion and not sueable. Otherwise everyone here could be suing everyone else here. :)
Cool.
-
American social media is protected by law if not my wife. Not so in your country or Europe in general. Google and others have been fined for not imposing censorship on their sites. I find it strange that you should be so condemning of Trump or anything we do here along that line when your government censors free speech regularly.
My guess is that you're characterizing what European countries did (or might do) in a way that suits your point but that is not reality. I may be wrong, of course, but that's my guess.
But the point here is that even if countries enact regulations to control what social media monopolies do in an effort to correct their negative behaviours, I don't see how that impedes free speech. There are still newspapers, magazines, podcasts, web sites, etc., I'm sure free speech will survive. It's not as if Facebook and Twitter and the like are the guardians of people's rights. I think that's going a little far.
-
There is now an uproar about different type of publishing - advertising and selling black T-shirts with all kinds of PC or nonPC signs. Available on Walmart.com.
Like:
(https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/walmart-shirt-3-1.jpg?quality=85&strip=all)
(https://vangogh.teespring.com/v3/image/6v-QRShr6gpZo-Zte-tu6CuQ-3Y/480/560.jpg)
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.350995621.1007/ra,unisex_tshirt,x1860,101010:01c5ca27c6,front-c,336,366,600,600-bg,f8f8f8.jpg)
-
dogs lives matter... ai ai
-
...
-
Stop.
-
Facebook, Google, Twitter and any other social media platform should be regulated as utilities. Right now, they support posting angry and offensive content as long as it is left leaning or socialist. BLM and Antifa are violet hate groups bent on destroying the nuclear family, Christianity and our government. (Read their websites if you don't believe me). Yet, they censor our President and conservative political and social groups.They allow Planned Parenthood yet remove Pro Life posts. It's terrible. When they are caught, they blame the "algorithm"! This a lie as it is always conservative posts being taken down. It so obvious that they have an agenda and if you are not in agreement with their agenda, you are attacked.
They should be regulated to allow differing view points, even those that are not in alignment with their globalist socialist perspective.
Regards,
Bud James
-
My guess is that you're characterizing what European countries did (or might do) in a way that suits your point but that is not reality. I may be wrong, of course, but that's my guess.
But the point here is that even if countries enact regulations to control what social media monopolies do in an effort to correct their negative behaviours, I don't see how that impedes free speech. There are still newspapers, magazines, podcasts, web sites, etc., I'm sure free speech will survive. It's not as if Facebook and Twitter and the like are the guardians of people's rights. I think that's going a little far.
I can't publish a newspaper. And the NY Times blocks automatic posting of my comments to their on-line paper. But an on-line forum like Twitter or Facebook (neither of which I use), allows me to state my point just as we do here. Of course here, we are constricted by what we say based on what a moderator accepts. He determines negative behavior. That's OK in a private site. But as a society, who decides what is negative behavior in a public forum? You? Me? In any case, there's a difference between negative behavior and free speech. You can't punch someone as an expression of free speech. But you have to be able to say nasty things otherwise you don;t have free speech. You don;t need protection of speech that is accepted by the majority. They're the majority. Protection is afforded to minority speech that isn't accepted by most people. You're protecting minority speech rights. When government restrict speech, and punishes you if you leave their guidelines, that acts to silence free speech. People are afraid to speak. The discourages the free interchange of ideas, especially those that are new, different, or at the edge. Whether you agree with Black Lives Matter, the KKK, the Nazi party, etc, these organizations are allowed to operate freely in the USA as long as they don't act violently. They can march and say whatever they want. I doubt if they'd be legal in many European nations.
-
Facebook, Google, Twitter and any other social media platform should be regulated as utilities. Right now, they support posting angry and offensive content as long as it is left leaning or socialist. BLM and Antifa are violet hate groups bent on destroying the nuclear family, Christianity and our government. (Read their websites if you don't believe me). Yet, they censor our President and conservative political and social groups.They allow Planned Parenthood yet remove Pro Life posts. It's terrible. When they are caught, they blame the "algorithm"! This a lie as it is always conservative posts being taken down. It so obvious that they have an agenda and if you are not in agreement with their agenda, you are attacked.
They should be regulated to allow differing view points, even those that are not in alignment with their globalist socialist perspective.
Regards,
Bud James
I agree with you Bud. These sites should let all speech be spoken. Interestingly, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg agreed. He said he didn't want Facebook to do what Twitter did getting into political debate. Then he got so much static, a lot from his own organization's employees, that he modified and backed off that position. The left has alway controlled the media and while they claim they're for free speech, it's really their speech they want freely expressed. They have always been in favor of silencing conservative and Republican speech.
This thing is going to wind up in the Supreme Court whether a utility can impose its own rules as to what's spoken. For example, could a utility like phone company shut down telephone service to an organization who's philosophy they disagree with? I doubt it. That sounds unconstitutional. So the question will become can a online utility shut down messages it determines is not in accordance with it's standards? Congress may have to clarify it in legislation. Of course, the election will be over before this get settled. So silencing Trump, the right and conservative thought will continue hot and heavy through November.
-
Facebook, Google, Twitter and any other social media platform should be regulated as utilities. Right now, they support posting angry and offensive content as long as it is left leaning or socialist. BLM and Antifa are violet hate groups bent on destroying the nuclear family, Christianity and our government. (Read their websites if you don't believe me). Yet, they censor our President and conservative political and social groups.They allow Planned Parenthood yet remove Pro Life posts. It's terrible. When they are caught, they blame the "algorithm"! This a lie as it is always conservative posts being taken down. It so obvious that they have an agenda and if you are not in agreement with their agenda, you are attacked.
They should be regulated to allow differing view points, even those that are not in alignment with their globalist socialist perspective.
Regards,
Bud James
Amen, brother!
-
There is now an uproar about different type of publishing - advertising and selling black T-shirts with all kinds of PC or nonPC signs.
I follow the news closely and haven't seen an "uproar" over t-shirts, but I may have missed it. Do you have a link?
-
Amen, brother!
You seem to be suggesting that people with those beliefs are prevented from posting in those areas. Is this actually true?
It could be that people with those beliefs simply don't choose to post there. Or, maybe there aren't that many in the first place.
If you're claiming discrimination, it needs to be proven.
The line about the President being censored was truly hilarious, however. I suspect his supporters and fellow travellers wish he would shut up more.
-
I follow the news closely and haven't seen an "uproar" over t-shirts, but I may have missed it. Do you have a link?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-walmart-canada-under-fire-for-selling-all-lives-matter-t-shirts/
https://www.tmz.com/2020/06/24/walmart-all-lives-matter-t-shirt-blm/
-
Facebook, Google, Twitter and any other social media platform should be regulated as utilities. Right now, they support posting angry and offensive content as long as it is left leaning or socialist. BLM and Antifa are violet hate groups bent on destroying the nuclear family, Christianity and our government. (Read their websites if you don't believe me). Yet, they censor our President and conservative political and social groups.They allow Planned Parenthood yet remove Pro Life posts. It's terrible. When they are caught, they blame the "algorithm"! This a lie as it is always conservative posts being taken down. It so obvious that they have an agenda and if you are not in agreement with their agenda, you are attacked.
They should be regulated to allow differing view points, even those that are not in alignment with their globalist socialist perspective.
Regards,
Bud James
Amen, brother!
An A+ example of how ideology corrupts critical thinking and reasoning in human beings. All ideology. Every ideology of every description.
In digital imaging terms, ideologies seek to drag a persons reasoning skills from 16-bit down towards 1-bit processing. They make things that are complex appear simple and easy to digest. It's often fear based and always aimed at providing emotional comfort rather than intellectual enlightenment.
-
An A+ example of how ideology corrupts critical thinking and reasoning in human beings...
A lofty proclamation, but I would be rather interested in your "critical thinking and reasoning" behind it.
-
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-walmart-canada-under-fire-for-selling-all-lives-matter-t-shirts/
https://www.tmz.com/2020/06/24/walmart-all-lives-matter-t-shirt-blm/
Not to mention that people are losing decades-old jobs for merely uttering "All lives matter."
-
Not to mention that people are loosing decades-old jobs for merely uttering "All lives matter."
What it it with you guys? ;)
-
A lofty proclamation, but I would be rather interested in your "critical thinking and reasoning" behind it.
I rather doubt that you would be interested. People always find a way to prevent their ideological filters from becoming unclogged.
Ideology operates on blind faith. The faith is somewhat less of a problem than the blindness.
-
Stop.
For those not familiar with the H&M marketing campaign in 2018, featuring the "coolest monkey..." (and later apologized, under pressure from the usual snowflakes) here is some background:
https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/mother-of-boy-in-hms-coolest-monkey-ad-says-get-over-it/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/09/hm-apologises-image-black-child-wearing-coolest-monkey-jungle/
Note that his mother, who was apparently present during the shooting, did not see anything wrong with it (and rightly so), and her message after the outrage was "get over it."
I called my daughter of similar age a monkey. Many parents do. A suggestion was made that a white boy wearing that hoodie would be more appropriate, while the black boy should be wearing a hoodie with the "survival expert" on it. I disagree.
Here is my take: if you really want to forget about racism, instead of seeing it everywhere and in everything, then there should be no difference which color the boy wearing it is. This way, with the usual outrage culture, you are just amplifying the stereotype, instead of getting rid of it by letting it worn out by itself and lose its edge.
-
What it it with you guys? ;)
Sorry, typo corrected.
-
I rather doubt that you would be interested. People always find a way to prevent their ideological filters from becoming unclogged.
Ideology operates on blind faith. The faith is somewhat less of a problem than the blindness.
That is pretty condescending.
-
Facebook, Google, Twitter and any other social media platform should be regulated as utilities. Right now, they support posting angry and offensive content as long as it is left leaning or socialist... Yet, they censor our President and conservative political and social groups... It's terrible... It so obvious that they have an agenda and if you are not in agreement with their agenda, you are attacked.
They should be regulated to allow differing view points, even those that are not in alignment with their globalist socialist perspective.
*My addition of bold to original standard face text
[moderator: unexplained and undescribed links removed. I have lost count of the number of times I have set out the rules for use of external links]
-
You seem to be suggesting that people with those beliefs are prevented from posting in those areas. Is this actually true?
If you're claiming discrimination, it needs to be proven.
Exactly. Unvalidated assertions are precisely that. "Unvalid"
Trump does this all the time. For example, his claim that there's rampant voter fraud. He says it all the time, without evidence. It's never been proven or demonstrated.
Hence, as I stated elsewhere, "It's lies and bullshit".
If social media required proof to back up assertions, perhaps it'd be less toxic there.
Note that I don't think this should apply to opinions, provided they're clearly stated as such.
-
That is pretty condescending.
It was not intended to be condescending. I was expressing my doubt, not making a declaration.
The reasons for that doubt were broadly generalized. I restrained my expression of those reasons in order to avoid being more specific and pointed regarding my opinion of the post and your approval of it.
-
... and so on... and so on... and so on...
What are those links supposed to prove ?
-
The left has alway controlled the media...
That's going to come as quite a shock to Rupert Murdoch, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, and a vast array of other conservative media outlets and commentators.
Have you told them who controls them yet?
-
What are those links supposed to prove ?
To you? Nothing whatever.
* Not meant as condescending. I know that you're rather sensitive about that now.
-
Exactly. Unvalidated assertions are precisely that. "Unvalid"
Trump does this all the time. For example, his claim that there's rampant voter fraud. He says it all the time, without evidence. It's never been proven or demonstrated.
Hence, as I stated elsewhere, "It's lies and bullshit".
If social media required proof to back up assertions, perhaps it'd be less toxic there.
Note that I don't think this should apply to opinions, provided they're clearly stated as such.
The Heritage Foundation would beg to differ with you. Never? That sounds like bullshit and lies to me.
[Moderator: link removed. See above]
-
For example, his claim that there's rampant voter fraud. He says it all the time, without evidence. It's never been proven or demonstrated.
The Heritage Foundation would beg to differ with you. Never? That sounds like bullshit and lies to me.
[Moderator: copy of link deleted]
The poster that you are replying to said RAMPANT voter fraud. The Heritage article, that you link to, references in a BOLD TYPE HEADLINE their database of 1,285 voter fraud cases, but conveniently has no link to the database. I found it thru Google easily (despite their globalist socialist agenda that some claim).
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud (https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud)
Just looking at the most populous state of California, They have 42 cases listed from 2001, the earliest case in their California database, until today. They've been working for 4 years gathering data. The 1,285 cases they have in their database start in 1982 and run thru 2020 and covers the entire USA for local, state, and federal elections as well as signature fraud on petions. I wonder how many votes have been cast in the US since 1982 as well as signatures collected for petitions.
They don't mention in their headlines that it isn't just fraudulent vote cases they've collected, but other types of election law violations as well. They conveniently leave out any information regarding the starting dates for their database. You have to search for it. Maybe that's just an oversight on their part. I'm sure they're not trying to mislead anyone with their articles and reports that require you digging into the data for such information.
If that fits your idea of rampant, Good luck selling the idea. Maybe it's just a reading comprehension issue or an oversight on your part. I'm sure you're not trying to mislead anyone.
-
Judging the voter fraud by the number of caught cases is like judging the amount of drugs smuggled into the country by the amount of drugs captured by the DEA.
-
The poster that you are replying to said RAMPANT voter fraud. The Heritage article, that you link to, references in a BOLD TYPE HEADLINE their database of 1,285 voter fraud cases, but conveniently has no link to the database. I found it thru Google easily (despite their globalist socialist agenda that some claim).
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud (https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud)
Just looking at the most populous state of California, They have 42 cases listed from 2001, the earliest case in their California database, until today. They've been working for 4 years gathering data. The 1,285 cases they have in their database start in 1982 and run thru 2020 and covers the entire USA for local, state, and federal elections as well as signature fraud on petions. I wonder how many votes have been cast in the US since 1982 as well as signatures collected for petitions.
They don't mention in their headlines that it isn't just fraudulent vote cases they've collected, but other types of election law violations as well. They conveniently leave out any information regarding the starting dates for their database. You have to search for it. Maybe that's just an oversight on their part. I'm sure they're not trying to mislead anyone with their articles and reports that require you digging into the data for such information.
If that fits your idea of rampant, Good luck selling the idea. Maybe it's just a reading comprehension issue or an oversight on your part. I'm sure you're not trying to mislead anyone.
Nice try but an utter failure. He went right past Rampant, when he went to it has never been proven or demonstrated.
BTW, this is what Heritage has to say about their database at the open of the article. From your supplied link.
The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted. It is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.
Voter fraud clearly has been proven and demonstrated, and that’s only the cases where the preps have actually been caught. I’ll wager voter fraud has been happening since the first vote was cast. But that’s yet another discussion. To think it’s all sweetness and light would be a silly. Your mileage may vary.
I’m so glad you actually went looking at the data. That makes you a standout in this forum.
Once you go to “never” you are just offering up bullshit and lies.
-
Judging the voter fraud by the number of caught cases is like judging the amount of drugs smuggled into the country by the amount of drugs captured by the DEA.
There's the question of risk vs reward. How many people are willing to risk prison time to commit voter fraud compared to whatever reward they seek.
The drug trade, on the other hand, can be very lucrative for some. Comparing the two seems a bit of a reach.
-
There's the question of risk vs reward. How many people are willing to risk prison time to commit voter fraud compared to whatever reward they seek.
The drug trade, on the other hand, can be very lucrative for some. Comparing the two seems a bit of a reach.
There not much risk if no one is really looking or you control the system.
Politics can be very lucrative as well.
-
Judging the voter fraud by the number of caught cases is like judging the amount of drugs smuggled into the country by the amount of drugs captured by the DEA.
Precisely the type of ad hominem attack referenced in another thread as being against the rules of engagement. Perhaps those rules apply only to that thread...
Comparing drug smuggling data with voter suppression data is irrelevant.
-
Precisely the type of ad hominem attack referenced in another thread as being against the rules of engagement. Perhaps those rules apply only to that thread...
Comparing drug smuggling data with voter suppression data is irrelevant.
Voter Suppression Data? Your statement is irrelevant.
-
Voter Suppression Data? Your statement is irrelevant.
Sort of, but also not..
First, there's absolutely no reason to assume that Democratic voter fraud is any more prevalent that Republican voter fraud. One could assume that in aggregate, they cancel out.
Second, we should be able to agree that, along with freedom of expression, the right to have your vote counted (and correspondingly, the right to vote at all) is among the most important rights we have as a free and self-determinate people. To that end, it's entirely relevant when actions taken to "prevent voter fraud" have the effect of (intentionally or otherwise) subverting the right of another to have his or her vote registered.
-
Unvalidated assertions are precisely that. "Unvalid"
For example, his claim that there's rampant voter fraud. He says it all the time, without evidence. It's never been proven or demonstrated.
Nice try but an utter failure. He went right past Rampant, when he went to it has never been proven or demonstrated.
Voter fraud clearly has been proven and demonstrated, and that’s only the cases where the preps have actually been caught. I’ll wager voter fraud has been happening since the first vote was cast. But that’s yet another discussion. To think it’s all sweetness and light would be a silly. Your mileage may vary.
I’m so glad you actually went looking at the data. That makes you a standout in this forum.
Once you go to “never” you are just offering up bullshit and lies.
So the problem was with your reading comprehension then. Thanks for clarifying.
It would be evident to anyone with base-level reading comprehension skills that the reference to "never proven or demonstrated" referes to the subject of the preceding sentences which was "rampant voter fraud" as there was never any other subject to which he referred. I've underlined the whole set of sentences, if that helps you.
The writer that you replied to didn't go right past "rampant"; YOU did. He did not reference anything except "rampant voter fraud". Please try reading it again. Using the word "never" does not change the subject about which he is referring. Getting it yet?
For instance, if I say... Italy looks like a nice place to visit. I've never been there. It does not mean that I've never been anywhere. Each of the three words "never been there" specifically refers to Italy, the subject of the preceding sentence to which I am referring.
When the writer says "it has never been proven". You have to understand what "it" means by looking to the subject of the preceding sentence or sentences. In this case, when the writer says "rampant voter fraud. He says it all the time, without evidence. It's never been proven. What is the "it" being referred to as a subject? I bet you've got "it" by now. (I never thought that I'd be teaching remedial reading!)
The writer did not say there has never been any case of voter fraud in the country and I haven't either. He only referred to statements that it was rampant (profusely widespread by definition).
My friendly advice is... drop the shovel.
-
So the problem was with your reading comprehension then. Thanks for clarifying.
It would be evident to anyone with base-level reading comprehension skills that the reference to "never proven or demonstrated" referes to the subject of the preceding sentences which was "rampant voter fraud" as there was never any other subject to which he referred. I've underlined the whole set of sentences, if that helps you.
The writer that you replied to didn't go right past "rampant"; YOU did. He did not reference anything except "rampant voter fraud". Please try reading it again. Using the word "never" does not change the subject about which he is referring. Getting it yet?
For instance, if I say... Italy looks like a nice place to visit. I've never been there. It does not mean that I've never been anywhere. Each of the three words "never been there" specifically refers to Italy, the subject of the preceding sentence to which I am referring.
When the writer says "it has never been proven". You have to understand what "it" means by looking to the subject of the preceding sentence or sentences. In this case, when the writer says "He says it all the time, without evidence. It's never been proven. What is the "it" being referred to as a subject? I bet you've got "it" by now. (I never thought that I'd be teaching remedial reading!)
My friendly advice is... drop the shovel.
Oh yea, I got “it”. It is voter fraud. Wanna try again.
-
Oh yea, I got “it”. It is voter fraud. Wanna try again.
Nope. Just keep on digging.
-
Sort of, but also not..
First, there's absolutely no reason to assume that Democratic voter fraud is any more prevalent that Republican voter fraud. One could assume that in aggregate, they cancel out.
Second, we should be able to agree that, along with freedom of expression, the right to have your vote counted (and correspondingly, the right to vote at all) is among the most important rights we have as a free and self-determinate people. To that end, it's entirely relevant when actions taken to "prevent voter fraud" have the effect of (intentionally or otherwise) subverting the right of another to have his or her vote registered.
I have no doubt all parties engage in the practice of voter fraud.
As for the rest, if you don’t have rules to prevent voter fraud you subvert the votes of everyone. Fake votes destroy legal ones. Why would a society not want to assure everyone who casts a vote is really who they claim to be.
-
Nope. Just keep on digging.
Yep, Rampant is just an indication of degree. You need a backhoe.
-
Yep, Rampant is just an indication of degree. You need a backhoe.
Rampant is an adjective which serves as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else.
Rampant: 1) profusely widespread 2) flourishing or spreading unchecked
or
3) marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or absence of restraint... Like your digging
I'm done with remedial reading comprehension lessons. I don't need a backhoe. I need a back massage.
-
I have no doubt all parties engage in the practice of voter fraud.
As for the rest, if you don’t have rules to prevent voter fraud you subvert the votes of everyone. Fake votes destroy legal ones.
Not when they offset, or are statistically insignificant.
Why would a society not want to assure everyone who casts a vote is really who they claim to be.
Because it doesn't make sense to eliminate 1 fake vote if the cure disenfranchises 10 legitimate ones.
-
Not when they offset, or are statistically insignificant.
Because it doesn't make sense to eliminate 1 fake vote if the cure disenfranchises 10 legitimate ones.
You have no idea of the volume or if they offset, that’s noting more than a generalized assumption.
Again a baseless assumption that one face vote might disenfranchise 10 others. I live in state that requires proof of who you are to vote, There is no reason anyone should be disenfranchised. Voters are offered a number of ways to provide ID and if they don’t have one they can still cast a provisional vote and have even more time to obtain an valid ID.
Voter ID causes Voter suppression claims are just an invitation to fraud.
-
You have no idea of the volume or if they offset, that’s noting more than a generalized assumption.
That's true, but there's absolutely no reason to assume anything other than the idea that they offset. Multiple examinations have been done, (including the most recent by Trump's guy, Kris Kobach, who I think we can safely assume would have announced very loudly any evidence to the contrary) and they show, over and over, that voter fraud just isn't a statistically significant issue, and they certainly don't show that it favors one party over another.
Again a baseless assumption that one face vote might disenfranchise 10 others. I live in state that requires proof of who you are to vote, There is no reason anyone should be disenfranchised. Voters are offered a number of ways to provide ID and if they don’t have one they can still cast a provisional vote and have even more time to obtain an valid ID.
Yes, I was just using that ratio as an example. And I'm not necessarily talking about Voter ID. I'm simply talking about the general proposition that when you create more restrictions, you make it harder to vote, and that shouldn't really be the goal, especially when we know that, again, as has been repeatedly concluded, voter fraud just isn't a problematic issue.
-
Rampant is an adjective which serves as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else.
Rampant: 1) profusely widespread 2) flourishing or spreading unchecked
or
3) marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or absence of restraint... Like your digging
I'm done with remedial reading comprehension lessons. I don't need a backhoe. I need a back massage.
Quite right, I’m well aware of the definition of Rampant, and exactly why it’s useless in the discussion of voter fraud simply because it’s diffuse and ill defined. Is rampant 10 cases in one election or 100 case in 2 elections.? If fraud is happening and not investigated is it rampant? Is it spreading unchecked? A meaningless descriptor in this instance. The Op claimed a “undetermined” quantity of voter fraud had NEVER been proven or demonstrated. We now know that is false.
I was wrong, a backhoe will simple not suffice for the mine you are digging. Perhaps Big Brutus would be more suitable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brutus
-
That's true, but there's absolutely no reason to assume anything other than the idea that they offset. Multiple examinations have been done, (including the most recent by Trump's guy, Kris Kobach, who I think we can safely assume would have announced very loudly any evidence to the contrary) and they show, over and over, that voter fraud just isn't a statistically significant issue, and they certainly don't show that it favors one party over another.
Yes, I was just using that ratio as an example. And I'm not necessarily talking about Voter ID. I'm simply talking about the general proposition that when you create more restrictions, you make it harder to vote, and that shouldn't really be the goal, especially when we know that, again, as has been repeatedly concluded, voter fraud just isn't a problematic issue.
The attempt to try and ascertain the extent of voter fraud by Kobach was derailed by many States refusing to provide information. It was a wasted effort. I don’t think there will ever be a substantial investigation because no one really wants the answers. Why kill the system? I’m not convinced will ever know just how limited or widespread it really is. Elections in this country are really just a massive set of tiny election run by entrenched political operatives. Given the makeup of our Presidential election system it only takes a small number of votes in key places to change a national outcome. Many times I’ve sat amazed on election night while some crucial precinct finds a box of ballots at the last minute that changes the outcome. Is it fraud? Don’t know but it stinks.
Again we really don’t know if fraud is a significant problem or not. We know it exists and if it does can we assume it’s being used to change results? Why do it if there is no benefit?
We as a country behind over backwards to make it easy to vote. Early voting for weeks in many places, absentee and provisional votes amount other things. Trying to make sure the voter is really qualified to vote is simply not too much to ask from a voter.
-
The way you guys describe things, maybe the UN should be looking at sending in observers to this fall's election. ;)
-
Precisely the type of ad hominem attack referenced in another thread as being against the rules of engagement. Perhaps those rules apply only to that thread...
Comparing drug smuggling data with voter suppression data is irrelevant.
It may be irrelevant, but it certainly isn't argumentum ad hominem.
Jeremy
-
Precisely the type of ad hominem attack...
;D ;D ;D
This is what happens when you let leftists redefine the ad hominem logical fallacy as being about feelings and emotions.
-
..., voter fraud just isn't a problematic issue.
If you are dead, it indeed isn’t.
If you are dead, and someone voted 11 times on your behalf, as in Chicago, it indeed isn’t problematic for you... you are dead.
-
The way you guys describe things, maybe the UN should be looking at sending in observers to this fall's election. ;)
Some have suggested just that.
-
If you are dead, it indeed isn’t.
If you are dead, and someone voted 11 times on your behalf, as in Chicago, it indeed isn’t problematic for you... you are dead.
Sometimes it takes just a very few votes to potentially change the course of the country. Perhaps just a few hundred votes elects a Senator or Representitive that changes the balance of power. It does not need to be massive numbers of votes. Even national elections for President can turn on something as small as 537 votes. James says vote fraud is statistically insignificant. In that case the difference between candidates was 0.009%. Was fraud involved? That depends on who you ask. :)
-
NBC reported that Google confirmed it financially blacklisted two sites known for criticism of the left: conservative commentary site the Federalist and alternative news site ZeroHedge. Following its publication, NBC amended its article to state that the Federalist has been “warned” by Google of imminent blacklisting from its Google Ads service due to “policy violations” in its comments section. ZeroHedge is also working with Google to resolve its blacklisting, which is also based on its comments section.
If the Federalist fails to remedy what Google considers to be violations in its comments section, both websites will now be unable to generate advertising revenue using Google Ads, by far the most important service for any website trying to generate digital advertising revenue. In a comment to Breitbart News, the Federalist confirmed it has not been blacklisted and is working with Google to resolve any issues. In a seperate comment, ZeroHedge also stated it is working with the tech giant.
Google took action after it was contacted by agenda-driven journalists at NBC, who presented the company with research from a leftist nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, that smears a number of conservative websites including Breitbart News, and calls on digital advertisers to financially blacklist them.
The nonprofit falsely claims that Breitbart News promoted the Obama “birther” theory, citing as “evidence” a Breitbart story that explicitly rejects the theory. As purported evidence of Breitbart’s “hate,” the nonprofit also links to a recent piece recommending Americans buy guns and ammunition to protect themselves amid violent riots.
NBC claimed the tech giant said it had demonetized The Federalist and ZeroHedge because of “hatred.” According to a Google spokesperson, “To be clear, The Federalist is not currently demonetized. We do have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on, which includes comments on the site. This is a longstanding policy.” “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”
From Breitbart Instagram account.
-
With just 132 days until the Election, far-Left Twitter has censored President Donald Trump again, hiding a tweet warning that lawless protesters will be "met with serious force." President Trump’s full tweet says: “There will never be an “Autonomous Zone” in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!” Anyone who attempts to view the tweet through Twitter will see it hidden behind a notice from the far-left Silicon Valley company, informing them that the tweet has somehow violated the platform’s rules.
The notice says: “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about abusive behavior. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.” This is the second time in the space of a month that Twitter has censored the President over tweets related to the violence and lawlessness sweeping America’s cities. Just over three weeks ago, the platform hid a tweet from the President warning rioters that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Twitter said the post “glorified violence.” This time, Twitter says the President violated the platform’s rules on “abusive behavior.” “We’ve placed a public interest notice on this Tweet for violating our policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm against an identifiable group,” said an official Twitter account.
As Breitbart News has previously reported, Twitter allowed looters to coordinate criminal behavior during the riots, leaving up tweets from accounts that were identifying shopping districts for looting, even after the tweets were brought to the platform’s attention.
From Breitbart Instagram account.
-
From Breitbart Instagram account.
If true as stated those would seem to be outrageous behaviours in a public news source. But if they are simply utilities, e.g., data carriers, then not so much.
And their actions were exposed, so people are free to make their own judgements.
So, do we need new regulation in this novel domain or not? That's what the thread is about.
-
Was fraud involved? That depends on who you ask. :)
No, it depends on what actually happened.
-
No, it depends on what actually happened.
And we can know that how? This is the problem. I'm convinced neither side really wants to look into the problem, because they both have a vested interest in seeing it cotinue. Of course thats just my opinion.
-
And we can know that how? This is the problem. I'm convinced neither side really wants to look into the problem, because they both have a vested interest in seeing it cotinue. Of course thats just my opinion.
Then we say we don't know if there is fraud or not. My own sense is that there probably is some minor fraud around the edges, particularly in small town municipal elections, but none of the massive fraud alleged by Trump and the Republicans in national elections, like busloads of voters crossing over from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to vote for Hillary a second time.
-
Then we say we don't know if there is fraud or not.
Again, it depends on who you ask. I'm confident that there are set of folks convinced they know what fraud, if any happened and they thinnk they can prove it. The election in question Bush V Gore in 2000 created a lot of claims and supposed proof of fraud. It just depends on who you ask. History and this question are not cut and dried.
In an interesting side note, it took 5 weeks to sort out the Florida mess. Given the push for mail in voting in November, one has to wonder what election "night" will look like. I think we are headed for days even weeks of waithtime to see who actually wins. It should be very interesting.
-
If true as stated those would seem to be outrageous behaviours in a public news source. But if they are simply utilities, e.g., data carriers, then not so much.
And their actions were exposed, so people are free to make their own judgements.
So, do we need new regulation in this novel domain or not? That's what the thread is about.
They have to be very careful. If they continue to take sides politically, they could be declared a monopoly and be broken up like AT&T was in the phone business. Remember, Democrat Hillary Clinton complained about things like this as well. If they piss off the wrong group at the wrong time, both Democrats and Republicans may join together and decide they have had enough.
Even if Congress doesn't go that far, they could regulate them under their constitutional duty of regulating interstate commerce. Free speech goes both ways. While private ownership of Google gives them the right of free speech just as the owner of this site can moderate us, Google being such a pervasive company could be declared violating the free speech of advertisers by blocking them.
There's no way to determine how the Supreme Court would rule on something like this. However, I think they would rule in allowing the advertisers and users of Google, Twitter, and other carriers the right to say what they want politically. Who wants to live in a country where Google or Twitter can suppress political thought they disagree with?
-
It seems to me that there is enough crazy right wing stuff and crazy left wing stuff on Twitter and Facebook that everybody should be happy.
-
It seems to me that there is enough crazy right wing stuff and crazy left wing stuff on Twitter and Facebook that everybody should be happy.
Twitter shouldn't be blocking tweets of the President of the US.
-
Twitter shouldn't be blocking tweets of the President of the US.
Why not?
-
Why not?
See my reply #87.
-
Twitter shouldn't be blocking tweets of the President of the US.
It seems to me that if Trump wants to use Twitter he should follow the same rules as everyone else. I also think if he wants to go to New Jersey to play golf, he should follow the same quarantine rules as everyone else.
-
It seems to me that if Trump wants to use Twitter he should follow the same rules as everyone else. I also think if he wants to go to New Jersey to play golf, he should follow the same quarantine rules as everyone else.
Twitter shouldn't be censoring speech of anyone including the President anymore than my ISP Comcast should be censoring my emails or my cellular company Verizon should censor my messages. It's none of their business. They're interfering with freedom of speech.
-
Twitter shouldn't be censoring speech of anyone including the President anymore than my ISP Comcast should be censoring my emails or my cellular company Verizon should censor my messages. It's none of their business. They're interfering with freedom of speech.
It seems to me it is their business. If you don't like it use another service.
-
And we can know that how? This is the problem. I'm convinced neither side really wants to look into the problem, because they both have a vested interest in seeing it cotinue. Of course thats just my opinion.
Then we say we don't know if there is fraud or not. My own sense is that there probably is some minor fraud around the edges, particularly in small town municipal elections, but none of the massive fraud alleged by Trump and the Republicans in national elections, like busloads of voters crossing over from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to vote for Hillary a second time.
Just thought that I would let you know that using an adjective like "massive" in conjunction with the noun "fraud" will confuse the person to whom your replying. He's rendered himself immune to understanding that using an adjective to modify a noun gives it a specific meaning. When you write "none of the massive fraud alleged", he is likely to ignore your use of massive in the sentence and assert that you mean "none of the massive fraud alleged".
When another poster in this thread stated that "rampant" voter fraud had never been proven, he spun himself in circles insisting that the poster meant that no voter fraud had ever been proven. After first trying to ignore the word, then diminish its meaning, he finally ended by redefining rampant to mean an "undetermined quantity". He went so far as to reword the posters claim with his own newly invented definition and then declared self validation of his nonsensical claim of what the poster meant!
Oh yea, I got “it”. It is voter fraud. Wanna try again.
I’m well aware of the definition of Rampant, and exactly why it’s useless in the discussion of voter fraud simply because it’s diffuse and ill defined... A meaningless descriptor in this instance. The Op claimed a “undetermined” quantity of voter fraud had NEVER been proven or demonstrated. We now know that is false.
I tried to help him understand how an adjective gave a specific meaning thus creating a modified noun. I'll try one last time and even provide a couple of hints to get him started (the "hard toy" is the xylophone and the "soft toy" is the stuffed animal). https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Modified-Nouns-Expressive-and-Receptive-Language-4935756 (https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Modified-Nouns-Expressive-and-Receptive-Language-4935756)
* One note: President Trump has referred to voter fraud as being massive, rampant, and widespread; all words that indicate a large scale (without reference to a specific size or ratio). This was another concept he was unable to grasp; using the lack of specifics as justification for his weird definition of rampant as "undetermined quantity" and declaring such a term meaningless.
-
It seems to me it is their business. If you don't like it use another service.
In general, I agree with you. Of course there really isn't another similar service. Also, Congress has given them protection from lawsuits with the intent that they keep the service open unimpeded. If they are going to censor tweets, then Congress should take away their protection. Additionally, they may be violating monopoly laws. Twitter isn't LuLa.
-
Congress has given them protection from lawsuits
You should let the Federal Courts know that as they are apparently unaware. The courts granted standing in 2018 to Laura Loomer and Freedom Watch to proceed with a lawsuit against Twitter, Google, and Facebook for censorship. They just didn't win their suit in court.
They appealed to a Federal District Appeals Court and lost the appeal last month. You can sue, it doesn't mean that you will win.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/conservative-activists-lose-lawsuit-that-accused-twitter-google-and-facebook-of-censorship/ (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/conservative-activists-lose-lawsuit-that-accused-twitter-google-and-facebook-of-censorship/)
-
The attempt to try and ascertain the extent of voter fraud by Kobach was derailed by many States refusing to provide information. It was a wasted effort.
States provided information to Kobach. It was specific types of requested information they withheld. Kobach himself pushed back on news reports of states withholding information from his commision.
USA Today: "Kris Kobach took umbrage with news accounts of states rejecting the request."
“While there are news reports that 44 states have 'refused' to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more 'fake news,'" said Kobach, Kansas' secretary of state, in a statement. "At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission's request for publicly available voter information." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/07/05/kris-kobach-said-states-abiding-voter-fraud-request-where-states-stand/451763001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/07/05/kris-kobach-said-states-abiding-voter-fraud-request-where-states-stand/451763001/)
You have to give the guy credit for his decade of determination though. He built his 2010 campaign for Kansas Secretary of State around the charge that voter fraud was happening at an alarming rate all over Kansas. He even held an embarrassing news conference where he named an example of dead people voting.
From The Wichita Eagle October 29, 2010: He gave an example of one person — Alfred K. Brewer, a Republican, registered in Sedgwick County with a birth date listed of Jan. 1, 1900. Brewer, according to the comparison of Social Security records and Kansas voter rolls, had died in 1996 yet had voted in the August primary, Kobach said.
Reached Thursday at his home where he was raking leaves, Brewer, 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead. "I don't think this is heaven, not when I'm raking leaves," he said.
Brewer, who lives in Wichita, said he has been an active voter since he could vote. He first registered to vote in Kansas in 1964. He said he plans to cast a ballot Tuesday.
Brewer said his father, who had the same name and, according to Social Security records, was born in 1904, died in 1996.
"I'm just as surprised as you are," he said of the mix-up. https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article1046914.html (https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article1046914.html)
Undeterred by his failures, he kept pushing on in Federal Court from 2016 to 2018. It did not go well for him. https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial (https://www.propublica.org/article/kris-kobach-voter-fraud-kansas-trial)
During the course of the federal injunction, trial, and appeal he didn't impress the judges. In June 2017, a federal magistrate judge, James O'Hara, found that Kobach had made "patently misleading representations" and was fined for "deceptive conduct and lack of candor". On April 18, 2018, Federal Chief District Judge Julie Robinson ruled Kobach in contempt for failure to comply with court orders.
Then in 2018 he lost the Kansas governor election. Now he's running in the 2020 Kansas Republican primary for US Senate. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has opposed his candidacy from the outset.
The poor guy hasn't been able to catch a break the last few years!
-
More proof that Trump surrounds himself with only the best people.
-
More proof that Trump surrounds himself with only the best people.
Maybe we should hire Joe Biden. He thinks 120 million Americans have died from Covid.
-
Just thought that I would let you know that using an adjective like "massive" in conjunction with the noun "fraud" will confuse the person to whom your replying. He's rendered himself immune to understanding that using an adjective to modify a noun gives it a specific meaning. When you write "none of the massive fraud alleged", he is likely to ignore your use of massive in the sentence and assert that you mean "none of the massive fraud alleged".
When another poster in this thread stated that "rampant" voter fraud had never been proven, he spun himself in circles insisting that the poster meant that no voter fraud had ever been proven. After first trying to ignore the word, then diminish its meaning, he finally ended by redefining rampant to mean an "undetermined quantity". He went so far as to reword the posters claim with his own newly invented definition and then declared self validation of his nonsensical claim of what the poster meant!
I tried to help him understand how an adjective gave a specific meaning thus creating a modified noun. I'll try one last time and even provide a couple of hints to get him started (the "hard toy" is the xylophone and the "soft toy" is the stuffed animal). https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Modified-Nouns-Expressive-and-Receptive-Language-4935756 (https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Modified-Nouns-Expressive-and-Receptive-Language-4935756)
* One note: President Trump has referred to voter fraud as being massive, rampant, and widespread; all words that indicate a large scale (without reference to a specific size or ratio). This was another concept he was unable to grasp; using the lack of specifics as justification for his weird definition of rampant as "undetermined quantity" and declaring such a term meaningless.
I’ll gladly stand by my posts, but thanks anyways.
-
Maybe we should hire Joe Biden. He thinks 120 million Americans have dried from Covid.
Dried from Covid? Maybe they just need more moisturizer.
-
Dried from Covid? Maybe they just need more moisturizer.
Gotta love auto correct.
-
Gotta love auto correct.
I have to click on each word to correct spelling. Is there a way to have that done automatically? Which program do you use for this?
-
I have to click on each word to correct spelling. Is there a way to have that done automatically? Which program do you use for this?
I’m using IPad OS right now. It seems to have a mind of its own sometimes.
-
You should let the Federal Courts know that as they are apparently unaware. The courts granted standing in 2018 to Laura Loomer and Freedom Watch to proceed with a lawsuit against Twitter, Google, and Facebook for censorship. They just didn't win their suit in court.
They appealed to a Federal District Appeals Court and lost the appeal last month. You can sue, it doesn't mean that you will win.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/conservative-activists-lose-lawsuit-that-accused-twitter-google-and-facebook-of-censorship/ (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/conservative-activists-lose-lawsuit-that-accused-twitter-google-and-facebook-of-censorship/)
Straw man.
-
Straw man.
Precedent ;)
-
Straw man.
Yes. The Straw Man, Tin Man, Lion, and Dorothy (Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple) were all attacked in Federal Court by the Wicked Witch and her Flying Monkeys (Laura Loomer and Judicial Watch) where the Judges threw a bucket of cold water on their ideologically induced paranoia and victimhood causing them to melt away.
The End.
-
... the Judges threw a bucket of cold water on their ideologically induced paranoia...
Actually, no.
The judges said their case does have the ideological standing. They rejected the case on completely different grounds: that social media are not state/government linked.
The court does, however, allow the plaintiffs to assert standing.
“The general allegation that the Platforms conspired to suppress Freedom Watch’s audience and revenue, combined with Freedom Watch’s representations that its audience and revenue declined, suffices to establish standing,” the decision notes.
But I am sure you knew all that. You just like to pretend you are successfully debunking something, for the gullible.
-
Gotta love auto correct.
Gotta love the “preview” function.
-
Actually, no.
The judges said their case does have the ideological standing.
Actually, no.
They were given standing on the grounds of financial harm which they claimed was a result of conduct by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple. That alleged conduct being an unlawful conspiracy to reduce their audience, which the courts rejected.
The first threshold necessary for standing, requires you to show some particular and personal harm being done by the conduct of the party that you are suing. The conduct alone is insufficient grounds for standing. It is harm or injury from some action or conduct of another that begins to establish standing in a court.
If you should ever find any case where standing was granted on "ideological" grounds, please point me to it. Good luck hunting for it.
Standing in the appeals court was automatic as there was already a judgment from a lower court. The grant of standing in the lower court was based on financial harm alleged.
From the lower court ruling: "In other words, the Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible harm—a decrease in revenues—that is fairly traceable to the alleged conspiracy by the Platforms."
-
Gotta love the “preview” function.
Too much work when your low battery light is flashing 2 percent. Besides it’s just a forum...
-
Too much work when your low battery light is flashing 2 percent.
It's time to replace it then. Your posts have a long history of misspellings and typos and that battery is doing your reputation no good.
In my opinion, of course.
Besides it’s just a forum...
Absolutely. Nobody's reading this anyway.
-
It's time to replace it then. Your posts have a long history of misspellings and typos and that battery is doing your reputation no good.
In my opinion, of course.
Absolutely. Nobody's reading this anyway.
I’ve been posting word salad for years. My “reputation”? It’s who I am and at this stage of my life I really don’t care what people think.
Just my opinion, mind you.
-
You just like to pretend you are successfully debunking something, for the gullible.
Pretending to debunk something? Mr Klein posted that, in regards to Twitter, "Congress has given them protection from lawsuits". I wrote a post that showed they had recently been sued in federal court. It seems obvious, to me at least, that if they have recently been sued then they don't have protection from lawsuits.
Whether a debunking is successful always lies in the eye of the beholder. Success would generally require the beholder to posses an ability to accept that which they would prefer not to believe.
As for the gullible, well, let me just suggest that if someone reads some superficial satire, they would be advised not to give it deeper meaning or intent. In other words, I would never advise that someone make a serious legal argument in opposition to a Wizard of Oz satirical allegory, as the two don't fit well in the same box.
-
I’ve been posting word salad for years. My “reputation”? It’s who I am and at this stage of my life I really don’t care what people think.
Just my opinion, mind you.
I thought, you were posting your thoughts for others to read. If they are just for you, no point publishing them.
-
Pretending to debunk something? Mr Klein posted that, in regards to Twitter, "Congress has given them protection from lawsuits". I wrote a post that showed they had recently been sued in federal court. It seems obvious, to me at least, that if they have recently been sued then they don't have protection from lawsuits.
Whether a debunking is successful always lies in the eye of the beholder. Success would generally require the beholder to posses an ability to accept that which they would prefer not to believe.
As for the gullible, well, let me just suggest that if someone reads some superficial satire, they would be advised not to give it deeper meaning or intent. In other words, I would never advise that someone make a serious legal argument in opposition to a Wizard of Oz satirical allegory, as the two don't fit well in the same box.
I was referring to the following. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
"Section 230 makes internet service providers, like Google and Facebook, immune from lawsuits based on claims related to content published by third-parties using their service. For example, if someone posts a fake Google Review about your business that is defamatory, you generally cannot sue Google for defamation. This is because they are immune under Section 230 of the CDA."
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/
-
I thought, you were posting your thoughts for others to read. If they are just for you, no point publishing them.
Read to your hearts content or not, it not a problem for me either way. I am who I am.
-
Read to your hearts content or not, it not a problem for me either way. I am who I am.
That could be part of the problem. ;)
-
That could be part of the problem. ;)
No problem. At least for me, and that’s what matters.
-
I was referring to the following. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
"Section 230 makes internet service providers, like Google and Facebook, immune from lawsuits based on claims related to content published by third-parties using their service. For example, if someone posts a fake Google Review about your business that is defamatory, you generally cannot sue Google for defamation. This is because they are immune under Section 230 of the CDA."
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/
Thanks. It certainly adds some clarity to your thought.
Section 230, however, doesn't prevent a lawsuit. What it does do, is provide a convenient singular defense claim of immunity when an ISP is defending a lawsuit, even if there are multiple complaints being filed in the suit. It may prevent a suit from getting past the initial hearing... or it may not. The suit brought by Loomer and Judicial Watch, for instance, made it thru two levels of federal court proceedings, although they lost in the end.
Another lawsuit that made it's way into court and was successfully defended by Section 230 is "Charles C. Johnson V. Twitter". Story linked here... https://thehill.com/policy/technology/court-strikes-down-far-right-activists-lawsuit-over-twitter-ban (https://thehill.com/policy/technology/technology/391096-court-strikes-down-far-right-activists-lawsuit-over-twitter-ban) Also, "Jared Taylor V. Twitter" made it's way thru court and again Section 230 was applied as a successful defense. It just didn't prevent the lawsuit from being heard. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2910 (https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2910&context=historical)
A variety of lawsuits have been taken to trial where Section 230 immunity was successfully used by the defense and it is a broad and powerful defense. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are quite limited and primarily involve some type of criminal conduct being involved.
Now... since May 28, 2020, when President Trump signed "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship" (EO 13925), directing regulatory action at Section 230; the water is muddier as the Executive Order itself is currently the subject of a lawsuit seeking preliminary and permanent injunction from the Executive Order from being enforced.
-
I have not been paying that much attention and was intrigued to hear that a corporate ad boycott was happening at Facebook, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/advertisers-struggle-for-power-over-facebook-as-boycotts-surge-341943 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/advertisers-struggle-for-power-over-facebook-as-boycotts-surge-341943). From reading that article it sounds like some companies were frustrated with their ads appearing in places they didn't approve of.
-
I have not been paying that much attention and was intrigued to hear that a corporate ad boycott was happening at Facebook, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/advertisers-struggle-for-power-over-facebook-as-boycotts-surge-341943 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/26/advertisers-struggle-for-power-over-facebook-as-boycotts-surge-341943). From reading that article it sounds like some companies were frustrated with their ads appearing in places they didn't approve of.
Verizon just bailed, which could be a big hit, especially in today's political climate. Nothing like being on the same page as a neo-Nazi group. Facebook lives on these ads -- it's actually an advertising company, just like newspapers used to be -- and if the advertisers bail, Facebook will go away.
-
Verizon just bailed...
So did Unilever and Coke. Are Facebook ads really critical to an advertising strategy?
-
So did Unilever and Coke. Are Facebook ads really critical to an advertising strategy?
It might be. Here's my personal and trivial example. I shoot a lot of pics of local grassroots bicycle racing. I sell a few jpgs and even fewer prints every year off my Zenfolio site. These races get no coverage otherwise and I have built up quite a good archive of the local racing scene over the last dozen years. I make enough money to cover my gasoline and cappuccino expenses, so we're talking trivial amounts of money here. Btw, I also go to regional status races and make almost no sales from those, less than 5 in total. But I just like bicycle racing.
When I started, several clubs had web sites with bulletin boards that many members read, so I would post to those when I released a new gallery. Over time all of those disappeared as everyone migrated to Facebook, so I had to as well. There is no other way for me to let racers know that I have posted a gallery. Some of them may choose to check my web site independently, but I'm sure that number rounds to zero. My FB postings have the beauty that they are pushed onto interested parties.
This is good and bad. It's good because I only have to go to one place. It's bad because there is only one place.
-
Facebook and Twitter have competition.
Trump fans are flocking to the social media app Parler — its CEO is begging liberals to join them
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html
-
So did Unilever and Coke. Are Facebook ads really critical to an advertising strategy?
Yes, especially for companies that are looking to reach an older demographic. I'd posit that *maybe* for huge corps it's not as critical because they have the money to reach people through other channels, but for a small-to-medium company that wants to target and reach certain groups of people efficiently, it's absolutely a premiere platform.
-
Yes, especially for companies that are looking to reach an older demographic. I'd posit that *maybe* for huge corps it's not as critical because they have the money to reach people through other channels, but for a small-to-medium company that wants to target and reach certain groups of people efficiently, it's absolutely a premiere platform.
I'm surprised that older demographics are on Facebook. I mean, I'm old and not on it. I thought mostly younger people used Twitter, Facebook and other social media. I guess I'll have to get with it. :)
-
I'm surprised that older demographics are on Facebook. I mean, I'm old and not on it.
Gotta love that logic.
-
Gotta love that logic.
Looked it up.
62% of online Seniors aged 65+ are on Facebook and 72% are between age 50-64.
88% of online users of age 18-29 are on Facebook, 84% of those 30-49.
I tried Facebook once. My teenage daughter convinced me to join. Then within a week I was getting email and stuff from her girlfriends and decided it wasn't for me. :)